Quote:
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.
|
The reason I choose not to use it myself is that I see reading as an “active” activity, but listening as a “passive” one. It’s the same difference, to my mind, that exists between playing a musical instrument yourself, and listening to someone else play one. As a listener, you are simply a consumer of someone else’s performance, whether that performance be the musician playing the instrument, or the narrator reading the book. When you read a book or play an instrument, on the other hand, you are creating the performance yourself. I regard these as entirely distinct activities.