References

Academic, normative, and practical sources that inform the design of lucid-lint.

This page lists the references that shaped lucid-lint’s rules, profiles, and design decisions. Each entry states where the reference matters in the project. The French mirror lives at fr/references.md.

External links open in a new tab; we mark them rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" so the new-tab is safe and the docs site does not vouch for outside content.

Legend

Cognitive Load Theory — the backbone

The theoretical core of lucid-lint: prose imposes a mental cost on the reader, and this cost can be measured and reduced.

✅ Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. ↗

Foundational paper. Distinguishes intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Justifies the core premise that poor prose imposes extraneous load that can be reduced through better structure.

→ Relevant to: most rules, especially structure.*, rhythm.*, syntax.nested-negation, syntax.conditional-stacking.

📖 Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer. ↗

Modern synthesis of 30 years of research.

Text cohesion and discourse processing

✅ Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. ↗

The reference paper for automated cohesion analysis. Over 200 linguistic indices measuring local and global cohesion. Our rules are simplified, deterministic versions of several Coh-Metrix metrics.

→ Relevant to: rhythm.repetitive-connectors, syntax.unclear-antecedent, lexicon.low-lexical-diversity.

📖 McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press. ↗

Syntactic complexity

✅ Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76. ↗

Foundational paper on Dependency Locality Theory. Formalizes the cost of holding distant grammatical referents in working memory.

→ Relevant to: structure.deep-subordination, syntax.unclear-antecedent, syntax.conditional-stacking.

Discourse connectors

✅ Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60. ↗

Central reference on how logical connectors guide or confuse readers.

→ Relevant to: rhythm.repetitive-connectors.

Readability formulas

✅ Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. ↗

Original paper for the Flesch Reading Ease formula.

✅ Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel. Technical Report, Naval Technical Training Command. ↗

Origin of the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula used in v0.1.

→ Relevant to: readability.score.

📖 McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646. ↗

Alternative readability formula. Candidate for v0.2.

Lexical diversity

📖 Herdan, G. (1960). Type-Token Mathematics: A Textbook of Mathematical Linguistics.

Origin of the Type-Token Ratio used in lexical diversity analysis.

→ Relevant to: lexicon.low-lexical-diversity.

✅ McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. ↗

Negation processing

✅ Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 472–517. ↗

Classic experimental work showing that negative sentences take longer to verify than affirmative ones. Foundational evidence that negation carries a comprehension cost.

→ Relevant to: syntax.nested-negation.

✅ Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review, 82(1), 45–73. ↗

Extends Clark & Chase with a formal model of sentence processing. Stacked negations compound the verification cost.

→ Relevant to: syntax.nested-negation.

🔍 Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1033–1050. ↗

Modern reference on negation processing. Useful if you want to go deeper.

Conditional reasoning

🔍 Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Psychology Press. ↗

Mental models theory of conditional reasoning. Stacked conditionals multiply the number of mental models the reader must maintain.

→ Relevant to: syntax.conditional-stacking.

🔍 Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford University Press. ↗

Comprehensive review of the psychology of conditionals. More accessible than Johnson-Laird for non-specialists.

🔍 Caveat: the link between chained conditionals and reader cognitive load is intuitive and well-supported by the broader reasoning literature, but the specific rule “more than N conditionals per sentence is harmful” is a practitioner heuristic, not a directly tested threshold. Treat the threshold as configurable and empirically calibrated.

Typography and visual processing

🔍 Arditi, A., & Cho, J. (2007). Letter case and text legibility in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 47(19), 2499–2505. ↗

Empirical evidence on the reading-speed cost of all-caps text: readers lose the word-shape cues that mixed-case ascenders and descenders provide.

→ Relevant to: lexicon.all-caps-shouting.

🧪 Nielsen, J. (Nielsen Norman Group). Multiple articles on all-caps readability in user interfaces.

Industry-standard reference on why ALL-CAPS text reduces reading speed.

→ Relevant to: lexicon.all-caps-shouting.

📖 Bringhurst, R. (2013). The Elements of Typographic Style (4th ed.). Hartley & Marks.

Canonical reference on typography. Supports the principle that uniform-height text (all-caps) slows reading compared to mixed-case.

✅ Legge, G. E., & Bigelow, C. A. (2011). Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of Vision, 11(5). ↗

Review of vision-science evidence on reading. Covers line-length effects among other factors.

→ Relevant to: structure.line-length-wide.

Phonological complexity and reading

🔍 Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(3), 383–404. ↗

Classic work showing that unusual letter patterns slow word recognition.

🔍 Treiman, R., Kessler, B., Zevin, J. D., Bick, S., & Davis, M. (2006). Influence of consonantal context on the reading of vowels: Evidence from children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(1), 1–24. ↗

Work showing that consonant clusters and their context affect reading accuracy and speed.

🔍 Caveat: the lexicon.consonant-cluster rule is grounded in the broader literature on word-form complexity, but a specific validated threshold like “4+ consonants in a row is harmful” does not come from a single canonical paper. The rule is a practitioner heuristic informed by the literature, not a direct transposition of a published metric.

