h a l f b a k e r yI like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Subvocalization is considered to be a major obstacle in learning speed reading. It occurs when we don't understand the text well unless we silently "pronunce" the words to hear them in order to comprehend it. Though this is just a habit, it may be quite hard to overcome.
One way to overcome it may
be not to know how to pronunce the words at all. For example, to learn to read and write a new language without learning how to speak it.
Wikipedia - Speed reading
http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Speed_reading
Max. reading rate mentioned: 25,000 wpm [Inyuki, Oct 13 2007]
Blindsight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight
[zen_tom, Oct 13 2007]
Wikipedia - Words per minute
http://en.wikipedia...ki/Words_per_minute
Max. speech rate mentioned: 400 wpm [Inyuki, Oct 13 2007]
Earth language
http://www.earthlanguage.org
Purely pictorial (non verbal) language. [Inyuki, Sep 03 2010]
Semasiography
https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Semasiography
The name for languages that have no spoken form [notexactly, Mar 14 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
//For example, to learn to read and write a new language without learning how to speak it.// |
|
| |
How is that possible? By learning a language, you will naturally be substituting your own words for those depicted by the pictograms. |
|
| |
Subvocalising something is what happens when you conciously think about something - when information can pass directly through the conciousness filter and be processed directly by the brain - that's when you become capable of speed reading. It's a matter of detaching that layer of filtration, absorbing the information, and then being able to retrieve the data from wherever it's been stored. |
|
| |
It's all very zen - but it's exactly the same process as when we learn to do anything really well - like playing tennis, or driving a car, or playing a musical instrument. |
|
| |
To do anything well, our conciousness must relinquish control of the process, leaving our bodies free to be guided by the much faster, much slicker subconcious part of our mind. |
|
| |
Perhaps you could figure out a way to teach someone the language subliminally - but then they wouldn't be aware of it. |
|
| |
Some studies of people with blindsight (a condition where a person is unable to conciously see anything, while it is apparent that his vision works perfectly well for his subconciousness) show that it's quite possible for someone to 'know' something, without being aware of it. |
|
| |
Maybe - take your example - someone having unconsiously learnt to drive in a safe area will have little experience of people jumping out into the road, or other hazards, and their 'plan' might be more short-sighted than someone who learnt to drive somewhere a bit more dynamic. |
|
| |
In other words, all those things that might be taught on an advanced driving course, will eventually become automatic themselves. You've not replaced inferior autopilot with superiour concious awareness - but rather updated one autopilot for a better (but just as automatic) one. |
|
| |
According to the rather badly-written
Wikipedia page, research shows (see
Wikipedia page for citation) that:
"Subvocalizing will only decrease the
reading rate if it is accompanied by
obviously visible movements of the
mouth,
jaw or throat." |
|
| |
Also, is it likely that anyone would want
to learn to speed-read in a foreign
language but not want to learn to speak
it too? And also too, if you learn what
"Ville du kæmpe for demokratiet, hvis
du levede i diktaturstaten Danmark,
hvor Anders Fogh Rasmussen var
enehersker?" means, is it remotely
possible that you won't at least try to
pronounce it subvocally? I think not. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], if one knows alphabet, he or she will inevitably subvocalize. One needs something else than his or her known alphabet. |
|
| |
True, but I don't think anyone is ever
going to want (or maybe even be able) to
learn a language with no idea of
pronunciation. |
|
| |
I'm not so sure about that. The pictograms could simply become fully visual symbols, without any involvement of the ears/mouth control systems. It would be similar to language as learned by the deaf. |
|
| |
And maybe you could learn to read and write in this language. What an interesting question! |
|
| |
//[GutPunchLullabies]//What an interesting question!//
Agreed, and for that reason [+], but you don't go far
enough. The difference between sub-vocalizing and "sub-
signing" in native "speakers" of sign-language(s) isn't very
interesting. The fact that you or I or [MaxwellBuchannan]
couldn't learn any language without subvocalizing also isn't
very interesting. Whether a child raised from birth to
understand -- but not to express itself in -- a language
without any relation to human anatomy could successfully
learn the language is a fascinating question. |
|
| |
I'd bet "no" because I like the notion that "mirror"
properties of ostensibly "motor" cortex contribute to the
human talent for learning languages. |
|
| |
/if one knows alphabet, he or she will inevitably subvocalize./ |
|
| |
I wonder about deaf people. Do people who do not vocalize subvocalize? |
|
| |
Hang on a moment. Isn't this basically Chinese or Japanese?
My very vague understanding of these languages is that their
written form started out as pictograms, parallel to the spoken
language but not derived from it. Over time, the pictograms
have become stylized to the point of unrecognizability, but
there still isn't a way to pronounce the Chinese character for
"cat", only a way to pronounce the thing that the character
means. |
|
| |
But (AFAIK) each character does still have a corresponding
pronunciation, or multiple corresponding pronunciations
depending on intended meaning (which you have to figure
out from context). |
|
| |
I do agree with these, at least at first, though: |
|
| |
// How is that possible? By learning a language, you will
naturally be substituting your own words for those depicted by
the pictograms. // |
|
| |
// I found myself subvocalising even that unfamiliar
pictographic language — “Do not iron, dry clean only”, etc. // |
|
| |
//each character does still have a corresponding
pronunciation// I'm not sure. My understanding is that
each character has a meaning (which may be dependent on
context); and of course if it has a meaning then there's a
spoken word for it. For instance, how else would you
"pronounce" the Chinese symbol for "cat" other than by
saying "cat" (in Chinese)? |
|
| |
It's a bit like a "no entry" sign which, on English roads, is a
red circle with a white bar. It's a pictogram, but ask
someone what it says and they'll say "no entry". |
|
| |
And then, finally, there's a question as to whether "speed
reading" is actually a good idea. Many studies suggest that
comprehension plummets as a result of some "speed
reading" techniques. |
|
| |