Do we need a new word for "reading" on screens since it is a very different animal?

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Would it also be beneficial to differentiate between eating with a fork vs. a spoon – how about chopsticks, what should we call that? Spooning? Forking? Chopsticking? How about driving a car vs. a truck? Should one be called caring while the other trucking? What if I’m watching a movie on a monitor vs. a television, shall we invent another word to differentiate the two? Hey, I’m monitoring District 9 tonight, do you want to stop by and join me? Should we invent a new word for sleeping in relation to whether it is on a bed or a couch? Would it be beneficial to come up with a new word for playing tennis depending upon whether it is played on clay or grass? How about the act of writing, would it be beneficial to distinguish between using a typewriter or a computer or a pen? If I told you that I’m writing a book, would it be beneficial if I were to tell you by what method?

And what of the the act of writing, would it be beneficial to distinguish between using a typewriter or a computer or a pen? If I told you that I’m writing a book, would it be beneficial if I were to tell you by what method? You might ask how, on a computer or a typewriter, and that’s a valid question, but if we’re going to arbitrarily invent a new word to differentiate between reading on a display vs. paper, shouldn’t we also then invent a new word to differentiate between writing using a typewriter or a computer or a pen?

At the moment, I’m reading Jonathan Lethem’s Chronic City, what difference does it make with respect to paper or e-reader? Does it add to or subtract from the experience of reading Chronic City? If so, how? What is more important, the fact that I’m reading it, or what I’m reading it on?

To the contrary, I think it would less beneficial, as everyone is familiar with the act and definition of reading, why muddy the water with a new word, when a perfectly acceptable one already exists?

Good Old Neon, well said. I agree with 99 percent of what you wrote. Thanks for the good, and thoughtful, comment! -- danny

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

You mean like handwriting or typing?
I mean, I agree with you on the whole, but that one just needed addressing, especially since you wrote it twice in your post.

Oops, I mean you typed it twice.

Good catch, LDB! And good examples.

I am not saying we need a new word for e-reading now or ever. I am just wondering IF someday a new word might arise and what that word might be. If it is not needed, it will not arrive. And if one word does arise, and it is not useful or beneficial, then it won't be adopted. On the other hand, all this is interesting to think about, if for no other reason to think about it.

One email correspondent who runs a top blog on these things from his office in NYC told me today:

"I'd say that reading on a screen *can* be qualititatively different than
reading as we have understood it, but does not necessarily have to be. I've
read narrative book-like material almost exclusively on screens for ten
years and I am seldom distracted by links. I focus on the text, particularly
with ebooks. But I know what you mean; different experiences are certainly
possible and are becoming widespread and it is something different than what
we have always called "reading" when you use a basic text more as a jumping
off point than as a narrative."

[danbloom]

thread closed

[danbloom]

[QUOTE=eGeezer;642878].....A new word or phrase for an action will evolve naturally for any given act when it's time has come. When that happens, it will just roll naturally off the tongue, and people will know what it means.
.......Any attempt at orchestrating its appearance before that time is merely artificial contrivance and manipulation in an attempt to "be the first one on the block" to use a new term which is neither necessary or desired except by the "inventor".
QUOTE]

APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE! Well said, sir!

You are right: if a word does come, it will arrive when it's time has come, I have always said that (see my earlier posts). I agree 10000 percent!

But I don't think anyone here, certainly not me, is trying to orchestrate a new word in order to be the first one on the block etc etc, eGeezer.

This forum inquiry is not about orchestrating anything. A person merely asked a question, a good question some people might argue, a stupid question others might counter, but just a question. And the comments that have followed the initial question have been very good and insightful.

But you are very very right: if a new word is needed or is beneficial, it will happen of its own accord, on its own time, and we have no idea what that word will be -- if indeed any word will come forth. Probably not. Probably "reading" will remain reading for both Pbooks and Ebooks, but perhaps the meaning of reading will change over time. That's another possibility.

But we are discussing something interesting, nevertheless, pro and con. I find all the comments good and thoughtful, and the humor helps too.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by geneven

The problem is based on an illusion. On the one hand we have plain old reading, on the other hand...

Wait a minute! What is plain old reading? Is skimming plain old reading? Sitting in a vehicle trying to find an address -- is that reading? How many kinds of reading are there already?

The answer that every read is a custom-made task, adapted to the purpose it has and the media available, time available, interest available, and other constraints. Reading on a screen is just one more (relatively inconsequential, compared to, say, reading a ransom note) kind of reading. You can't name all the kinds of reading because they are potentially infinite, as this thread shows. Some teachers say that you haven't really read something unless you've discussed it, and other teachers say that you haven't really read something unless you've taught it for years, and what you've been teaching batters its way into your brain. Reading is, after all, a kind of thinking, a custom-made kind, as is all thinking.

WELL SAID!

[danbloom]

thread closed

[danbloom]

[QUOTE=ardeegee;642936]I am biased towards the Sony products, so I think the generic term for reading on an ebook reader will be "readering."
QUOTE]

Could you say "I am sonying my book"?

[danbloom]

This in from Klaus Nielsen in Denmark: (via danbloom)

Subject: forms of reading on paper and reading on screens

"This topic is truly an interesting read (or ''scread''). But it seems to me
that the problem might better be approached from a different angle than
the current focus on the reader's perception of print vs. screen or
other media. The crux of the difference between the two types of reading
is not receptive, sensory or cognitive but material.

