Teaching grammar to suck eggs

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?

We've lost the blot!

According to a UK survey for online stationer Docmail (no, me neither), cited in the German tabloid Bild and elsewhere, those questioned had, on average, not written anything by hand for 41 days. Germany's harbingers of handwriting doom are quick to tell us that computers and mobile devices are to blame, as we are led to believe that important developmental skills in coordination, dexterity and the anchoring of handwritten knowledge in young minds are all under threat as a result.

We learn that 85% of German companies use computers. Stop the press! No, really. Those knee-jerk news organs bemoaning the general disappearance of handwriting need to abandon their fancy desktop publishing packages and write everything by hand. Starting now! Alternatively, they could attempt some joined-up thinking and adopt a less alarmist approach. Though a variety of communication options may mean we write by hand less often, we have not lost the ability completely.

When was the last time you put pen to paper? Perhaps you left a note on the fridge for your beloved before you left this morning. Maybe, like me, you write shopping lists regularly. Perhaps you have recently completed or corrected exam papers (admittedly, computer-based exams are on the rise). Commentators tell us that handwritten words are more personal and bring out our emotions. That's undoubtedly true. After all, writing scores of Christmas cards and then seeing the price of postage stamps is enough to make anyone cry!

My own view is that handwriting is not dying out. It is a vital skill and will remain so. What's changed is simply the number of social situations where handwriting remains appropriate and has not been fully replaced by a less time-consuming form of communication. Surely a significant amount of text within schools (and to a lesser extent, universities) will continue to be written by hand. This strikes me as logical, given that before they negotiate the computer-based anonymity of the university campus or the outside world, young people of school-age are in the business of building their own personal knowledge base. This learning process requires the kind of correction and ongoing refinement that only the handwritten form can document. For me, even with the perceived threat from new technology, it's the personal, educational and 'Post-It-note' private spheres – away from any pronouncements in the print media – where handwriting will continue to flourish.

Have you kept all of your school exercise books for future retrieval? I have. Have you intentionally kept all the draft versions of texts you wrote using a computer? If I have, I certainly don't need to refer to them again. For me this proves that ultimately the pen is mightier than the Word.