Who knew that there were complaints used in English? Definitely not me, that’s for sure. The use of Type 1 complaints are about the concern for correctness, which attack specific parts of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary in English. Authority in Language by James Milroy and Leslie Milroy goes on to explain what the correct usage would be and how language is always changing. Simon believes that apostrophes should be used correctly. And Swift believes there was “no reason why language should be perpetually changing.” He also believed that language was imperfect and should be improved.  Simon (1980) and Swift (1712) both prove to be complaining about Type 1. I want to begin to scroll through and use these examples from our text to prove that they are both prominent figures that use language to legitimize varieties and standardization.

           Swift was known for his outlook on standardization. It’s partly aimed at preventing or inhibiting linguistic change within a proposal. What he is trying to say is that the movements are unclear and not because individuals are trying to conform, but because language is always changing. Swift’s case argues that standardization is used to improve the language and to standardize it. He is said to blame the morals of the post-Restoration period and his argument is clear that the problem is the fact of variation and change in language that reflect the developing nation and the colonial power to a fixed standard language. The fixed standard language was for a practical purpose to have clear communication over long distances and periods of time, but in the case of modern society, these have all changed.
  Although Swift thought there should be a set standard, he continued to view the change and variations of language, and deciphered what it was about the language that kept changing. In this case, Swift saw the use of correctness the element that kept changing. Swift wants us to realize that language changing is okay and that it is well known to see the use of work being carried out over written and spoken English. In the use of “correctness,” Swift uses his argument of standardization and ties it with Type 1 complaint by the elements that were proposed through what was standardized. The flaws that could possibly come up were through the Type 2 complaints. Swift uses Type 1 very clearly, but somehow he uses Type 2 for clarity. And Simon also used punctuation with his compliant that could go hand in hand with Swifts proposal.

            Simon uses apostrophes as his complaint in the Type 1. “In 1980, the misuse of apostrophes - as in wing’s, plural for wings - but also in spoken usage such as the combinations of you was for you were.” These are called faults or illiteracies in the “morals” or how you would codify language. The varieties of apostrophes are what helps organize by shortening words so the sentence can flow better. All of these would lie in the written channel and if one is being reasonable then you would agree that apostrophes are needed to keep the correctness of a word. The structure and the function of a spoken language are different than the written one in this case, but if you were to use the written form of you was for you were than you would write it instead of speaking it. Simon is very correct on the use of apostrophes because when something is plural an apostrophe may be needed depending on the structure of the sentence. The grammatical forms of punctuation are exactly as Simon argues. But his flaws can be seen when using apostrophes. Not all words can be used as shorthand with an apostrophe. I can see that being a fault in Simon’s proposal.

           To better understand where these men are coming from this is how I broke it down. Swift saw that the use of language as always changing as an important factor of society. The general standards of language should always change and never be in stability. We learn something new every day. So why can’t language do the same? Swift saw language as versatile and chose to say that there is no reason why language should be perpetually changing. The people may speak incorrectly at times, but it is never the use of bad grammar. There is no such thing as bad grammar in ways that have been worked to codify the systems to legitimize the varieties that conclude in grammar. Whereas Simon proposed that punctuation should be used correctly, and I for one believe he is right. The Type 1 use of complaints for the correctness of punctuation should always be written correctly, as this is my opinion. Apostrophes should be used in the correct manor and Simon complained that the model for spoken language lies in the written channel of “illiteracies” and they are used together as a flaw. Simon’s complaint is not talked deeply about, but you can see that the flaws of his logic are on the correct use of apostrophes.

           What I enjoy most about Swift and Simon are that they both use the form correctness in the Type 1 complaints. I love to use punctuation and try to create long enough sentences to use them, even when I don’t need too. I do have problems being too wordy, which I try to cut down in most cases, but I do love how these two prominent figures are used in Authority in Language. The flaws in both of these complaints aren’t noticeable until you really go and dissect each and every appeal. The arguments in Simon’s case are very easy to decipher flaws, whereas Swift’s argument you really had to dig in deep and find what could be a flaw. Type 1 complaints appear to attack on detailed points of usage, and they are actually making claims about the superiority of language system over the other (even if they aren’t aware of it). Particular linguistic rules such as grammar and punctuation are shown in Swift and Simon’s arguments. I chose to do the Type 1 complaint because Simon and Swift’s argument intrigued me about the use of correctness amongst grammar and punctuation.

Work Cited

Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge, 1999. Print.