Subvocalization is a bad thing.
Subvocalization is the tendency to pronounce words as they are
read. Activating parts of the brain related to pronouncing impose a reading speed
limit of 250 wpm. This common flaw is what limits performance of average readers.
Subvocalization is not always such a bad thing. In fact, with particularly
"thick" material it can help slow things down, where non-verbalization would leave
you plunging ahead beyond your ability to keep up with the subject.
At the same time that verbalization slows you down, consider that it might also
be helping retention, simply because it repeats the ideas as they are formed in
your mind. Just as people might read aloud, or write by hand, information they really
want to know better.
Sometimes subvocalization allows for the apprehension of meaning that
is communicated by phonetic constructs. Some of us are predisposed by our culture
and developmental experiences to the parsing verbal input for levels of meaning
based upon the branching of meaning within phonemes and the possibilities of meaning
within definite and indefinite phonemic derivatives.
Slowing down to subvocalize may help one to find meaning, or, depending upon
the source, subvocalization may only provide meaningless distraction. Sometimes
it may be wise to choose to comprehend without listening. Sometimes, without listening,
we may not comprehend.
Start thinking about a subject. At the same time, notice how you are thinking.
Are you playing out a pseudo-verbal monolog? I believe most people do. � However,
it is possible to "think" about something, without actual words. Many people probably
just do this on an emotional level, sounding out how they FEEL about something.
But it is possible to actually rationalize, without internal words.
The trouble with this is, you tend to lose a certain amount of processing on
the info. If you speak this way, it may result in the phenomemon of "opening your
mouth without thinking".
Subvocalization is not bad thing
Sometimes subvocalization allows for the apprehension of meaning that is communicated
by phonetic constructs. A simplistic example: "The java men banged their four heads
together." Some of us are predisposed by our culture and developmental experiences
to the parsing verbal input for levels of meaning based upon the branching of meaning
within phonemes and the possibilities of meaning within definite and indefinite
phonemic derivatives.
Slowing down to subvocalize may help one to find meaning, or, depending upon
the source, subvocalization may only provide meaningless distraction. Sometimes
it may be wise to choose to comprehend without listening. Sometimes, without listening,
we may not comprehend.
Many think that verbalization is essential to linking concepts, common experience
shows that this is not so. For example, if you are a mechanic or computer engineer,
and I ask you to think about how a car or computer works, the subject of your thought
is too complex and multi-dimensional to be expressed in linear forms. You are able
to visualize and manipulate concepts - and find answers -- to engineering problems
without ever putting those thoughts into words. The same is possible with abstract
ideas (which are also often highly complex and multi-dimensional), though it takes
practice because there are no familiar "images" to fall back on.
Like meditation, one tends to navigate these byways of thought using intuition
and feelings of depth, which are no less pragmatic than verbalizing the same idea.
In some cases, especially when the thought involved is particularly complex, removing
the verbal component not only vastly accelerates the thinking process, but can even
lead to intuitive leaps that verbal thinking might have restrained or prevented.
At the same time that verbalization slows you down, consider that it might also
be helping retention, simply because it repeats the ideas as they are formed in
your mind. Just as people might read aloud, or write by hand, information they really
want to know better, so vocalization is not always such a bad thing. In fact, with
particularly "thick" material it can help slow things down, where non-verbalization
would leave you plunging ahead beyond your ability to keep up with the subject.
Writing
When writing stuff you play through it in your mind before writing it. When reading,
often, the relaxed thing to do is internally sound it out. And here the real kicker
that almost no one notices: When plain "thinking", there is a tendency to do the
same thing. I believe they are all related.
If you get really good at reading, you can sort of whisk through things, but
you lose the texture of the thing. For example, if you read a novel this way, you're
going to miss the major point of enjoyment of it - having your brain play around
with mental imagery. I was trying to think of an analogy for what is happening,
and I think I've just though of a really really appropriate one. It's like dropping
the indexes on a database table, and doing "Load Data In File X'". Sure, you "load
up" the data really fast. But it's just data. You don't have all the interconnections,
triggers, and fun stuff like that. It takes time to generate all that other stuff
around the raw data.
We need the verbal side of the brain, to do the extra analysis of the subject
matter, methinks. Pure thought, and also the base level of reading methinks , is
the hard logic, symbolic manipulation part of the brain. The other stuff is
most related to the aural part of the brain, I think. I've never subvocalize that
I can remember. I guess this is a great help for getting through most ordinary prose
and technical documents. But sometimes I get the idea to try some Kerouac or Shakespeare,
the kind of beautiful stuff but usually doesn't make a lick of sense unless you
hear it out loud.
I start out trying to read aloud, or at least subvocalize, but it usually feels
slow and bogged down, or my throat muscles get tired, or what have you, and I go
back to ordinary reading, only to realize some time later that I haven't understood
a damn thing for pages. So I'd kind of like a hint for training myself to slow down
at will without getting fatigued.
The "small, still voice" we hear while reading (subvocalization), is natural
and is required for all reading below 900 words per minute. The average college
graduate reads "basic" level of difficulty material at 250-300 words per minute,
with 70% comprehension, therefore they subvocalize until they reach speed reading,
which begins at 900 wpm.
Speed reading techniques
Speed reading tips
|