TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Julliet is the sun? Is there a difference between hearing language and reading it?

This question arose to me while reading a book about the brain and (shortly after) hearing James Geary's talk about metaphores.

Everything that I read seems to be a lot more distant and without emotion than the things that I hear. If someone talks to me using all kind of metaphores I can understand what he's trying to say. But when it's written down I can usually only see that it's not logical.

Geary sais that "Julliet is the sun" is a metaphore that better explains what Julliet was like than any describtion of her appearance.
To a dyslectic guy like me however reading that line doesn't make sense. Trying to visualize it somewhat gives me the idea of what he means though. After visualisation I can also combine that with emotional feelings. And then rework my way back to the text.
For instance I would guess that the next line of text (never read romeo & julliet) would have something in it like: And the rays of light that emitted from her smile warmed my heart.

But the above doesn't come natural to me. It's more like there are 4 seperate sequential stages that I need to go through before the emotional content of the written word reaches me.
1) looking at the words
1.5) "hearing the words"
2) visualizing the scene
3) combining emotions to objects
4) figuring out how to combine them all together

But I can stop at any of the stages. A speedreading book thought me to skip the "hearing the words" for faster reading (which works really well).

However when I hear stuff I don't actually have to visualize things to undestand the emotional content. This is not the case however when I read, only when other people talk to me.

In both cases I construct a logical framework around the story filled with why's. (I try to understand the motivation of the main character in the story)

Anyway I was wondering if a similar distinction between hearing / reading exists in your life


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 17 2012: The intent was not to be controlling. Sorry if I gave you that impression. However, if you hear the words "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" and think of anyone other than Clark Gable then you are better T this than I am.

    As I said before, when I am familiar with a quote,metaphor or any other referrence then it doesn't matter whether if language is spoken or written but if it is something unfamiliar then the difference can come into play.

    As for everyone else...people process information in their own way.
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2012: Frank,
      It's not a matter of being "better" than anyone. It is, as you say, and as I said in my first comment..."people process information in their own way". Absolutely!!!

      So, if you really believe what you say, why do you insist that when I hear the words you quote above, I should think of Clark Gable? You see, when you first wrote those words, I thought of Rhett Butler...the CHARACTER Clark Gable played in the story you refer to.

      For you to say that phrase "should automatically bring to mind only one thing and only one person", then you say "people process information in their own way", you are contradicting yourself, are you not? I was a professional actor...it was not Clark Gable speaking those words in the movie, in my mind, it was the character...Rhett Butler! The other person who came to mind is Scarlet (my dear).....the whole scene came to my mind. When you're thinking only one aspect of the written word, you limit yourself. When you say certain words "should automatically bring to mind only one thing and only one person", you are trying to limit me as well....seems kind of silly, don't you think?

      Maybe I am "better" at this than you are...LOL:>)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.