Johanna Rubba wrote:
 
> I have to admit I'm a little worried about this 'Handmaiden of Thought'
> business. It evokes the old myths that used to surround the teaching of
> Latin -- that learning Latin would improve logical thought, lead to
> clearer self-expression, etc.
 
This is correct, so we have to be careful about any such instruction.
 
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)?
 
 
> What is
> necessary is lots of exposure to language that does so, and lots of
> training in clear, logical thinking through many educational activities in
> many subject areas.
 
I totally agree here.
 
> That brings me to the second way grammar is the handmaiden of thought --
>
> (2) The explicit study of grammar -- as with the explicit study of any
> natural-science phenomenon --  requires the use of clear, logical,
> precise thinking. In other words, explicit study of grammar is one way to
> exercise high-level thinking skills that are useful in all reasoning,
> especially scientific reasoning. Of course, this role of handmaiden to
> thought is not exclusive to the study of grammar -- the scientific study
> of any phenomenon, such as life forms, the stars and space, geology, or
> the human sciences all also serve.
 
I suggest that grammar, or better, the study of language clearly can be
used to develop high-level thinking skills.  The data is (or should that
be "are" here to make the thought of this sentence clearer?) very easy
to come by.
 
A trivial example.
 
All the handbooks I have seen observe that the apostrophe 's attaches to
a noun and shows possession.  Let's ignore the problem of possession.
 
        5) The Queen's children
        6) The Queen of England's children.
 
Certain (2) does not mean England has children.  Now what is going on
here?
This requires some high level thinking skills.  While we are at it,
consider the following about what pronouns replace.
 
        7) The Queen has a lot of children.
        8) The Queen of England has a lot of children.
        9) She has a lot of children.
        10 *The she of England has a lot of children.
 
Recognizing noun phrases can help a student figure out how their
sentences are constructed.  However, this test actually about seeing  a
similarity in the property of the apostrophe 's and pronouns.
 
> For I think it is much more useful in
> language arts to approach grammar from point of view #1 than #2.
 
I don't this is such a clear conclusions to draw.
>
> But curricula had better be based on linguistic science,
> or we'll remain in the flat-earth stage of thinking about language that
> currently characterizes most of our society, as evidenced recently in all
> the misinformation produced about official English legislation, Ebonics,
> and bilingual education.
 
I could not have said this better myself.
 
 
Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University