We all know what grammar is, don't we? Yes, grammar is that part of language and communication that we often find fiddly. We may even actually come to resent it, since it often represents a hurdle to overcome if you want to avoid being misunderstood. It isn't sexy: good grammar has none of the instant gratification for minimal effort that we now demand from other aspects of our lives. No-one's going to congratulate you on your grammar the next time you post an eloquently written comment on Facebook, are they?
In response to a proposal from UK education secretary Michael Gove, The Observer newspaper has today published a debate on the question of whether good grammar is still important. As often happens, the two writers debating were seemingly selected based on their skill at turning the issue into a predictable right wing versus left wing caricature. The progressive left-winger believes that an insistence on grammar pits rich against poor, ignores the inherently changeable nature of language per se, exploits the social divisiveness that good versus bad grammar encourages, and diverts our attention away from a lack of funding in education. The indignant right-winger will usually bemoan the falling school standards and paint a picture of general indolence in a world where he's the only one who cares about anything anymore.
Now, you can take a view on all of that if you like, but if we can focus for just one minute on what grammar is for, we might be getting somewhere. Understanding the grammar of a language is a great liberator, a leveller that allows you to say whatever you want. Learners of German complain about the case system. However, its perceived complexity is precisely what makes its word order so flexible. But of course, we only see such benefits when we learn a foreign language. We don't learn our mother tongue in the same way because we mistakenly feel it belongs to us. We feel we rule it; it does not rule us. But with freedom comes responsibility. We are free to use language however we choose, though we do have a responsibility to ensure that we can be readily understood.
So similar to my own experience of German, one predictable point made in the debate concerns the idea that the English grammar of non-native English speakers and writers is better than that of the Brits – cue a slew of grammarians rubbing their hands with glee. So when I focus on English grammar and tenses with my students here in Switzerland tomorrow, when I ask them to give me a sentence using the past perfect continuous, they will answer within about five seconds. How long will it take the man on the street in London – Michael Gove, say – to do the same, I wonder?
