Communication Basics 101: Why Grammar isn't the Place to Begin

Alan Greenspan once said: "To succeed, you will soon learn, as I did, the importance of a solid foundation in the basics of education - literacy, both verbal and numerical, and communication skills".  One of the main purposes of this blog is to point the way back to the basics.  Grammar is one of the most hated topics of private or public education.  Just ask junior highers and senior highers.  Why is that?  I think it has to do with the idea that grammar is supposed to be basic, but it doesn't look basic.  

Here is what I mean.  When each of us begins to learn language at home, there might be hardly a hint of instruction in the topic called "grammar".  We might have never heard the notion of "the parts of speech" as one part of grammar and yet we might be quite capable speakers before our junior high teacher begins to teach us the parts of speech.  So the question arises as to how they then can be basic?  I agree with the question.  How can the parts of speech (as one part of grammar) then be called basic?  

If something is basic, then you would think that even a child might begin to grasp the ideas.  A child might not be able yet to handle solid food, but they certainly can handle baby food.  I think the parts of speech should be handled as the beginning of adult speech, not the beginning of immature speech.  In other words, it has to be taught by the mature to those who are becoming or already are mature.  In other words, while it is not so basic as to be grasped by a very young child, an adult is able to grasp it.  So what should be taught before the parts of speech or grammar/letters (as a whole) that is basic?  

I believe there is something that all adults make known to their children from the earliest stages of learning to use language.  It is the universal classes of meaning.  They precede the parts of speech, but they are also followed by the parts of speech.  They are referred to as meaning classes or meaning categories.  They consist of:

Parts and Wholes (ex. the tail of the kitty)
    Amounts (ex. the doggy has four legs)
    Relationships (ex. mommy and daddy)
    Actions (ex. go)
    Things (ex. stick)

A child is taught by an adult to distinguish between things and nothings, etc. The examples abound (ex. this is a dog, that is a cat [so that is not a dog])!  The child's sentences may not be grammatically correct, but they are early on able to communicate the basics to those who are adults and even other children.  

What is also favorable toward calling these meaning classes basic is that they also have proven through practice by translators all over the world to be universal classes of meaning.  Trying to prove that there is a universal grammar is much more controversial.  Many have tried to prove this idea and have failed.  That includes specialists in language called linguists (the formal studiers of language).  Not even all the Indo-European languages have 8 parts of speech that are the same as those found in English.  

So for me a good user of language can be a child.  They may be immature, but they can use language in a good way or they can use it well.  A good and mature user of language is an adult that can first grasp the meaning classes of language that the child can handle: 1) parts and wholes, 2) amounts, 3) relationships, 4) actions, and 5) things; and also the major parts of speech (as a part of grammar) that vary from language to language.  In English grammar, this means: 1) nouns, 2) verbs, 3) pronouns, 4) adjectives, 5) adverbs, 6) interjections, 7) prepositions, and 8) articles.  Two things need to be specifically addressed to clarify my point further.  

The first is that only the classes of meaning are universally basic (though the names in each language may vary).  The second is that while grammar is not basic, it is mature.  In other words, if you want to sound like an adult and not a child in your speech, then that part of grammar called the parts of speech will be seen by mature adults as a adult or mature thing.  Very young children can rightly object that it is not basic.  But maybe it will be easier to swallow, if we adults tell the children that learning the parts of speech is like moving from being immature (a child) to being mature (an adult).  No more jamming the mature down the throat of the immature, but also no more immature children telling adults that maturity is optional when they are coming of age either!  That sounds far more real to children, parents and teachers!