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