<p>In japanese language, kanjis are more than phonemes but represent an idea. For instance, both tree and spirit have the same sound (ki) and can be written with the hiragana "letter" き. But when kanjis are used tree is 木 while spirit is 気.
Therefore, it is possible to read without subvocalizing. We can read as if it was graphics.
So, when using kanji is much more like text > undestanding.
But is hard to think doing it purely because we use many words that have no physical meaning such as "as", "such", "meaning" etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-13T23:32:47.103Z
2016-10-13T23:32:47.103Z
socrateslopes
<p>I wonder why can't we understand text the same way we understand pictures?</p>

<p>Everything we see but text we understand without the inner voice, we don't subvocalize/describe a forest, a street or anything. We just understand it. </p>

<p>Why can't reading work the same way? When I look at words I recognize them but they have no meaning until I <em>read</em> them in my mind.</p>

<p>Is there even anyone who got rid of subvocalization completely and can read a 300 page book just in one evening understanding pretty everything?</p>

<p>It even works the same the other way around. If I try to <em>see</em> a textural representation of some thing like let's say a table, I first have to <em>say</em> in my mind. Why is it so? It's really annoying.</p>

<pre><code>text &gt; voice (in my mind) &gt; understanding
</code></pre>

<p>why not</p>

<pre><code>text &gt; understanding
</code></pre>

<p>I also don't get it why people consider this normal. It slows everything down. Imagine you could read a book in a single eventing if not the subvoc. We must do something terribly wrong when learning to read.</p>

<p>I'm not asking about speed-reading because subvoc is not only an issue there - although it is most noticable when reading - but it also interfers when thinking and forces you to <em>say</em> your thoughts.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-12T06:49:26.983Z
Do people always subvocalize? In fact, I heard that people who subvocalize texts read slower, and that faster readers do not subvocalize (or do it less often).
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-12T06:56:53.877Z
@RobinKramer indeed subvoc slows you down because I can read only as fast as I can _say_ the words in my mind and I can say them as fast as I can speak even if I only think I speak. I spoke to many people and even if they thought they wouldn't subvocalize they all confirmed that they were all speaking in their minds. Reading is not the only thing we subvocalize. Also when you think you do it too. If you are mad at something you don't just think you're mad and that's it, you say _bad words_ to yourself even if no one can hear you - the same when you think of something you talk to yourself ;-/
Octopus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-13T17:28:00.997Z
Exactly, only if we name it but we don't have to name it to recognize or to understand it. You can move through the city or a forest with any speed and you instantly know what you see, you don't have to say _oh, it's a tree I have to go around it_ but you cannot move as fast through text that has no meaning until converted into sound :-(
Octopus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-15T17:57:19.380Z
I knew a girl that claimed to read both front and facing pages in novels at the same time. If true I think this rules out the need for subvocalization towards understanding. For me though, I cannot use new terminology unless I first figure how to pronounce it.
Eric Roper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T10:55:52.863Z
Not _everyone_ subvocalises. Unless you redefine "subvocalize" to _mean_ understanding; it's entirely possible to read without "hearing" it and just get the meaning directly from the text. I don't think in words most of the time, so I don't read in words either. Reading while "voice acting" in my head; which I can chose to do; just slows me down and prevents me from understanding what I read.
Stein G. Strindhaug
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T10:57:30.290Z
So the premise of the question is false; it _is_ possible to understand text without subvocalising because some people do.
Stein G. Strindhaug
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T11:08:47.563Z
I tried to add this as an answer, but it was deleted because apparently it's anecdotal. But when the premise of the question is "X is always true", you need a LOT of evidence to prove this statement is true; but very few counter examples to prove it wrong.
Stein G. Strindhaug
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T11:18:20.610Z
Also, even if you don't believe my experience; anyone who is born deaf cannot possibly "hear" the words when they read; and sign languages use an entirely different grammar and word order so they cannot "see" the words as signs either because the's not a one to one relation between the languages. Or are you disputing that deaf people can read?
Stein G. Strindhaug
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T13:58:52.603Z
@SteinG.Strindhaug yeah, you're right. The title is stupid. My main thought was actually how do I get rid of the dumb subvocalizing becasue I feel like something was preventing me from running? You're saying you don't do this so maybe you have some secret recipe that would boost/free my reading skills?
Octopus
<perception><reading>
Why can't we understand text without subvocalizating it?
Octopus
# Why can't we understand text without subvocalizating it?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-10-11)

