One of the enduring arguments at the heart of public debate about language use is that younger people have not been given the basic grounding in grammar and punctuation previous generations enjoyed.
The result, the argument goes, is a barely literate horde of school-leavers who recklessly split infinitives, dangerously dangle participles, and leave prepositions perching precariously at the end of their sentences.
With the recent addition of text language, it probably surprises some they manage to communicate at all.
But a cursory study of the history of English teaching in New Zealand schools finds the argument is something of a myth, one that has been around for more than 100 years.
Take this exasperated complaint from a Nelson school inspector's report from 1887: ‘‘When one listens to their talk out of school, or reads their attempt at composition... it is hard to resist the conclusion that all the elaborate rules that have been drawn up for their guidance might almost have been written on water.''
Ministry of Education research from the 1990s debunks the idea there ever was a ‘‘golden age'' of English teaching, when everyone studied grammar, and wrote and spoke impeccable English.
And Auckland Emeritus Prof Warwick Elley says a three-year controlled experiment he was involved with in the 1970s, which helped inform more modern education policy, showed pupils learning grammar wrote no better than groups that did not.
That research also showed, unsurprisingly, enjoyment of learning English was more pronounced in those who did not learn grammar.
That does not necessarily mean all are comfortable with the grasp of linguistic concepts displayed by school-leavers.
Massey University professor Tom Nicholson recently conducted a study of 83 first-year trainee teachers, the results of which he says suggest they were not well-equipped to teach reading and spelling.
The survey showed students had received ‘‘very little'' education in grammatical terms, knowledge he says is necessary for passing on literacy skills.
The ministry's research shows, from the study of historical documents, ‘‘the idea that in the past all children knew about grammar is not supported by the reports of examiners'', who frequently complained of the lack of grammatical knowledge shown.
A commission on education noted the disappearance of grammar in 1912.
In 1890, 60% of the English examination was on formal grammar, dropping to 15% in 1915.
In 1945, the Thomas report on the post-primary school curriculum claimed grammar had become ‘‘a sterile study, that it was taught mechanically, and that it extended a ‘dead hand' over the whole of English teaching''.
Underlining the passion engendered by the debate, the report caused an outcry, with members of the committee even receiving anonymous letters because of their comments.
From 1961, the idea of writing for an audience other than the teacher was introduced, with grammar taught in context.
In 1994, despite ‘‘pressure for a ‘return' to more formal school grammar teaching as part of a ‘back to basics' movement'', the curriculum emphasised knowledge was best learned through exploring language in all its varieties in authentic contexts.
Grammar did become ‘‘more explicit'' in the school curriculum from that time, University of Otago College of Education senior lecturer Sharon Young says.
‘‘It's embedded, but a knowledge of the terminology of language should be there''.
Student teachers at the college were taught ‘‘the language of language'' for their own personal knowledge and for their teaching.
‘‘The purpose of it all is to help children communicate more clearly and effectively.''
Prof Elley said there was more emphasis on teaching grammar in the 1960s and 1970s than there has been since.
But his research showed teaching pupils about nouns, verbs and split infinitives was not having much effect, something that made him ‘‘surprised and a little bit disappointed'', as a teacher who enjoyed the subject.
‘‘At the end of three years we found the groups that studied grammar were writing no better than the groups that hadn't.''
That was backed up by overseas studies pointing in the same direction.
‘‘It showed the benefits of teaching formal grammar was over-sold.
‘‘In some cases they [pupils who learned grammar] did worse.''
But Prof Elley says there is still room for grammar, and it would be a pity if it was not taught.
Prof Nicholson's survey may provide a stern test for many - it certainly stumped some well-educated people at the Otago Daily Times.
First-year teacher trainees were required to identify derivational suffixes and consonant digraphs, list six common syllable types, and determine the number of morphemes in a word.
The test highlighted gaps in student knowledge on many fronts, Prof Nicholson said.
‘‘There was a huge lack of knowledge of spelling rules.
‘‘Explicit knowledge of syllable rules for decoding long words was minimal, even after lectures.
‘‘Trainee teachers had trouble in identifying Greek words, did not know the doubling rule in spelling of long words, and could not tell the difference between phonemes, phonics and phonetics.''
As well, there was a weak understanding of the origins of Latin and Greek words.
‘‘I would imagine from the difficulty they're having in the weak areas that they're not getting a great deal of grammatical knowledge [from schooling].''
The knowledge of those areas was ‘‘an essential thing to know''.
‘‘They're certainly not bringing it to university from high school.''
Prof Nicholson says his response was to spend time in lectures increasing students' knowledge on the subject.
But old-fashioned grammar teaching does not look like making a comeback any time soon.
Sue McDowall, of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, says there would be very few people who would now advocate students learn grammatical rules in isolation.
‘‘It doesn't have a clear purpose and it doesn't mean students know how to apply the rules.
‘‘The approach now is to look at how different kinds of texts are structured and written to convey meaning.''
