When listening to audio books, I can't help but wonder what a map of the brain would like, right at that moment. How does it compare to a brain-map when reading a book?
It is strange to think that both modes lead to a similar comprehension. But which mode is "best"? Language came before writing, historically. Human physiology has evolved to make it possible. Although it is true that vision is a big part of the brain, no evolution in the brain is necessary to read an alphabet. Let's avoid the temptation to use the silly term 'natural' and say that language is more visceral than writing.
from creativemarket.com
Writing/reading had the great advantage of not requiring the two communicators to stand a few steps apart at the same moment. Writing/reading was mobile, recordable, and replayable.
But what about today, when smartphones and digital cameras make it easy to record the voice, and transport it instantly around the world. Doesn't that make writing obsolete?
Some might say that writing has been in decline since radio and television began. Today we have You Tube to help writing fall into disuse.
I have mixed feelings about this. Reading and writing would be more appealing if the English alphabet were reformed. Such reform is long overdue. Still, that wouldn't get to the core of it.
It keeps coming back to the word 'visceral.'
Comments
You said " no evolution in the brain is necessary to read an alphabet."
Well, dogs can't read an alphabet.
I think dig deeper. It's easy to see that all the many alphabets that have existed in the world are simply different symbols for the spoken word. But languages are also symbolic and don't represent fully human thought.
Do you ever have the experience of not being able to find the words to describe what you're thinking? It is the inadequacy of your language that is the problem.
Language is symbolic.....it is already at least 1 step away from your pure thought. We all struggle to make our language properly reflect our thoughts.
George
The written language is usually dry, sterile, and lifeless.
Notice how a spoken 'typo' is instantly noticed, but written typos are hard to spot without practice.
I had to go back and read your original piece again to try and trace the thinking.
Spoken language is spontaneous but audio books can't qualify in the same way.
When I read I speak the words in my mind so I take that as the same as an audio book.
Written language is more perfect than spontaneous language in the sense of being able to edit the writing before sharing it. Supposedly closer to perfection. More accurate. More logical. At least it has that potential.
Spontaneous spoken language is rather naked in that the emotions of the speaker can be detected in the voice and pitch, etc. and so the listener can pick up many clues. (For probably the very reason you stated of the relationship between heart rate, etc. to speaking. The body doesn't lie.) Include body language in this experience, as you mentioned, and these clues offer insights into inconsistencies (sometimes necessary according to social rules) which the written script can hide.
Your question "Is reading and writing obsolete"....is that meant to ask will audio books replace the hard copy? To answer this question, I would say not for me. My mind wanders when I can't see the speaker and I need to reread frequently, look things up to clarify accuracy, check definitions, etc. so I always prefer a hard copy.
Yes, to your last comment but this is true only if one is not reading carefully. We do tend to skim over quickly. There are interesting studies as to how we identify a written word by only a few letters, it's shape and length. I.E., catrpilr.
However, there are weaknesses inherent in spontaneous spoken language as well. We don't always hear each other honestly. We jump to conclusions based on what gets triggered from within, etc. There is always a tendency for any topic to multiply into a thousand new topics, etc., and so the original point is lost in the muddle.
George