[f00l]

Just logged onto MobileRead for the first time in nearly a decade. Have missed so much.

"Reading" (strict definition, eyes)
vs
"reading" (strict definition, eyes, or fingertips using Braille)
vs
"reading" (loose definition, close to the meaning of "consume written words [not intended as theatrical scripts] through various means")
vs
"listen-as-form-of-reading" (strictly defined in this example as applicable to TTS consumption)
vs
"listen-as-a-form-of-reading" (definition expanded to allow narrated books for the sight-impaired, as supported by the Library of Congress since before WWII, check out some of the Scourby recordings sometimes) vs
"listen-as-a-form-of-reading" (include the modern world of audiobooks)

It's all good. (To me).

As for listening being a different physical activity and an alternative way of getting words into the brain? Sure. So is Braille, obviously. Or translations. Or using alt alphabets or alt signaling. (Someday someone will be able to read Catcher In The Rye [English version] in 1's and 0's.)

Let's call Dr Pinker and ask.

Since audiobooks involve listening, whereas conventional or braille reading involve visual or touch perception of forms that make letters or words, is one form or word absorption so different from another that the word "reading", used colloquially, cannot or should not encompass both?

Is one definition of the word "reading" to rule forever, even if many, esp among newer generations, typically use the word in a more flexible manner? (Ain't happening.)

Show me a word that has not colloquial, alternative, or slang or "drift" usage, and I'll show you a strictly technical, scientific, tightly academic, organizationally constrained, or mathematical word. And no promises the word will stay formal and tightly defined, either.

To me, that's a plus.

And that's language. Love it or leave it, as they used to say in the 1960's.

As for the dangers of constant shifts in word usage; (some might point to recent loaded politically charged language and the world of "alt facts" as an example); language has always been corrupted and spun for political, religious, cultural, and power agendas. The tools to deal with this and with the corruption of language as a promo tool could use some ongoing developing. 'Nother topic.

In the meantime, for those who are disurbed by the user of "reading" as inclusive of "listening to words read aloud" - altho your opinion may have its arguments, you can hardly impose it on others. And I think that the argument that this usage somehow indicates a loosening of intellectual standards of precision is pretty weak. Context is all. Or the necessary extra info can be sought, when it matters.

*And this is what language, as operated by humans, does, anyway*. Good luck stopping it, if that is your desire.

As for cognitive differences in understanding, based in input method, I would kinda guess insufficient research to say anything much with certainty. People who are are not accustomed to audiobooks will find it a very different experience. People who have listened for almost as many hours and years as they have read physical text may be flexibly able to switch easily back and forth. I have been a reading fanatic for my entire life since early years. I have been an audiobook fanatic for more than 20 years, since I came to be able to acquire unabridged editions more easily.

I have seen a sight impaired person use TTS tech to get thru portions of a pure abstract math curriculum at a graduate level in a top 10 program. Did he not "read" the material? It's news to me.

As for the narrator's presence creating an altered environment: Anyone practiced at audiobooks can learn to "listen through" and "listen past" the narrator if they wish to. For abstract material, I usually do this. For fictional and light material, I usually don't. Varies by the narrator, the book, my purposes, my mood.

My eye-reading habits have altered somewhat the manner of my listening-reading habits, and vv. I have seemed to learnt to merge the result. Or I kid myself. I hope the brain scientists get at this.

So audible uses a marketing slogan disturbing to purists.

Even if audible is part of the hateful corporate takeover of the universe, I love them. And they seem to be fond of me, insofar as a member of the info-data-finance-military-industrial complex can be. Or they fool me and I am willing, in this instance, to allow the fooling to continue. I will forgive.

Interesting that someone brought up Beethoven's 5th. What about his 9th, by which time he was deaf? He heard it in his imagination, I presume, before or during his composition of the score. And, I presume, he heard it again when he re-read the score. It may take some time and practice for those of us not at his standard to catch up. ; )

If the world is going to shortly end (I like split infinitives) in either ice or fire, I don't think this sort of linguistic drift, ongoing since the inception of language, will be the tipping point. But who knows?

Brave New World, huh?
; )
-
PS this post does not display properly if the viewer is using Tapatalk with IOS [smartphone certainly, tablet possibly].

Most of the top of the post gets cut off. If, for some reason, someone wants to read all of the post, using tapatalk on IOS, tap the post and select <more>, then select <web view>. Then you can see the entire thing.
(Tapatalk for Android appears not to have this problem.)
-
PPS. Is there are decent way to user MobileRead on a mobile device? Something better than the desktop version [fine for browsing but terrible for text entry]?
-
I suck at text entry on mobile devices and I suck at proofreading.

Am going to do it anyway. All apologies. ; )