Intensifiers and hedges

🔍 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.

Classical grammar reference classifying intensifiers as “amplifiers” whose semantic contribution is often marginal. Justifies flagging them as low-value words.

→ Relevant to: lexicon.redundant-intensifier.

🧪 Zinsser, W. (2006). On Writing Well (30th anniversary ed.). HarperCollins.

Practical guide that famously argues against adverb intensifiers (“very”, “really”, “quite”) as clutter. Not academic, but widely cited in writing pedagogy.

Style guides and plain language

📖🧪 Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1999). The Elements of Style (4th ed.). Longman.

The canonical English writing guide. Codifies active voice, concision, clear pronouns, and warns against qualifiers like weasel words and intensifiers.

→ Relevant to: syntax.passive-voice, lexicon.weasel-words, lexicon.redundant-intensifier, syntax.unclear-antecedent.

🧪 US Plain Language Action and Information Network (2011). Federal Plain Language Guidelines. ↗

Grounds short sentences, active voice, no nominalization, no jargon.

→ Relevant to: structure.sentence-too-long, structure.paragraph-too-long, lexicon.excessive-nominalization, lexicon.jargon-undefined, syntax.passive-voice.

🧪 European Commission (2011). How to write clearly. Publications Office of the European Union. ↗

European plain-language equivalent in all EU languages.

Numeric formatting conventions

🌐 International Organization for Standardization (2022). ISO 80000-1:2022 — Quantities and units — Part 1: General. ↗

International standard on numeric formatting, including digit grouping and decimal separators. Grounds the idea that mixing formats within a single text impairs scanning.

→ Relevant to: structure.mixed-numeric-format.

🧪 The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed., 2017). University of Chicago Press. ↗

Canonical style guide covering when to spell numbers out vs. use digits, and why consistency matters.

→ Relevant to: structure.mixed-numeric-format.

Working memory and attention

⚠️ Martinussen, R., Hayden, J., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(4), 377–384. ↗

⚠️ Caveat: direct research on “text readability for ADHD readers” is dispersed and of variable quality. The cognitive accessibility angle is sound, but treat specific ADHD claims carefully.

📖 Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive Functions: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They Evolved. The Guilford Press. ↗

Dyslexia and visual accessibility

✅ Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). Good fonts for dyslexia. Proceedings of ASSETS ’13. ↗

Empirical research on font choice impact for dyslexic readers.

Concreteness norms

✅ Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. ↗

→ Relevant to: possible future rule “abstractness density” (not in v0.1).

Normative standards

🌐 W3C (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. ↗

Key criteria invoked:

• 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) → structure.heading-jump
• 1.4.8 (Visual Presentation) — line width ≤ 80 characters → structure.line-length-wide
• 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels) → structure.heading-jump
• 3.1.3 (Unusual Words) → lexicon.jargon-undefined
• 3.1.4 (Abbreviations) → lexicon.unexplained-abbreviation
• 3.1.5 (Reading Level) → readability.score

⚠️ Verify exact criterion numbers against the WCAG version you want to cite (2.1 or 2.2).

🌐 Accessibility Standards Canada (2025). CAN-ASC-3.1:2025 — Plain Language (first edition). ↗

First-edition Canadian national standard on plain language, published bilingually by Accessibility Standards Canada under the Accessible Canada Act. Prescriptive (shall / should / may) requirements over five areas: audience identification, evaluation methods, structure, wording, design. Grounds many of our lexicon.*, structure.*, and readability.score defaults independently of the US / EU plain-language canons.

→ Relevant to: lexicon.jargon-undefined, lexicon.unexplained-abbreviation, lexicon.weasel-words, structure.sentence-too-long, structure.paragraph-too-long, syntax.passive-voice, readability.score.

European legal context

🌐 Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 — European Accessibility Act (EAA). ↗

Legal framework extending accessibility requirements to private-sector services from 28 June 2025.

Practical tools that shaped our design

• 🧪 Coh-Metrix (Graesser & McNamara) — ↗
• 🧪 Vale (Chris Ward) — ↗
• 🧪 textlint — ↗
• 🧪 Hemingway Editor — ↗
• 🧪 Proselint — ↗

Rule → reference summary

Lexicon

Readability

Rhythm

Structure

Syntax

On scholarly honesty

lucid-lint is an engineering project informed by research, not a research project itself. The references above ground our design choices but we do not claim to validate new findings. Several rules (lexicon.consonant-cluster, syntax.conditional-stacking, syntax.dense-punctuation-burst, structure.excessive-commas) are practitioner heuristics informed by the literature rather than direct transpositions of published metrics — we mark these with 🔍 in the summary table.

Where we simplify an academic metric (e.g., syntax.unclear-antecedent as a pattern heuristic vs. full anaphora resolution), we document the simplification in RULES.md and plan richer versions in the roadmap.

If you are a researcher and spot an error, an outdated citation, or a misattribution, please open an issue — we will correct it promptly and credit you.