Languages with innate differences in reading speeds

[Syd A]

Does anyone know of legitimate research that suggests that languages have innate, differential reading speeds? For example, that language X is read faster than language Y by native speakers of these languages, and that these differences are the result of the language rather than its readers?

[m2vihand]

I don't know about anything like that, but I am reading English literature to get better at English because I speak my native language better, so this is a more profitable entertainment. My pace depends heavily on translation (if the author is not English) and on the author itself, but it is always slower than my mother language. For example, I found that Gorky is quite hard to read, but Chekhov is not difficoult.

I'd also compete with a challenger. Let's say with somebody who has not read Hamlet yet (i don't want to spend my life reading a large book like Miserables), in order not to have advantage. We could measure the time spent with reading it. I guess it would not give a very clear result, because the result would depend rather on the readers than on the language.

[kiki1982]

I don't know, I think it largely depends on the author or translator.

I am pretty much bilingual myself and some Dutch books (mother tongue) are slow. Slower than Austen (pretty much mother tongue).

I don't know why that is. Maybe because the language or plot is more intricate?

I don't think it can have anything to do with languages being different. Probably languages get processed in the brain, whether the one or the other, just maybe slightly differently.

[Leo Bloom]

German und Russian words are longer than English ones, but Germans (and Italians, of course) speak fluently than both Russian and English speaker. But that what is right for speech, doesn't make it right for books.

Every book (and every author) has its own tempo. For example, I find Joseph Conrad very "slow", and Paul Auster "fast". In German - Tomas Mann "slow", and Patrick Süskind "fast" (except "Das Parfum"). In Russian - Dostoyevsky is "slow", and Chechov - "fast". It depends on many objective factors like content, syntax, сomplaxity of semantic, "picturesqueness", and also subjective ones.

[Syd A]

It depends on many objective factors like content, syntax, сomplaxity of semantic, "picturesqueness", and also subjective ones.

Of course it does, but my question was: All other things be being equal - same author, same type of text, same reader IQ, education, fluency, reading habits, etc. - are there languages that are inherently "faster" than others? The answer to this question, if it exists, is independent of authors, texts, and readers; it depends on the language itself.

Controlling for all the above variables can be very difficult, which is why I asked whether anyone is familiar with research on the subject. Anyway, this question belongs in a linguistics rather than in a literature forum, so I probably shouldn't have posted it here.

[Leo Bloom]

Anyway, this question belongs in a linguistics rather than in a literature forum, so I probably shouldn't have posted it here.

I'm sure linguists will ask you what do you mean when you say "faster".

[m2vihand]

Probably reading the same long novel in less time. When we speak about short stories, then it might be deceiving.

I think English is not a hard language, much easier than mine. There are drawbacks and advantages of both. But i think there is not significant difference among languages regarding your new question.

[Syd A]

I'm sure linguists will ask you what do you mean when you say "faster".

Perhaps, but I think I made it quite clear.

As an example, from my very limited understanding of Latin, it appears that a standard ten-word sentence in English can be translated into a five-word Latin sentence. This would suggest that, all other things being equal, Latin should be roughly twice as fast as English.

On the other hand, this economy in words has a price: declensions and conjugations, which are likely to slow the reader down. On the yet-another hand, theoretical native speakers of Latin would probably have such command of declensions and conjugations that this slowing down would be minimal.

So, my guess (and I have no evidence whatsoever) is that Latin is a faster language than English.

[Bill 42]

This is an interesting topic - what languages are user-friendly?

The BBC published a story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11181457) about the differences between Hebrew, English and Arabic, as conducted by Israeli researchers. They found that Arabic was difficult because the letters are very similar and difficult to differentiate at a quick glance.

Unfortunately, there's so much strife in the region that research by one group about another group must be taken with a measure of skepticism.

[Arrowni]

The fastest language would be also the less explicit language. You can play some other random factors like enounciation or semantics to actually gauge real language, but when you get to semantics you're actually pretty screwed by trying to use any objective/scientific tool.

[Leo Bloom]

Perhaps, but I think I made it quite clear.

As an example, from my very limited understanding of Latin, it appears that a standard ten-word sentence in English can be translated into a five-word Latin sentence. This would suggest that, all other things being equal, Latin should be roughly twice as fast as English.

On the other hand, this economy in words has a price: declensions and conjugations, which are likely to slow the reader down. On the yet-another hand, theoretical native speakers of Latin would probably have such command of declensions and conjugations that this slowing down would be minimal.

So, my guess (and I have no evidence whatsoever) is that Latin is a faster language than English.

And if we further reduce the term "language" to "writing system", we will have to admit, that semitic languages, which haven't vocals in their writing systems, are faster than Latin. I'm not sure that such reduction is legitimate. Maybe it would be better to speak about "economy of grammatical / writing system". I think, that "language" is something more extensive than that.

[Syd A]

This is an interesting topic - what languages are user-friendly?

The BBC published a story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11181457) about the differences between Hebrew, English and Arabic, as conducted by Israeli researchers. They found that Arabic was difficult because the letters are very similar and difficult to differentiate at a quick glance.



Arabic is fairly difficult to read due to at least two factors:

(a) Both hand-written and printed Arabic are almost completely recursive, so that most words form a contiguous sequence of letters. It makes sense that letters that are attached to one another are more difficult to decipher than those that are separated by white space.

(b) In Arabic, many letters are distinguished by a mere dot or two. If you fail to dot the i's properly, so to speak, you form a completely different letter. Your brain must therefore count dots carefully.


Unfortunately, thould ere's so much strife in the region that research by one group about another group must be taken with a measure of skepticism.

