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

[Random Review]

This is a really great discussion. I'll be thinking this through for weeks, maybe longer.

[Cavesa]

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.

I am not sure we see the problem the same way. The sentence is not an awesome one, but I can't see what is so wrong about it. The real problem is not moving on from such a sentence. This sentence learnt in unit one together with other sentences is ok. Such a unit one is great, if it is followed by the other units getting to more grammar, more vocabulary, and enough material for everyone to choose what they like.

I think that is the problem. Many teachers get stuck at one unit forever and bore the students to no end. Of course the students are unhappy about lack of progress. "The book is red" is an ok sentence for a few minutes total. It sucks for five weeks.

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.

When I was a kid, I always hated this. It is not about age.

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.

Nope, it is not zero actually. I had to answer that, when I asked my boyfriend to hand me one of my books on the table. It could have been the equivalent of "The brown one" instead of "the book is brown", but that is very similar. And would make sense being learnt together by a beginner.

[tarvos]

The brown one is a totally different sentence. It disambiguates in certain contexts. The book is red doesn't really do that.

[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 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.

I may know a bit more about this, no offence meant. Simple descriptions are a normal part of education in science. And I think these sentences could still be found outside of the classrooms, for example on any clinical examination record. And it is not just this one specialised area.

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.

My apologies, I may have read a bit too much in your arguments.

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.

But that is different grammar!
"The book is red" is a sentence on the definite article, present tense, a simple descriptive sentence, the verb to be
"There is a red book on the top shelf" is more complicated. A good sentence to follow the previous one, but not one to start with (there is an indefinite article and it is in present tense, ok. But on top of that, there is a preposition, more words, and the construction "there is" which is not that easy for people not having this in their native language).

I am not against using more complicated sentences, quite the opposite. I just think starting from the simple ones is better.

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".

And I cannot see how we got to a loooong argument about one sentence from the original and better one, which was about various ways a language learning process is started?

I have read it, have you read what I have written?

Really, it is not about that one sentence (even though simple descriptive sentences like that are normal, I don't see what is so weird about such a construction). I don't get why is everyone so passionate about it.

[Cavesa]

The brown one is a totally different sentence. It disambiguates in certain contexts. The book is red doesn't really do that.

Perhaps, but it teaches the elements used in the second sentence. That is all I was saying.

[tarvos]

The question we raised wasn't whether it taught it. It's whether it teaches it well.

[aaleks]

For me as an English-learner having no articles in her native tongue the sentence "The book is red" is a bad sentence/teaching example. If it's "This is a book. The book is red" it's okay but just "The book is red" is doing me a huge disservice because it inadvertently teaches me that the article is not important. The article in this sentence standing alone looks more like an accessory to me rather than a meaningful part of the sentence.

[Cavesa]

I was speaking more about the principle than this one sentence. A lot of examples would fit this purpose. But I still don't know what is so wrong about a sentence making people practice the words red and book. It is not as if this one sentence was somehow pushing other sentences out of the class or brain. I just don't find it that shocking or horrible. (and truth be told less boring than The weather is nice, but that is subjective. Every learner will prefer some sentences to others, that's normal)

[reineke]

..."language the sentences The book is red. Le livre est rouge. are congruent, but neither of them is congruent to Kniga krasnaya..."

"If with Chomsky we can distinguish between surface structures ('the book on the table is red') and deep structures ('the book is red,' 'the book is on the..."

"El libro es rojo, the book is red Somos españoles, we are Spaniards La silla es pequeña, the chair is small"...

"The book is red. It's red. Q: Is the book blue? A: No, it isn't (it's not). Q: What color is the book? A: It's red. Q: Where's the book? A (from close): Here it is. Q: Where's the book? A (farther away): There it is. (close) This book is here, but Mary's book..."

"Let us take, then, the simple statement, "the book is red." In order for this statement to be true, it must be the case that the book is red. But how can one know that the book is red without experiencing the redness of the book?"

Mehehe

[Random Review]

For me as an English-learner having no articles in her native tongue the sentence "The book is red" is a bad sentence/teaching example. If it's "This is a book. The book is red" it's okay but just "The book is red" is doing me a huge disservice because it inadvertently teaches me that the article is not important. The article in this sentence standing alone looks more like an accessory to me rather than a meaningful part of the sentence.

Totally agree. It needs a context at the very least.