More on Reading Speed: Reading Out Loud

[lhynard]

Over a year ago, I posted on how I am a slow reader.[1]But I remember, growing up, how I was known for my speed at reading. I was even put in a speed reading course and excelled at it. We were taught to skim under the lines and not really focus on any words. We were tested on speed and comprehension

Comments

[ubersecret]

I'll go you one better: I can proofread for spelling, grammar, and even style to some extent with no comprehension whatsoever. I do it without thinking. In fact, unless I'm careful, this is how I read by default. I go into "parse mode" and often have to snap out of it and remind myself that the goal is comprehension. It's awful for reading stuff that doesn't really interest me. On the other hand, it's great for proofreading stuff on a mechanical level.

[ubersecret]

(This is a partial explanation of my near-dropout experience back in college: I'd set apart time to study, but I so loathed the subject matter that I couldn't get my brain to engage and actually comprehend anything. I could "read" my fluids book for hours to no effect.)

[izaaksmom]

I can also read very effectively in a group without comprehension. I can even read slowly and with emotion (thanks, Oral Interpretation of Literature!) without fully getting "behind" what I'm saying (case in point: we had to memorize and recite "Jabberwocky" with as much emotion as possible); a lot of time this takes preplanning, but usually not. I can read a children's book to Izaak and have no idea what I just read. I also do not comprehend when proofreading. A lot of times, I have to read once for proofreading, once for logical arguments

[shadewright]

See, I have the latter condition, with none of the former. I can clock a story at speed-reading rates, and tell you about it as if I'd lived through it. I don't hear music, people talking, etc when I'm reading. But this assumes that I'm at least partially interested in what I'm reading.

I don't have a "parse" mode. Not even a scrap of one. I will always, always, miss punctuation, grammar, etc because I get too submersed in comprehension. And before you insist that it should be impossible to not notice grammar, because nothing makes sense without grammar rules, let me remind you that dialog rarely follows grammatical rules, because speech rarely follows grammatical rules, and you understand dialog just fine. (Unless, of course, it's Mark Twain's renditions of dialect.)

[lhynard]

And before you insist that it should be impossible to not notice grammar, because nothing makes sense without grammar rules, let me remind you that dialog rarely follows grammatical rules, because speech rarely follows grammatical rules, and you understand dialog just fine.
I would not insist that. Different people think and process language different ways.

Dialogue often works, simply because people assume context and unstated grammar. Sometimes/usually, they get it right; other times they do not.