When we read something on screen there's a divide between the media
that the text is stored upon and the media that transcribes or
transposes the stored text to the reader in a way that makes reading (or
hearing etc.) possible. We cannot read a PDF file. It would be a
nonsensical jumble of zeros and ones if we were able to pull it out of
its storage media (e.g. the hard drive or USB stick etc.) so to speak.
The same applies for audio CDs or vinyl LPs, MP3 files and the like.

In the book, we have convergence of storage media (or storage device) and
display media. It's a two-in-one solution! We can pick it up anywhere
and granted we can read the letters printed on its pages and understand
the language we can read anywhere. Reading electronic texts (or
listening to any kind of audio book whether MP3, CD or cassette tapes)
requires a machine (a computer or an e-reader) that can translate the
stored information into a display text that we can perceive. So the
difference is not so much our perception of text but the divorce of
storage and display media and the removal of the reader from the
materiality of reading.

I'm not sure about the correctness of the terms "storage" and
"display media". There are probably a great variety of terms for the
same distinction within Library Science or other bibliographical
enterprises dealing specifically with electronic texts. Corrections and
suggestions are much welcomed.

I enjoy reading these discussions on topics related to the electronic
media. They seem to generate strong feelings and numerous contributions.
I've printed them all out to PDF files. There's another discrepancy
between material and immaterial terminology: print-to-file. Usually
printing meant producing a material object, a piece of paper or a book.
But I won't propose that a change in terminology on this aspect is
needed.

Best regards
KN

Ph.D. student in Book History and Literary Theory,
Department of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics,
Denmark"

[danbloom]

A joker tells me:

The finer points of the mechanics of ebook/print reading and comprehension aside, I’d like to state the obvious: You will always retain more of a book you actually read than one you do not.

[delphidb96]

Personally, I think I need to tell everyone I'm inputtingtextsequencesrangingfromazAZ09plusothergr ammaticalcharactersinanonrandommannerdesignedtoimp artknowledgeandtextualimageryinanenjoyablefashioni ng. And when I get bored with that I'll be outputtingnonrandomtextsequencesontoeithermagnetic opticalorpapermediainafashiondesignedtocreateshare orimpartknowledgeandortextualimagerying.

Either phrase trips lovingly off the tongue, does it no?

Derek

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Personally, I think I need to tell everyone I'm inputtingtextsequencesrangingfromazAZ09plusothergr ammaticalcharactersinanonrandommannerdesignedtoimp artknowledgeandtextualimageryinanenjoyablefashioni ng. And when I get bored with that I'll be outputtingnonrandomtextsequencesontoeithermagnetic opticalorpapermediainafashiondesignedtocreateshare orimpartknowledgeandortextualimagerying.

Either phrase trips lovingly off the tongue, does it no?

Derek

Do you have some German in your blood?

Dale

[taglines]

re all this, especially ebooks and e-reading:

On June 9-12, 2010, there will be a makor academic conference at a big east coast university in upstate new york state on
"The Future of Reading".

They have invited speakers from a
broad range of fields, including vision science, type design,
publishing, e-books, writing system, history of print,
and other areas. More details will be available when they
launch their webssite next month.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by taglines

re all this, especially ebooks and e-reading:

On June 9-12, 2010, there will be a makor academic conference at a big east coast university in upstate new york state on
"The Future of Reading".

They have invited speakers from a
broad range of fields, including vision science, type design,
publishing, e-books, writing system, history of print,
and other areas. More details will be available when they
launch their webssite next month.

Join date Nov 2009, really? Mr Bloom you crossing some thresholds you shouldn't.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by danbloom

kazbates, you might be right, it might be redundant, on the other hand, it might be beneficial, later on. But regarding your note on such a word being redundant, -- and let's just agree politely to disagree here -- here is what one blogger told me earlier on this very forum:

"Danny.....Coming up with a new word for what appears to be an exisiting practice will always seem redundant to most people. But at this juncture anything that reminds us that there *IS* a change going on here, rather than allowing us to forget that our artifacts always have implications on our behviour and our thoughts, should be considered useful. Will we always distinguish between reading and SCREADING? I doubt it. But for now it is the discussion itself that’s crucial.”

So, kazbates, opinions differ, and that is what this quest is all about: sizing up all the different opinions here, pro and con. No agenda, no conclusions, just asking for different POVs, and it's very interesting.

danbloom ~ I did not present my opinion as anything other than an opinion and as merely an answer to your original question. I did not infer that you had an agenda. My opinion was based on my experience as an educator of young children who already spend a great deal of their time trying to grasp the seemingly never ending vocabulary of the English language. Introducing a superfluous new word with the main purpose to push an agenda (digital reading) is not beneficial to anyone.

I will also add my 2 cents and say that your use of bolding to emphasize particular words in your posts is completely unnecessary and a bit condescending. I feel that most posters here at MR are quite intelligent and capable of divining your intended emphasis on their own. I would also like to add that when debating a particular side of an argument it is best not to use people's opinions as a source of support. For as many bloggers and posters that you find to support your argument, I am quite certain I could find just as many of the same against it. However, and to be perfectly honest, I have neither the time or interest to do so.

[danbloom]

offline