On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Bob/Ka Yates wrote:
 
> Johanna suggests that there are two ways to understand how language to
> understand grammar as "handmaiden of thought."
>
> > There are two ways that I can see grammar as the handmaiden of thought:
> >
> > (1) This one is linguistically inspired. The purpose of grammar in
> > language is to allow us to present our thoughts in an organized manner, so
> > that a listener or reader can build, in their own mind, thoughts similar
> > to the ones that inspired our message in the first place.
>
> This statement is based on a particular orientation to grammar which is
> not accepted by all linguists.  There are many aspects of grammar that
> do appear arbitrary and seem difficult to claim such principles "present
> out thoughts in an organized manner."
>
> Some trivial examples.
> I think that no native speaker says (1) but can say two.
>         1) *I have too many homeworks tonight.
>         2) I have too many assignments tonight.
> I see nothing "unorganized" in (1).
> Another example.
>         3) *Bill cans kiss Monica.
>         4) Bill can kiss Monica.
> What is "unorganized about (3) other than modal verbs don't take the
> agreement (s)?
 
Bob Yates has correctly pointed out that grammatical rules are
conventional -- that is, English has evolved such that (up to today,
anyway) 'homework' is a mass noun and modal verbs are exceptions to the
usual agreement rules. I was referring to the organizing task of grammar
in a much broader sense that I think no linguist would disagree with.
 
Grammar (in the broadest sense of the word: the conventions within a
language for the arrangement of physical signals such as sounds,
morphemes, words, and phrases, etc. into messages) enables communication
by providing patterns for stringing linguistic elements together. Our
lexicon provides a long list of words and morphemes that symbolize
particular meanings (I won't say concepts, because that is a point that
some linguists would disagree with). Without a conventional set of rules
for putting those together, we would not be able to make important minimal
differentiations such as between 'blue sky' and 'sky blue' or 'Susan
called Carlos' vs. 'Carlos called Susan'. At higher levels of complexity,
grammatical rules are doing the same job: Agreement differences between
'Visiting relatives is boring' and 'Visiting relatives are boring' sort
out what the modifier 'boring' is being predicated of; similarly with
sentences that avoid dangling a long clausal or phrasal modifier such as
'Having paid my parking fine, I was dismissed by the judge' rather than
'Having paid my parking fine, the judge dismissed me'.
 
In the latter examples, rules of grammar guide the listener's or reader's
interpretation of the sentence such that the meaning given by the modifier
is attached to the correct item; for those of us who believe in concepts
as meanings, it means that the conceptual content of the modifier is
directed to merge as with the concept symbolized by the expression intended
by the speaker to be the head.
 
This seems to me to be the most basic function of grammar, and I
can't really see how anyone could disagree.
 
It may seem trivial to point out this function of grammar, just because
it's so basic. But I think framing the study of grammar in this way
emphasizes for students that the grammatical choices they make (and they
_are_ choices, whether conscious or not) determine the effectiveness of
the messages they send. Grammar is like social rules for putting outfits
of clothing together. If you combine a bikini top (no blouse) with a wool
skirt, hose and high heels, and then appear at a business meeting, what
message will you convey? Will it be the message you intend?
 
Although many aspects of grammar are arbitrary, the arbitrariness of
grammar has been overstated. This has been discussed in depth in all the
work on iconicity in language that has been published in the linguistics
community over the past couple of decades. Across languages of the world,
for example, modifiers tend to appear close to their heads; clauses in a
narrative tend to be ordered to match the actual sequence of events in
time, etc.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~