We haven't got up to 'yes" yet!

[Cainntear]

If we can't even agree on that then our notions of meaning lie lightyears apart, and the twain shall never meet.

Right, then tell me this: what does the definite article mean?

[Cavesa]

I wasn't not giving the same examples as you, it was not generic knowledge, it was a description. This particular cell is pink and this particular book is red. Nothing unrealistic. It is not memorisation of a universal fact, it is description of something you see right before your eyes. Or of something a person you are talking to is supposed to imagine and recognize. Stuff gets described all the time.

If someone is confused by "The book is red", their main problem is not language learning, I agree with Iversen here. I have been starting from such examples twice, compared to twice starting the other way. And it was definitely better. I simply don't know what is confusing about who would say that sentence to whom. It is normal description, nothing complicated.

Speaking of things that don't occur in the real word: a pupil that cries his/her bloody heart out because of the sentence "The box is red". The grammar is simple, the words are common and the world is full of red boxes. And even the must obtuse pupil should be able to understand that you have to start your language learning somewhere. Strictly speaking you don't even need a red box in the class room to use that sentence in your teaching - although it might help some types of pupils, namely the poor guys that don't have a shred of imagination.

I was actually more bothered with teachers who expected me to have mockup conversations with fellow pupils.

I totally agree here. How comes a particular book that would be red is such a hard thing to imagine, if imagining we are asking for fictional directions is not?

"The book is red" is an absolutely ok example sentence, supposed to be used as Iversen and Rdearman describe:

Personally I would find this an acceptable method of both learning sentence construction as well as vocabulary. It would allow me to independently begin to plug&play vocabulary to make my own sentences.

It is a way to get some basic grammar and vocab into the brain and allow the person to make their own sentences really fast just with substitution of the individual words. That is the purpose. People fail at using independently those parroted unexplained phrases from the communicative method at first no matter how touristy and realistic the sentences may be. Starting from the easier stuff makes sense.

And of course there are limits. Sample sentences should not contain antiquated and/or very rare words or complicated constructions which even advanced learners may never meet, and there is no reason to teach the poor kids sentences which are blatantly meaningless - but the sentence with the box definitely has a meaning even though you may not need to utter it. If we can't even agree on that then our notions of meaning lie lightyears apart, and the twain shall never meet.

PS: I already like rdearman's book - it does exactly what I asked for: it gives some simple sentences with a clear meaning (!) and provides small variations on a pattern so that at least some of the pupils can discover that there is some kind of logic behind the madness.

Exactly. Words like box or book are not antiquated yet. A person who doesn't consider the word "book" to be important really should think about themselves. And what are people gonna talk about, if they don't just learn some nouns and adjectives.

I like books like the one rdearman described too. I could name several excellent examples. My very first French textbook was like that. We were kids and we were all doing fine. I started as an autodidact with such a book, having a teacher for like the first hour or perhaps less and then going on my own. It was all very clear. Later, I saw lots of beginners with the "useful phrases" based textbooks who were failing. I know Italian, German, or Spanish books using the more logical approach. The Italian one was really a blessing. Ages ago, an English grammarbook finally explaining those basics first saved me. Again, I am not against the conversational approach per se, I just don't think the dislike towards the more logical approach to learning grammar is a good thing in today's language teaching industry.

Let me put this in a way that Cainntear's argument makes total sense:

Teaching isn't about what is grammatical or not. Grammar is a framework we use to understand real speech, a machine that gets tinkered with every time someone says something that doesn't quite fit our conception of reality.

The book is red may be a sentence that the machine can parse, but it's not a sentence you can put into the machine and get a useful result out of. I just don't care whether the book is red or not because its being red is way too insignificant and any significance it may have is usually drowned out by the context. It's important to teach grammar, Cavesa, but do it in a context that is actually important. Examples that are void and null in reality are nothing but philosophical ponderings, and we're not studying philosophy, we're studying English (French, Basque, Twi).

Now the phrase "You need the red book" makes more sense, because then there's a choice (you don't need the yellow one, it hasn't got the information you want). Or teach "This chair is small" (an adult can't sit on it). Fall off, make a joke, and now it's clear what is going on.

I agree neither of those extremes is good. But as I said, the problem here is lack of progress. It is perfect to start with simple grammatically clear and explained sentences like "The book is red." The problem is sticking to those for months, without progressing to the more interesting stuff. Starting with what is grammatical is much better than starting with memorisation of sentences.

