The score updates live while you write.
Product
By respondent, group, question, or cohortCombinable filtersTransparent methodology
A language score that is readable, actionable, and traceable.
The language level score combines readability, sentence structure, lexical richness, punctuation, and register signals to help you interpret open answers with more nuance.
Instant demo without signup.
Language scoreB2 cohort - spring
Global score72/100
CEFR readingB2
Subscores5
Lexicon
Syntax
Register
Punct.
StrengthLexical richness
WatchpointUnstable register
UseCompare cohorts
Try On Your Text
Type an excerpt to instantly preview a global score, an indicative level, and the main linguistic components.
Start typing to display the live score.
Global Score—
Indicative Level
A1A2B1B2C1C2
Reliability—
Word Count—
Sentence Count—
Lexical Diversity—
Live Components
ReadabilitySyntactic StructureLexical RichnessPunctuationRegister
Live Components
Readability—
Syntactic Structure—
Lexical Richness—
Punctuation—
Register—
Detailed Indicators
Average Words Per Sentence—
Average Characters Per Word—
Lexical Diversity—
Punctuation Per Sentence—
Punctuation Diversity—
Abbreviation Ratio—
Mixed-Language Ratio—
Global level
0 to 100
A synthetic score to compare your segments quickly.
Indicative CEFR reading
A1 to C2
A pedagogical reference point, not an official certification.
Visible components
5 families
Each subscore is displayed so you can interpret the result.
Scoring methodology
1
1. Scope aggregation
The engine aggregates responses for the selected scope (question, respondent, group, cohort) using the same filters as your other analyses.
2
2. Metric extraction
We extract simple indicators: average sentence length, lexical density, vocabulary variety, punctuation, abbreviations, and out-of-language words.
3
3. Component normalization
Each indicator family is normalized onto a shared scale to prevent one raw metric from artificially dominating the score.
4
4. Composite score and reading
The final score combines weighted components and provides an indicative language level reading (A1 to C2) to simplify reporting.
Tracked components
Readability
Estimates reading ease with formulas based on sentence and word length.
Syntactic structure
Measures sentence complexity through construction variety and structural depth.
Lexical richness
Observes word diversity and lexical variety stability across texts of different lengths.
Punctuation
Analyzes punctuation density and diversity as an indicator of discourse structuring.
Register signals
Detects register signals: abbreviations, code-mixing, and informal markers.
Response volume
Integrates useful response length to avoid fragile conclusions from very short verbatims.
How to interpret this score
Compare before evaluating
The score is especially useful comparatively: between cohorts, between groups, or before/after an intervention.
Read subscores
The same global score can come from different linguistic profiles. Components explain what actually changes.
Use domain context
Expected level depends on context (training, recruiting, internal diagnosis). The score is not an end in itself.
Avoid automated selection use
We recommend using it as a reading and facilitation aid, never as a single criterion for individual decisions.
Methodology sources
The score relies on metric families widely documented in readability, linguistic complexity, and CEFR literature.
Flesch (1948) - readability
Foundational article on readability assessment based on length indicators.
Journal of Applied Psychology
View source
Kincaid et al. (1975) - readability formulas
Technical report describing grade-level and readability formulas.
U.S. Navy / University of Central Florida
View source
McCarthy & Jarvis (2010) - lexical diversity
Comparison of MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D to measure lexical richness.
Behavior Research Methods
View source
Lu (2010) - syntactic complexity
Reference work on automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in L2 writing.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
View source
CEFR Companion Volume (Council of Europe)
A1 to C2 descriptors used as pedagogical interpretation references.
Council of Europe
View source
GLUECoS (ACL 2020) - code-switching
Reference benchmark for multilingual text analysis and code-mixing.
Association for Computational Linguistics
View sourceSome academic references are available through DOI or scientific publishers. Harmate applies these principles pragmatically for operational interpretation of open responses.
Related pages
Measure the linguistic quality of your open responses
Enable the language score in your Harmate analyses and compare populations with explicit components.