Not me
Then again I lost my hearing later in life. I personally find there is some advantage in to having learnt to subvocalise. When you come across some new word you give it a sound then you inner mind has something to throw back at you.
Another way to look at it... If you could just look at the words of a foreign language and understand what it means without subvocalising. You would be learning the language closer to the way a completely deaf person might learn the language. However your inner mind would still apply sounds to interpert it (you make up your own pronounciation). Yet to learn a foreign language the best place to start is hearing it. A deaf person has to use their visual memory to interpert the words. While their visual memory may not directly co-inside with what the author ment because it is difficult to create a visual memory for words like... like, and, if, or, there, however, consequently, etc, these words add/change the meaning of the picture.
Consider... the expression 'get outta here', when spoken as a joke, has a different meaning than when spoken, by say a figherfighter racing into a burning building... The words are the same yet with the inflection of the voice a different meaning is conveyed and we can tell by just hearing them. I've given 2 examples and there are many more for the same word group. Now consider, a deaf person, who has never heard sound, is unlikely to be able to pull from their memory what I just wrote about the firefighter. If they saw a movie or experienced it, they may succeed in understanding the message I've conveyed. If not then for them the reading experience would seem to be slower. Deaf people who can hear to some degree are also taught to read the same manner as everyone else so they too wind up subvocalising.
Maybe being deaf and learning to photoread has an advantage... we get used to the silence so it might not bother us so much if we don't subvocalise.
Alex