What is unimportant about a normal descriptive sentence? I see nothing void about that. "You need the red book" is a perfect sentence, sure. But several lessons after "The book is red". People trying to teach too much grammar at once usually just make people parrot stuff they don't logically understand and are unable to use on their own in their own sentences and situations. I've seen it happen many times.

And why do you need to fall of a chair to make it clear? Really, are we talking about problems of the language learners in general or the learners with a serious neurological condition? Don't get me wrong, people with such a challenge can and often need to learn languages (and I would actually love to know more about that, it just got on my list of subjects to read on as soon as my studies allow it), but let's not assume all the learners need the same approach. Most learners are perfectly able to start from simple grammar + simple words and then understand new stuff based on that. An explanation is necessary. Treating the learner as much dumber than we are is not.

I think the whole "problem" lies elsewhere: the sentences like "The book is red" don't look entertaining enough for the spoilt mainstream learner of the 21st century. It is a circle consisting of publishers and teachers convincing the students that the "real communicative situations" (which are actually not that real, and often even less real than "The book is red") and colouful cheesy photos illustrating them are The Way to learn a language. And the students expect that and complain, if they get something else, not knowing they are actually not getting anything worse.

Any good student, book, and teacher can get through "The book is red" to more complex constructions in a few units. They'll get to the "basic conversation" full of conditionals, irregular verbs, and so on too. The primitive sentence for start is not an obstacle, it is a tool.

They can get to the same point through the other path too, but I think it is rather rare. It basically means starting twice. The students get their "Hello, I am an exchange student" dialogue almost lost between the photos on the page, memorise it, and hopefully don't get discouraged by not understanding the logic (some do, it is a common complaint especially among the more scientifically and technically oriented people). Than their teacher distributes the copies from grammar books and the real learning starts. From similar sentences like "The book is red", just later or too late.

[tarvos]

I have actually, never, in real life, gone up to a book and said "The book is red." This is the problem.

My problem with rdearman's ink is that I don't use ink for dipping anymore. I was taught to do it, back in the nineties, but modern technology has rendered that obsolete too.

I need to know how to say blogger, because I talk *about* blogs, so I'd pick the example of "the blog is good" or "the internet is useful" because it directly resonates. This is a sentence that functions as a clear example AND you can apply it directly to conversation. Why would you pick a sentence like "the book is red", which isn't wrong, when you can *also* use something more useful?

The problem isn't that you can't learn from it, Cavesa. The problem is that it's simply not the most efficient, clever way of doing things.

Treating the learner as much dumber than we are is not.

I teach kids, where that has dramatic effect. Wouldn't do it in the adult classroom.

What is unimportant about a normal descriptive sentence?

Nothing, just use a descriptive sentence YOU WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOUNTER. Because it's practical. Ask yourself how often you've said "the book is x colour" in the last ten days, and if the answer is zero, you've proved my point for me.

[Cainntear]

I wasn't not giving the same examples as you, it was not generic knowledge, it was a description. This particular cell is pink and this particular book is red. Nothing unrealistic. It is not memorisation of a universal fact, it is description of something you see right before your eyes. Or of something a person you are talking to is supposed to imagine and recognize. Stuff gets described all the time.

If that is how English speaking doctors speak in a circumstance that I have never observed -- fine. But that still makes it specialised language, and not basic.

If someone is confused by "The book is red", their main problem is not language learning, I agree with Iversen here. I have been starting from such examples twice, compared to twice starting the other way.

The other way? The other way? If you can't understand that there are more than two ways, and that I'm not supporting phrase-based learning, then.....

I totally agree here. How comes a particular book that would be red is such a hard thing to imagine, if imagining we are asking for fictional directions is not?

Again, this presupposes that I'm arguing in favour of something that I am not arguing for. I didn't say stupid, mindless conversations about where the bloody train station is are any use. I hate them too. But we can start with simple sentences that do no break the rules of language.

Now "How comes a particular book that would be red is such a hard thing to imagine" notice that you have an indefinite article here -- the problem is the definite article. I can imagine a red book. "There's a red book on the top shelf" -- I can picture that.

What is unimportant about a normal descriptive sentence? I see nothing void about that. "You need the red book" is a perfect sentence, sure. But several lessons after "The book is red". People trying to teach too much grammar at once usually just make people parrot stuff they don't logically understand and are unable to use on their own in their own sentences and situations. I've seen it happen many times.

