Friday, February 22, 2013
George Orwell -- "Politics and the English Language"
George Orwell (the pen name of Eric Blair) is famous for his political writings, including this essay, the famous political allegory, Animal Farm, and the prescient novel, 1984. We may glimpse at all three, but for now, "Politics and the English Language"
It's all about how politicians -- but really all communicators -- use and especially abuse language. Even if you hate politics (and who doesn't feel at least a little disdain for the institution, these days) this essay can tell you a lot about good writing and bad writing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Even though I thought that this article was a little too long, I think it made some interesting points about being a good writer and speaker which I tend to agree with. One rule that I favor is the rules 2, never use a long word where a short one will do, and 3, if it is at all possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Pretty much what he is trying to say in write and present in a way that is short and percise so that everyone can understand it. George Orwell is the kind of man that likes works of literature and presenters that get their message across without going in circles to get to the point.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with these rules that Orwell has set up in order to become better writers is that these rules go against the very neture of being a successful politican. Politicans never give direct answers on any topic, whether it is fixing the economy or national defense, becasue they don't want to deal with the consequence of thier actions. And the average person notices this and just makes the assumption that politicans are unreliable. Politicians thrive on the bad language described by Orwell and witht the continued use of this language, it will only agravate people.
I also agree with Orwell on the use of dying metaphors. Politicans and other leaders use them to try to promote emotion in the crowd, but when you use the same metaphor over and over again, well then nothing will stir within you. If a politican wants the support of the voter, then they have to get creative and start provoking emotion within people with original metaphors that represents them as a person. Metaphjors help voters relate to the canidate, and if a canidate uses a worn out saying, then that canidate won't connect to any voter.
I agree on dying metaphors as well. It is too often that politicians try to hammer issues into people but it desensitizes them to it instead.
DeleteRebecca -- if you want to cut out some words, I suggest "what he is trying to say". It's another one of my little bugaboos, it is, but how about "what he says is". Otherwise, it suggest that "he's trying, the poor darling, but really. . ."
DeleteAnd you and Orwell are right about politicians misusing the language. Every so often they slip up and actually tell the truth.
"How do you know when a politician is lying?"
"His lips are moving."
This article did a good job of pointing out the fact that much of today’s writing has a lot of common flaws. One it talked about is how someone could basically cover up the real meaning of what they are writing by confusing the reader with metaphors, extra phrases, confusing word choice, or Latin phrases no one knows the meaning of.
ReplyDelete“A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.”
This holds true to a lot of what I have read in school or outside of school. Not just Latin words, but many other unnecessary things added to the sentence, in my mind, just confuses the reader and takes away from the reader actually focusing on the topic of the article. One extra the article discussed was the practice of picking out ling phraseologies to get simple points across. With verbs and nouns that could relay the same message as four or five words, I think it’s better to keep it simple and go with the one word option. Another issue discussed was, as my quote says, the excessive use of Latin and Greek words. The article says it is often easier to make up words like that than to find the English word that would adequately convey one’s meaning. The last point that stood out to me was the use of meaningless words. Possibly in an effort to sound more knowledgeable on the topic or to even write more on it, extra words are thrown in that really could be done away with.
Overall, it is a nuisance to have to sort through all these extras to find the meaning of what someone wrote. I really liked that quote because I think it so accurately conveys what I feel. Facts are covered up by a mess of superfluous words and phrases, and often hide the details.
George Orwell’s essay states a very true point. People don’t have poor language use because they can’t, but it is because they don’t believe in themselves. They don’t push themselves. They settle for what they think they can do, not what they can do. “Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.” We can’t be scared when it comes to English language!
ReplyDeleteI do have to say many of the five examples Orwell used to demonstrate poor language were hard to interpret. I found a few good vocab words though. I can see, however, how these examples had not the right type of imagery, or not enough. These examples were quite boring to read. I agreed with Orwell in his notes of things to add to phrases to liven them up. I agree with giving sentences more symmetry using extra syllables. Meaningless words are everywhere in writing. I remember last year in English we did a worksheet where we eliminated words that either had no meaning or there was already a similar word in that sentence.
