[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 325x235, roflbot-x9rk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3247388 No.3247388 [Reply] [Original]

does language allow people to better organize thoughts? or would we be able to thing just as well without a voice inside our head?

also spiderman.

>> No.3247391

think

>> No.3247406

yes

>> No.3247414

There is some things that language just cannot express.

Both are necessary imo.

>> No.3247417

I began to read much faster after learning not to speak everything I read in my head. I haven't noticed any problems with the organisation of my thoughts.

>> No.3247426

Everybody sub-vocalizes.

Those who say they don't either don't realize it or are lying.

>> No.3247427

>>3247417
Can you explain, how you did this?
I tried it myself, but I always came back to reading with voice in my head.

>> No.3247436

Communication brings better understanding of thoughts, and communication is brought by language

>> No.3247438

>>3247417
Wait what. People speak the things they read in their head?

Shit, i guess thats what happens when you teach yourself to read at a very young age.

>> No.3247441

>>3247436
And by thoughts I meant ideas and emotions

>> No.3247455

>>3247438
You do too, you just don't realize it.

Citation: Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language Second Edition (published 1997)

>> No.3247469

>>3247455
>>3247455
Page 212.

"Most people have encountered the struggle that takes place as a child is learning to read. A major feature of this task is that words and letters are 'sounded out'. It is as if reading is possible only if the symbols are heard -- reading 'by ear'. One theory of reading therefore argues that a phonic or phonological step is an essential feature of the process -- a theory of 'phonic mediation'. The view implies that reading is a serial or linear process, taking place letter-by-letter, with larger units gradually being built up."

>> No.3247475

>>3247455
"The alternative view argues that there is a direct relationship between the graphology and the semantics, and that a phonological bridge is unnecessary (though it is available for use when reading aloud). Words are read as wholes, without being broken down into a linear sequence of letters and sounded out - reading 'by eye'. Readers use their peripheral vision to guide the eye to the most likely informative part of the page. Their knowledge of the language and general experience helps them to identify critical letters or words in a section of text. This initial sampling gives them an expectation about the way the text should be read, and they use their background knowledge to 'guess' the remainder of the text and fill in the gaps. In this view, a text is like a problem that has to be solved using hypotheses about its meaning and structure."

>> No.3247479

In my opinion it is good for communicating complex ideas and objective information but incredibly horrible in communicating emotions, gut urges and experience.

>> No.3247482

>>3247469
Is there an online version of the book?

>> No.3247483
File: 12 KB, 200x181, farnsworth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3247483

Good news everyone! You are now reading this post in my voice.

>> No.3247495

>>3247483

I never liked The Simpsons.

So, no.

>> No.3247496

>>3247475
"The arguments for and against these views are complex and multifaceted, deriving from the results of a vast number of experiments on aspects of reading behaviour."

Support for the ear
- Associating graphemes and phonemes is a natural process, which cannot be avoided when first learning to read.
- Letter recognition is very rapid - about 10-20 msec per letter - which is enough to account for average reading speeds (aroun 250 words per minute). These speeds are similar for both silent and oral reading (though the latter is slightly slower, presumably for articulatory reasons), and are close to the norms for spontaneous speech (p. 125)

>>3247482
Not that I know of. I'm literally transcribing this from the physical book itself that I happen to have.

>> No.3247499

>>3247495
if your not trolling i'm gonna be pissed

>> No.3247510

>>3247496
Thats very interesting i'll check it out of the library later today
Actually its raining, I will tmro though

>> No.3247522

>>3247496
Ok I'm not going to transcribe the whole god damn thing but to summarize it's an open question and nobody knows for sure as of 1997 when this book was published. The gist is that the current theories were that the brain does both at the same time in complicated ways and only relies on one or the other if the person is deaf (resorting to an internal 'sign language') or has this or that speech disorder.

From my own experience being a weeaboo faggot there are a shit ton of kanji/hanzi that I know the meaning of but have no idea what the translation is that I mentally pronounce in English like 果汁 (fruit juice)

>> No.3247556

>>3247522
I've had the same feeling, when playing the untranslated version of monster hunter portable 3rd. I sounded out everything in my head and felt like a massive retard compared to how i dont (or hardly) sub-vocalize in english.

>> No.3247557

>>3247499

you're*

No, i'm not trolling.
I've probably watched about 5 minutes of it in the past 10 years.

>> No.3247563

>>3247388
Language is not necessary for thought. Your thoughts are more efficient without them. Internal dialogue is for the sole purpose of reflecting about what you know. If you try you can skip the majority of every sentence you want to think only saying two words from each sentence. Speeds up your train of thought rapidly. Or you could become a monk and master zanshin.
You have to remember. Infants think too and learn much faster than we do.

>> No.3247576

>>3247557
I think they thought you were trolling because it isn't from The Simpsons. It is from Futurama.

sage for no contribution

>> No.3247600

>>3247427
Stop speaking it. Speech takes time. If you rapidly faster than speech is done you won't speak faster, you just skip it.

>> No.3247640
File: 136 KB, 456x337, 5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3247640

>>3247417

how the in the world could anyone read a phonetic language without thinking/hearing it in their heads? you would have to train yourself to see words as simple symbols and memorize them as such and completely disregard letters and pronunciation and vowels and everything phonetic.

I call bullshit unless you grew up in china or some shit

>> No.3247641

>>3247600
>Stop speaking it.
Define 'speak'