What is this? It's a book.
...moving on to...
What colour is the book? It's red.
...moving on to...
What is this? It's a red book.
...moving on to...
Which book do you want? The red one.
...moving on to...
I'll give you the red book if you give me the green one.
etc etc etc

You can create a whole path from simple to complicated that does not ever include the meaningless sentence "the book is red". You keep arguing against things that I haven't said.

And why do you need to fall of a chair to make it clear? Really, are we talking about problems of the language learners in general or the learners with a serious neurological condition? Don't get me wrong, people with such a challenge can and often need to learn languages (and I would actually love to know more about that, it just got on my list of subjects to read on as soon as my studies allow it), but let's not assume all the learners need the same approach. Most learners are perfectly able to start from simple grammar + simple words and then understand new stuff based on that. An explanation is necessary. Treating the learner as much dumber than we are is not.

YES!!! TEACH SIMPLE GRAMMAR!!!! I NEVER SAID NOT TO!!!!! SO WHYYYYYYY DO YOU KEEP CLAIMING I SAID ANYTHING I DIDN'T????

"The book is red" is not simple grammar. It is constructed from simple grammar, but the overall effect is broken.

I think the whole "problem" lies elsewhere: the sentences like "The book is red" don't look entertaining enough for the spoilt mainstream learner of the 21st century. It is a circle consisting of publishers and teachers convincing the students that the "real communicative situations" (which are actually not that real, and often even less real than "The book is red") and colouful cheesy photos illustrating them are The Way to learn a language. And the students expect that and complain, if they get something else, not knowing they are actually not getting anything worse.

If you have ever read anything I've ever written here, you should know that I hate that sort of shit too, and I am not arguing for that at all.

The problem with every single movement in language teaching is it oversimplifies, and the communicative movement in language teaching is a perfect example, because it takes an extremely superficial view of what it means to "communicate". I have always argued that "I want it, but I don't have it" is more communicative than "Here is my passport".

When I talk about communicative function, I'm not talking about a superficial scenario -- I'm talking about fundamentals.

"The vikings are coming!!!" -- communicative function: warning.
"My foot is stuck!" -- communicative function: request for help.
"The heart is the largest muscle in the human body." -- communicative function: presenting a general rule.

etc. etc.

I see no realistic communicative function for the utterance "the book is red".

[Cainntear]

I support the use of focused isolated language practice, including translation. One of the reasons I believe it is successful is that we do not need elaborately set up scenarios to understand communicative functions of language -- they're one of the few things that are universal in language. There is no language where you cannot warn, where you cannot teach facts, where you cannot request help. And no, learners are not stupid -- quite the opposite. Learners are good at recognising communicative function... if it's clear.

That's all I'm saying -- pick your examples with as clear as possible a function, with as clean a mapping as possible to the real world they already operate in successfully. When MT asked me to translate something like "I can't have it for you today because I'm too busy", the communicative function was clear. The range of possible contexts was vast, but clear. It resonated with me deeply. It was language.

[Iversen]

If we can't even agree on that then our notions of meaning lie lightyears apart, and the twain shall never meet.

Right, then tell me this: what does the definite article mean?

the problem is the definite article. I can imagine a red book.

At least this clarifies what Cainntear has against the red book sentence - it's the "the". But I still don't see why imagining a red book which I already have seen or heard about should be harder that imagining the Platonian abstract of a red book hanging somewhere in the linguistic multiverse. I'm not going to spend my evening on defining what definiteness is (that would involve some references to the Copenhagener interpretation of quantum mechanics), but for students who have definite articles in their native language it shouldn't be too hard to grasp when they are faced with something similar in English. Don't define, just tell the pupils that they have something similar at home.

Actually there may be some minor variations between different language as to where and how the definiteness markers are used. For instance you use the definite article in Bulgarian more often than you would use it in Danish, and you would attach a postclitic marker to an adjective if there is one before the substantive in Romanian and Bulgarian, but not in Danish. However such differences can be explained later, they don't affect the comprehension of a simple and meaningful and potentially useable sentence like "the book is red"..

