While I accept that adverbs in English language enjoy some degree of contextual mobility or flexibility, I do not think they should me moved at will. Occasionally, a moved adverb can alter the semantic import of a statement... (1)I ONLY ATE RICE AT THE PARTY...(2)ONLY I ATE RICE AT THE PARTY...(3)I ATE ONLY RICE AT THE PARTY...In my opinion, the three sentences have different interpretations. Sentence 1) modifies the action ATE...meaning I didn't do any other thing at the party( I didn't dance, didn't drink etc) . Sentence (2) emphasises on the subject...no other person ate rice at the party( only I did). Sentence 3) reflects on the object...I didn't eat rice and shrimps or rice and plantain... I ate only rice.
Now to the question, I think sentence 3, except if it's an excerpt from a novel where stories are told in the simple present tense (present simple, if you like) is a little odd. I'd suggest VERY SLOWLY, SHE TOOK THE DICTATION. In general, I think sentences 3 and 4, with the adverbials moved to the front and separated by commas, place emphasis on the manner in which the Taking and the reaching were done while sentences 1 and 2 are barely informing without emphasis. Just my opinion though, no citations available. Thanks.