I wonder why can't we understand text the same way we understand pictures?
Everything we see but text we understand without the inner voice, we don't subvocalize/describe a forest, a street or anything. We just understand it. 
Why can't reading work the same way? When I look at words I recognize them but they have no meaning until I read them in my mind.
Is there even anyone who got rid of subvocalization completely and can read a 300 page book just in one evening understanding pretty everything?
It even works the same the other way around. If I try to see a textural representation of some thing like let's say a table, I first have to say in my mind. Why is it so? It's really annoying.
text > voice (in my mind) > understanding

why not
text > understanding

I also don't get it why people consider this normal. It slows everything down. Imagine you could read a book in a single eventing if not the subvoc. We must do something terribly wrong when learning to read.
I'm not asking about speed-reading because subvoc is not only an issue there - although it is most noticable when reading - but it also interfers when thinking and forces you to say your thoughts.

**Tags:** perception, reading

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Do people always subvocalize? In fact, I heard that people who subvocalize texts read slower, and that faster readers do not subvocalize (or do it less often).  
> **username_0**: @RobinKramer indeed subvoc slows you down because I can read only as fast as I can _say_ the words in my mind and I can say them as fast as I can speak even if I only think I speak. I spoke to many people and even if they thought they wouldn't subvocalize they all confirmed that they were all speaking in their minds. Reading is not the only thing we subvocalize. Also when you think you do it too. If you are mad at something you don't just think you're mad and that's it, you say _bad words_ to yourself even if no one can hear you - the same when you think of something you talk to yourself ;-/  
> **username_0**: Exactly, only if we name it but we don't have to name it to recognize or to understand it. You can move through the city or a forest with any speed and you instantly know what you see, you don't have to say _oh, it's a tree I have to go around it_ but you cannot move as fast through text that has no meaning until converted into sound :-(  
> **username_2**: I knew a girl that claimed to read both front and facing pages in novels at the same time. If true I think this rules out the need for subvocalization towards understanding. For me though, I cannot use new terminology unless I first figure how to pronounce it.  
> **username_3**: Not _everyone_ subvocalises. Unless you redefine "subvocalize" to _mean_ understanding; it's entirely possible to read without "hearing" it and just get the meaning directly from the text. I don't think in words most of the time, so I don't read in words either. Reading while "voice acting" in my head; which I can chose to do; just slows me down and prevents me from understanding what I read.  
> **username_3**: So the premise of the question is false; it _is_ possible to understand text without subvocalising because some people do.  
> **username_3**: I tried to add this as an answer, but it was deleted because apparently it's anecdotal. But when the premise of the question is "X is always true", you need a LOT of evidence to prove this statement is true; but very few counter examples to prove it wrong.  
> **username_3**: Also, even if you don't believe my experience; anyone who is born deaf cannot possibly "hear" the words when they read; and sign languages use an entirely different grammar and word order so they cannot "see" the words as signs either because the's not a one to one relation between the languages. Or are you disputing that deaf people can read?  
> **username_0**: @SteinG.Strindhaug yeah, you're right. The title is stupid. My main thought was actually how do I get rid of the dumb subvocalizing becasue I feel like something was preventing me from running? You're saying you don't do this so maybe you have some secret recipe that would boost/free my reading skills?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-10-13. Score: 8

In japanese language, kanjis are more than phonemes but represent an idea. For instance, both tree and spirit have the same sound (ki) and can be written with the hiragana "letter" き. But when kanjis are used tree is 木 while spirit is 気.
Therefore, it is possible to read without subvocalizing. We can read as if it was graphics.
So, when using kanji is much more like text > undestanding.
But is hard to think doing it purely because we use many words that have no physical meaning such as "as", "such", "meaning" etc.


---

