I think that the level of vocabulary on TV varies widely depending on what program you’re watching. Saying it’s limited is misleading. I would agree that most programs utilize a basic vocabulary set. But, just like the internet, TV can be used in ways that promote or limit vocab. Condemning the TV for what people choose is a little silly in my opinion.
I think it’s more the speed of TV that makes it not as helpful as reading for gaining vocab. It’s very hard to notice words and constructions that I haven’t already got a good grasp of. I can pour over a single word or line in a book for as long as I like, and as many times as I like. TV is unlikely to give me that opportunity.
I don’t think I condemned TV, I just said that TV is good for building up basic vocabulary (get you started) but will not enable you to accumulate a “huge” vocabulary, the words used by Helen, because most TV programs, almost all, use a very limited range of vocabulary, just like newspapers.
I am not sure why stating this opinion is silly.
I also feel that reading gives you a better chance to grow your vocabulary for the reasons given my maths.
@maths Hmm, I can see your point there. I wouldn’t say TV isn’t limited; everything seems to have limits of one sort or another. For some, listening is the preferred input, while others prefer reading. I think this preference is more about what is optimal for the learner, not about the level of input.
@steve Perhaps condemned is too strong a word. I took your comment to be about the level of input provided by TV. I think that the level varies greatly and agree that most programs are lower level. I feel you’ve overgeneralized some, though. There are quality programs and whether someone chooses to watch those is up to the person watching. What they watch may or may not limit their level of input.
Yes I agree with Maths!
I’ve also noticed that when I watch TV or listen to the radio, I only pick up words I already know. Sometimes I can get some new words, but it’s very rare.
@steve Regarding the silly part, I think saying that most people watch low level programs and implying that TV is the limited thing, not the person, is silly in this case. The person is responsible for choosing, so they are the limiting factor, not the TV. In a general sense, of course the TV is limited because of the disparity in program ‘quality’, but as long as it is possible to choose high level programs then it’s the person’s self-imposed limit.
I am not talking about high level or low level programs, I am talking about vocabulary usage. Literature, technical books, academic articles etc. are more likely to use lower frequency words than TV programs. If the goal is to accumulate a “huge” vocabulary, the the spoken word, as on TV, is unlikely to be as effective a medium as the written word we encounter when reading. Obviously we choose what to watch or read.
You my not agree with my opinion, but is everyone you disagree with silly?
Of course not…but I am allowed to find some silly, no?
By low quality program I meant a program with a very high frequency of basic words, so I think we’re in agreement there. I wasn’t making a claim that TV is as effective as reading. I think it can be, but is less likely to be in general, but not necessarily on the individual level. My criticism was about calling it “quite limited.” I may have read more into what you said than was there, but based on what you’ve said since, I don’t think so. There are very detailed programs that use low-frequency words. Is that equivalent to a detailed book? No, but for some the TV is as effective or better in making the new vocab stick. I think there are too many factors in play to say it’s quite limited compared to other methods.
Sure, of course you are allowed to express yourself however you want. So then my question is what is it in my previous post that you find silly?
Note that I corrected my mistake in that paragraph.
I am not talking about high level or low level programs, I am talking about vocabulary usage. Literature, technical books, academic articles etc. are more likely to use lower frequency words than TV programs. If the goal is to accumulate a “huge” vocabulary, then the spoken word, as on TV, is unlikely to be as effective a medium as the written word we encounter when reading. Obviously we choose what to watch or read.
In my opinion a TV program with lots of rapid-fire conversations is good for your vocabulary even it the vocabulary is not precisely rich, it is a good help to make it stick. TV can teach you very different registers as well, to me both radio and tv are very good when it comes to vocabulary. Every kind of input is. So basically yes, I agree with skyblueteapot. What is it that’s blue by the way? The sky? Or the teapot? I might try those biscuits someday.
I think this exchange has become exceedingly silly. As silly as silly can be, in fact.