Originally Posted by sun surfer
There is no separate but equal aural equivalent to 'reading'. Listening is the equivalent of looking; looking and listening both merely refer to being aware of a stimulus. Reading refers to not only being aware of a stimulus but actively comprehending it and engaging with it on a high level. This is why, I think, reading is beginning to be used as a verb for consuming an unabridged audiobook.
Basically, it's a void of the English language being filled by the more precise term (reading) often related to a different sense (sight) rather than the less precise and more generic term (listening) related to the same sense (hearing). It is also backed up by other valid aural uses of the word 'reading', and in fact they (the prior uses and this use in regards to audiobooks) probably have the same root cause of using 'reading' in an aural context- to better differentiate that the information is being comprehended on a higher level.
Of course, one could just say 'listening to an audiobook' and would be understood, but despite any vigorous protestations to the contrary, 'listening' gives a less precise and less estimable connotation than 'reading'.
I think any objections to the thought of 'reading an audiobook' are mostly because of the newness of this usage (and therefore it can sound odd or awkward at first) and a bit of linguistic 'drawing lines in sand', but language is ever-evolving and we've offered very sound reasons in this thread for 'reading an audiobook' being as proper as 'listening to an audiobook', and more precise.
Personally, I still may use either one as I see fit, but I prefer the choice rather than feeling like I should have to say one.
|