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. Our society and school system is still so
steeped in unscientific language attitudes (that double negatives are
illogical, that nonstandard dialects indicate poor thought habits, etc.),
that connecting explicit grammar teaching with improving thinking habits
seems quite dangerous to me.
 
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. Grammar is used
to refer to objects and events and to organize information so that the
concepts that come together in the speaker's head come together in similar
ways in the listener's head. Topicality and focus, and  what is shared
knowledge and what is not, are all signalled by grammar. In that sense,
grammar is the handmaiden of thought because it offers us stylistic
choices -- alternative ways of building messages so that we can convey a
very rich mental world of ideas, memories, perceptions, complex
relationships, etc.
 
Explicit teaching of grammar is not absolutely necessary to cultivating
fluent use of language to express clear, logical thinking. 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.
 
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. The myths surrounding Latin that I
mentioned above, and common misunderstandings of what grammar teaching is
for in our schools, mistakenly assume that, without explicit grammar study,
higher-level thinking skills will not develop. This is the false
connection, and the one I fear.  For I think it is much more useful in
language arts to approach grammar from point of view #1 than #2.
 
While I'm at it, I might as well chime in on the 'should linguists be
involved in formulating grammar curricula for K-12' issue. Of course they
should!! They are the ones who know how the language works. I'm not saying
they should be the only ones involved, or even that they should directly
write curricula. 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.
 
From what I see in current grammar textbooks, not very many linguists have
been involved in their creation. Thus they rarely represent any step
forward from the traditional approach that has failed the majority of
students for literally centuries.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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]      ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~