This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/389872.jpg media/apostrophe.png 2016-12-01T07:21:29-08:00 Complaint Tradition - Final Draft 18 image_header 2016-12-13T12:14:37-08:00 What I changed in this research paper was the first paragraph. I found Simon and Swift's first names and added them into the paper. I took part of what I had written towards the bottom and moved it to the top to clarify my argument in the introduction. I felt that it best described what I was trying to get at in my argument. I went in and re-worded sentences and grammatical issues that I felt were hard to read, and the punctuation that I felt needed to help clarify the sentences. I reworked Swift's part about Standardization and added more information to help back up my stance. I elaborated on the apostrophes and tried to help my argument more by getting at the heart of what apostrophes are. Lastly, I tied together my argument and made sure that I was siding with Simon and Swifts argument for Type 1 being correct. 
   

  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 explains what the correct usage of grammar and punctuation would be, and how language is always changing. Type 1 complaints appear to attack on detailed points of usage, and they are making claims about the superiority of one language system over the other (even if they aren’t aware of it). Particular linguistic rules such as grammar and punctuation are shown in Johnathon Swift and John Simon’s arguments. Simon believes that apostrophes should be used correctly. And Swift believes there was “no reason why language should be perpetually changing.”  Type 1 complaints are seen as the “correctness tradition.” What interests me the most is that errors are sort of bypassed and made correct in some form of English. What’s interesting about the errors is even if you think it may be wrong it is still correct. Simon (1980) and Swift (1712) both prove to be complaining about Type 1 English language that has specifically been written.  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. In the Type 1 complaint, examples will help prove that prominent literary traditions use language to legitimize varieties and standardization are correct.

             Swift was known for his outlook on standardization. It’s partly aimed at preventing or inhibiting linguistic change within a proposal. The movements are unclear because language is always changing. Swift’s case argues that standardization is used to improve the language and to standardize it. Johnathon Swift states, “Standardization, particularly in the written channel, was needed for reasons of efficient communications over long distances and periods of time” (30). 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 in spoken and written languages. Swift focuses more on the written language than spoken because it is more of what we see than what we hear. Written language has affected more of standardization because of the usage of books for literacy, and the fact that reading has become a necessity.  

  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 through elements that kept altering. Swift wants us to realize that language shifting is okay and that it is well known to see the use of work being carried out over written 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 and were seen as a deviation from what was approved by law. Swift uses Type 1 “correctness” very clearly, but somehow he uses Type 2 to gain clarity on errors. 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. He stated, “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” (31).  There are so many ways to take apostrophes and change them to still make sense. For one, if we were to put two wings, notice that the wings wouldn’t take an apostrophe, but in the case of the wing’s, it’s still punctuated plural and incorrectly. No matter if we use apostrophes or not in spoken or written language, we can still understand it, but it may be the fact that the sentence is not saying what is meant to be said. These are called faults in the “morals” or how you would codify language to be used in a specific way. 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. John Simon is 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. But by codifying the system and keeping language static, there was a chance of changing the dynamic nature of language. It is a possibility that Swift could halt its growth of language. Fighting the inevitable change is part of the English language. Whereas Simon proposed that punctuation should be used correctly, and I for one believe he is right. The Type 1 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 for clarity. Simon’s complaint is not talked deeply about, but one can see that the flaws of his logic are on the correct use of apostrophes.

             What I enjoy most about Johnathon Swift and John Simon are that they both use the form correctness in the Type 1 complaints. I love to use punctuation and try to create long sentences to use commas, apostrophes, colons, etc. 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. What is definitely true is that their argument is correct and they dive into this with great examples as to why the Type 1 complaint is correct.

   

   

  Work Cited

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