[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.38 MB, 2200x3037, 1443312504029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20595314 No.20595314 [Reply] [Original]

>subvocalizing

>> No.20595714

I love subvocalizing tommy's work, he has such fun with language!

>> No.20596527

>>20595714
i am more a man of thought; organless words

>> No.20596627

If you don't subvocalize while reading poetry and even a lot of prose, how do you get anything out of it? If all you want is to gather information from the text, then I agree it's not necessary, but surely appreciating the beauty of language requires you to "hear" the words in your mind, right?

>> No.20596636

>>20596627
>how do you get anything out of it
so, to you, life is about extraction

>you to "hear" the words in your mind, right?
I read aloud

>> No.20596641

>>20596627
these people haven't delved very far into fiction/poetry, probably moby dick is the furthest they've ventured. They probably think all literature is philosophy or Dostoesvky

>> No.20596647

>>20596641
although yeah, i rarely subvocalize, I either read aloud if no ones around or I autistically whisper it under my breath.

>> No.20596648

>>20596636
>so, to you, life is about extraction
If I don't get anything from what I'm reading then there's no point in reading it.
>I read aloud
Well yes, obviously literally hearing the words spoken works as well or better, but the debate is normally subvocalizing vs no vocalizing.

>> No.20596662

>>20595314
>>20596627
What people don’t realize is that subvocalization doesn’t mean hearing words in your heads or at least it didn’t originally. Basically some studies found that people’s vocal muscles moved subconsciously while reading because they weren’t actually reading in their heads they just stopped making the actual sound so that limited to reading at talking speed. But then the meaning got corrupted and people thought that hearing the words in their heads was the same as subvocalizing. That obviously makes no sense because we can all read while hearing the words in our head at at least 250+ wpm which is already way faster than talking speed. You aren’t actually “hearing” them in your head anyway, it’s more like you’re remembering their sounds so all that happens is the neurons associated with the sounds go off and that can happen very fast. My brain is extremely verbal and hyperfocused on phonemes so it’s literally impossible for me not to hear the words in my head but I can still read at 700+ wpm. Unless the muscles in your throat are moving you aren’t subvocalizing.

>> No.20596699

>>20596662
And if you can read without hearing the words that probably means you don’t have a verbal brain so if anything you should give up literature or else you will only be able to write extremely visually which will only appeal to other visual thinkers and you won’t be able to write prose that flows or ever be good at philosophy or ever write introspectively

>> No.20596737

>>20596699
anyone who thinks they're a writer in current day is just fooling themselves. even pynchon, but he puts in more effort than most.

>> No.20596754

>>20596662
>>20596699
huh?

>> No.20596881

>>20596754
He went schizo towards the middle of his post but he is right in that everyone subvocalizes on some level. There was a study done that measured muscle movements in the throats of various readers and everyone, regardless of if they actually heard dialogue in their head, displayed at least some muscle movement that corresponded with the words they read. It's ultimately not that relevant to the conversation, though, because some people literally do not have an inner voice, which is what most people imagine when they think of subvocalization.

>> No.20598053

>>20596662
>>20596699
Based.

>>20596754
>>20596881
NPC Pilled.

>> No.20598234

>>20598053
WE HAVE A SUBVOCALIZER HERE

EVERYONE THERE'S A SUBVOCALIZER HERE

see no one cares

>> No.20598388

>>20598234
I’m not the one who made the thread about subvocalization

>> No.20598392

Who was the bigger glownigger? Manson or Pynchon?

>> No.20598410

>>20598392
Why'z Pynchon a glowie?