The real test is how a Russian pupil should be taught about that problem to some qualified bilingual teachers who can test in practice what works and what doesn't. And here I may offer a limited concession to Cainntear, namely that "The book is red" probably shouldn't be the first item in a textbook in English for Russian learners - it should be postponed to lesson two or three, and there you have to illustrate definiteness with a slew of concrete examples - with or without the use of gimmicks in the classroom, but definitely with examples where you illustrate the consequences of using "a" versus "the".

Polish and Czech and Slovak and Ukrainean learners may need the same treatment, whereas Bulgarians and Albanians and Romanians and speakers of Romance and Germanic already have a basic idea about definiteness from their mother language. And how did they learn to deal with the notion as children? Well, heaven knows (and maybe some mothers and fathers) - I don't, and I don't remember what it took me to get the point. But babies don't read text books, so that's another discussion.

[Cainntear]

If we can't even agree on that then our notions of meaning lie lightyears apart, and the twain shall never meet.

Right, then tell me this: what does the definite article mean?

the problem is the definite article. I can imagine a red book.

At least this clarifies what Cainntear has against the red book sentence - it's the "the". But I still don't see why imagining a red book which I already have seen or heard about should be harder that imagining the Platonian abstract of a red book hanging somewhere in the linguistic multiverse. I'm not going to spend my evening on defining what definiteness is (that would involve some references to the Copenhagener interpretation of quantum mechanics), but for students who have definite articles in their native language it shouldn't be too hard to grasp when they are faced with something similar in English. Don't define, just tell the pupils that they have something similar at home.

I never advocated defining the terms. I quite agree -- use the fact that your students already know the whole abstract concept of "definite article" and then learning is just mapping new to old.

But you've already indicated you aren't consciously aware of what the definite article really means, and a lot of people aren't, because the convoluted textual descriptions of it never discuss what it really means. Notice:

" I still don't see why imagining a red book which I already have seen or heard about should be harder "
A book YOU have already seen or heard about, is not "the" book -- "the" book is one we've both heard about.

The definite article is about shared reference. How can one party unilaterally imagine a shared reference?

And this is the heart of what language is: we communicate back and forth with the sole aim of establishing a shared internal model of the world. The definite article is used to indicate that something is already in our shared model of reference -- if it is not, what does that communicate?

The real test is how a Russian pupil should be taught about that problem to some qualified bilingual teachers who can test in practice what works and what doesn't. And here I may offer a limited concession to Cainntear, namely that "The book is red" probably shouldn't be the first item in a textbook in English for Russian learners - it should be postponed to lesson two or three,

No. It is not good English, there's no need to use it, so it should be avoided. You should use examples that are good English.

and there you have to illustrate definiteness with a slew of concrete examples - with or without the use of gimmicks in the classroom, but definitely with examples where you illustrate the consequences of using "a" versus "the".

You cannot simply replace "a" with "the" and expect to have two good sentences. The differences in function of definite and indefinite mean that the sentence structure is likely to change significantly too.

Polish and Czech and Slovak and Ukrainean learners may need the same treatment, whereas Bulgarians and Albanians and Romanians and speakers of Romance and Germanic already have a basic idea about definiteness from their mother language. And how did they learn to deal with the notion as children?

Well that would be linked to certain core developmental notions -- there are stages kids go through where they learn that not everyone knows everything they know, that people learn things they don't know etc.

[Iversen]

I wouldn't call a sentence nonsensical unless it simply couldn''t have a reference - but some sentences are less liable to be used in practice than others - like the one about the writing taxi drivers (unless they aspired to become famous authors, in which case it would be perfectly logically to spend the waiting time on writing novels). And my tailor could be rich if I had one. Maybe people had tailors when the textbook was written. And if somebody bit me it would definitely hurt. What's wrong with that sentence - except that it is highly hypothetical since I wouldn't allow anyone to bite me?

And of course some sentences are grammatically incorrect (according to the prevaling standards), including one of the simple good sentences - unless it also just is a spelling error like the other one in that section. But a sentence with an error could actually be used, which we just have seen.

Wouldn't just be simpler to say that some sentences are unlikely ever to be used, but otherwise perfectly OK?

[Cainntear]

Wouldn't just be simpler to say that some sentences are unlikely ever to be used, but otherwise perfectly OK?

Even if so, "the book is red" isn't one of them. Taking together grammar, idiom and pragmatics, it means nothing in English.

[Cainntear]

Btw, one of the simple good sentences contains a spelling error and at least one is grammatically incorrect.

Which one?

en excellent teacher.