Nah, I'd give the Israeli researchers more credit than that. Besides, these findings are not critical of Arabs or of their language, and the paper was peer-reviewed by scientists who were probably not Israeli.


we will have to admit, that semitic languages, which haven't vocals in their writing systems, are faster than Latin

I assume you mean the extinct ones. My post only refers to modern languages. Ancient, extinct languages would probably be simpler in many ways because they'd have a limited vocabulary relative to modern ones. Latin? I count is as a living language, if only for its importance, its influence on modern languages, and my unabashed Euro-centrism.

[Leo Bloom]

I assume you mean the extinct ones. My post only refers to modern languages.

No. I assume modern Hebrew, for example. There aren't vocals in it. Newspapers in Israel haven't vocals, and words are 2x shorter than English ones.

[Syd A]

No. I assume modern Hebrew, for example. There aren't vocals in it.

I give up - what's a vocal? At first I thought you meant vowels, but now I realize you didn't.

[Leo Bloom]

I give up - what's a vocal? At first I thought you meant vowels, but now I realize you didn't.

Oh, sorry, "Vokal" means "vowel" in German. There's a babel of tongues in my head. :)

In modern Hebrew they use consonants and seldom vowels. For example:

דג (DaG - "fish")
מחברת (MaHBeReT - "notebook")
מכתב (MiHTaV - "letter")
שמעת משהו מיוסף (ShaMATa MaSheHU MiJoSeF - "Did you hear something from Joseph?")

Does it make Hebrew "faster"?

[Syd A]

Does it make Hebrew "faster"?

Well, we've actually completed a circle here: I'm fluent in two languages - Hebrew and English. I posted the original question because I felt that I was reading faster in Hebrew than in English, and I was wondering whether it had anything to do with the languages themselves or perhaps it was the result of some other factors.

Now, Hebrew does have two vowels - Vav (ו), the equivalent of o in dog, and Yod (י), the equivalent of i in big. As you mentioned, these vowels are used far less frequently than in English. As a result, as you also mentioned, Hebrew words are shorter. On the other hand, the paucity of vowels may make the words harder to read, and Hebrew is also less synthetic than English.

So, which is faster - English or Hebrew? I don't know. I posted the question on a linguistics forum, and they have no clue either.

[David Lurie]

Does anyone know of legitimate research that suggests that languages have innate, differential reading speeds?

I ignore the existence of such a research - be it legitimate or not - but my guess is that syllable-timed languages should be slower - and I can't see a difference between reading and talking, every language has his own rhythm - than stress-timed languages.

[Calidore]

I'd be curious about how the ideogram languages--Japanese, Chinese, Korean--compare with those that use letters. I'd think those might be faster, because you're packing entire concepts into memorized symbols.

[m2vihand]

I'd be curious about how the ideogram languages--Japanese, Chinese, Korean--compare with those that use letters. I'd think those might be faster, because you're packing entire concepts into memorized symbols.

You don't read letter by letter but word by word. Your symbols are larger, that's all.:D

[Syd A]

I'd be curious about how the ideogram languages--Japanese, Chinese, Korean--compare with those that use letters. I'd think those might be faster, because you're packing entire concepts into memorized symbols.

Again, the packing thing would make the language faster, but the need to memorize a gazillion complicated symbols would slow you down. Which would have the greater effect? It's not clear. Korean, BTW, uses letters just like English.

[JBI]

Oh, sorry, "Vokal" means "vowel" in German. There's a babel of tongues in my head. :)

In modern Hebrew they use consonants and seldom vowels. For example:

דג (DaG - "fish")
מחברת (MaHBeReT - "notebook")
מכתב (MiHTaV - "letter")
שמעת משהו מיוסף (ShaMATa MaSheHU MiJoSeF - "Did you hear something from Joseph?")

Does it make Hebrew "faster"?
The vowels are imagined in the words anyway, the same way stress and actual sound is imagined by readers of English.

Now, if you want a fast speed, try languages whose words have no relation to sound, like Chinese. 1-2 Characters = most words (the trend now for most verbs and adjectives to be 2 characters in standard Chinese) and you have a whole other game, not to mention the language is compressed so texts tend to be shorter. Does it make a real difference? I don't know, my Chinese classmates tend to read quickly, but I think that is just a schoolroom habit, their retention is often lacking, and comprehension is inconsistent.

[JBI]

Well, we've actually completed a circle here: I'm fluent in two languages - Hebrew and English. I posted the original question because I felt that I was reading faster in Hebrew than in English, and I was wondering whether it had anything to do with the languages themselves or perhaps it was the result of some other factors.

Now, Hebrew does have two vowels - Vav (ו), the equivalent of o in dog, and Yod (י), the equivalent of i in big. As you mentioned, these vowels are used far less frequently than in English. As a result, as you also mentioned, Hebrew words are shorter. On the other hand, the paucity of vowels may make the words harder to read, and Hebrew is also less synthetic than English.

So, which is faster - English or Hebrew? I don't know. I posted the question on a linguistics forum, and they have no clue either.

vuv and yod are not vowels, they just function as vowels when an unwritten vowel is added. Yod, as you say, can be yi as in big. but can be a few other things such as ye as in yes in the name yehoshu'a, Joshua, or ee as in beak, such as in the world eem. the big 'i' I have a hard time finding in my accents (Canadian English, Standard Modern Hebrew), though there is ay as in "gate" and a few others. The I in Big seems more Yiddish.

[Heteronym]

I read in English and Portuguese and I don't notice a difference in reading speed. My speed is only influenced by my interest in a book. In either language I'll read an interesting book very quickly. But reading a boring book, in whatever language, is like trudging through thick mud.