GRAMMAR has its uses in getting our words in a regulated queue, in telling us what to put where and when. Yet grammar has limitations too, as a new study from the University of York has discovered.

Researchers at the university looked into whether instruction in grammar had any effect on the writing skills of pupils. After reviewing widespread research on the subject, the authors of the report concluded there was no evidence that the teaching of grammar had any benefit on the quality of writing done by pupils.

This sensible finding drew strong backing at the weekend from the best-selling writer Philip Pullman, who was heartened by the notion that formal instruction in grammar was no help to children, and could in fact hinder their writing skills.

The author of the His Dark Materials trilogy admitted that such a finding "goes against common sense", as usually shown by those on the political right, who appear to believe that "teaching children about syntax and the parts of speech will result in better writing, as well as making them politer, more patriotic and less likely to become pregnant".

Towards the end of that sentence, Pullman is making the sort of joke much favoured in this column, by over-stating his case in order to make his opponents appear silly.

I'd certainly agree with Pullman that the rigid obsession with grammar can get in the way of children's development of written language and stifle the enjoyment to be had in playing with words.

The old ways have been back in use thanks to the ascendancy of those who bang on about "going back to basics" - as shown by the national curriculum, a sort of educational straight-jacket that risks squeezing the life out of children in the name of puritanical progress.

Between the age of seven and 11, children are expected to learn about "word classes and the grammatical functions of words, including nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, articles", as well as "the grammar of complex sentences, including clauses, phrases and connectives".

As Pullman observes, "Think of the age of those children, and weep".

No wonder my daughter shrugs when I ask what she's been doing at school.

While grammar can be useful, it so often falls into the hands of life's bullies, those who believe strictly in right or wrong. These stern watchers of words say: if you don't know the rules, you can't join in.

Whereas children should be encouraged to write first, to enjoy the thrill of invention, to concoct stories, to knit something individual from the clean wool of their minds. Let them worry later about spelling, punctuation and grammar, when the important business is out of the way.

Pullman accepts that his stern critics from the "common sense brigade" will accuse him of advocating the ways of "sentimental moonshine". In his own defence, he says it is when "we do this foolish, time-consuming, romantic, quixotic, childlike thing called play that we are most practical, most useful and most firmly grounded in reality..."

It is, he adds, "when we fool about with the stuff the world is made of that we make the most valuable of discoveries".

"Everything else," he says, "is proof reading". Which reminds me... writing about grammar is always tricky, so I had better check back and pluck out the howlers. Then again, if any were to remain, it would all be part of the exciting rush of words and excusable on such grounds.

Philip Pullman does stress that the study of grammar can be "intensely fascinating: but only when we are ready for it".

So what are the chances of this University of York study being taken on board in education? Pretty slim, I would have thought, which is a shame, because burdening young minds with so much heavy-weight grammar at such a young age is likely to put them off writing for life.

Unless, that is, they grow up to be the sort of linguistic worriers who fret about splitting infinitives and the like.

As they say nowadays, with no particular reference to grammar, don't get me started.

Updated: 09:06 Thursday, January 27, 2005