I wish we always wrote and spoke in good English not modern English. “Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.” This passage was boring and seemed to drag on. The passage that was written in good English had the words written as if it were lyrics to a song. The way the words all flowed together gave the passage more meaning.
English language can be changed. To many they may feel it is impossible, but with imagination and pointers people can improve their English that much more. “The worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them.” Like Orwell said don’t give in to the intimidation of words. Orwell’s way with English language is amazing. Just by following some of his few rules of things to avoid when writing English can be improved.
-Tori Cronin
I must say this particular assignment was difficult to pay attention to due to so many big words! Yet, I agree with what Orwell had to say. He is correct to say that the value of our language is declining. People are using words to be impressive to someone's ear and not always to be impressive to their thoughts. I like the rule #2, "never use a long word where a short one will do." This reminds me a lot of my dad. I like to ask his opinion on my essays for colleges and scholarships. He always has the same advice: stop using words that don't make sense. Just because a word looks nice doesn't mean it is the best choice. I found it very humorous to read Orwell's re-write of a verse from Ecclesiatstes in modern English. He proves a very good point with that. Although his rewrite is very intimidating and impressive, it doesn't mean anything to the reader! This brings up one of the passages I liked most about this essay. "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." All things written and spoken should be coming from your thoughts. Yet, the less and less people choose their words with meaning, the less thought is being put into language. Language is being corrupted by less thought. Also, to bring up Orwell's re-write example again, a mash of large, intimidating words may be impressive, but it doesn't provoke the correct thought in the listener and reader. The way I see it is that our language is meant to allow us to communicate and relay messages. What's the point of language if people aren't using it solely for its purpose anymore?
ReplyDelete-Martha Denisky
Yes, language can corrupt thought. The essay contains several good tips to help you be a better writer, and many more to be a savvy consumer of words. And in a democracy, we're all involved in politics, like it or not.
DeleteI didn’t know someone could write this much about the English language and its inaccuracies. Although this article was long, I thought it provided some insights into English language that I’ve never thought about before. As our world modernizes and evolves, our language is becoming more basic and easier to use for our entire population. Our culture as Americans requires us to be more time-oriented, leaving little time for proper grammar and thoughtful English. Over the years, we have grown accustomed to using simple sentences to get the point across instead of using thoughtful imagery and metaphors.
ReplyDeleteI thought that some of his points completely described our society when it pertains to the English language. Some words, such as unique and effective, have become meaningless because of the over usage of the words when describing different things. This has made some aspects of the English language very hard to understand because it can be very general. Although Orwell believes we should return to the proper English language, he does not think we should use too many metaphors, imagery, or Latin words to cover up the details of what we are saying. Politicians do this very often so they don’t have to give a straight answer and lose support.
In all, I thought that this article explored some interesting pints of the language we speak everyday. Although Orwell believes that one person can help save the English language, I think that almost all people will not break their bad speaking and writing habits to become better at grammar. This is not a top priority to many people and the only people that will take notice to how they speak are highly educated "aristocrats".
You make a very good point about way language has shifted in our society. We live in a time where we use a combination of letters and numbers to tell people what is going on in our daily lives. But, I think by making our language more basic, we are not taking the time to observe the world around us and describe it in a way that catches people's attention. I think that Orwell was trying to say that not only is literature uninspiring, but it is also confusing becasue people are not original in the words they choose. People use words incorrectly in sentences, the same old metaphors are used over and over again, and people stick in Latin words to make themselve seem more intelligent.
DeleteOrwell has noble intentions in promoting the use of proper English in literature, but the English that Orwell wishes to speak is not an easy way to express your message. People are lazy and express their views in the English they were taught by thier parents. And many people are not going to want to change the way they talk because it is proper. Even though Orwell' way would make it easier to express one's ideas in a way that captivates an audience, it is too difficult to transition to that from where we are in this day in age.
All he's asking for is honest communication. There's no time for that? Can we afford not to take the time?
DeleteNick -- Orwell says at the end of the essay that he's not particularly tied to grammar. Sound communication is the key.
DeleteGeorge Orwell obviously cares deeply about the English language and how people use it. Most of it was easy to grasp but like Tori, the five examples were a little bit hard to understand. A good thing came out of it though and that was new vocabulary words!
ReplyDelete“Written English, is full of bad habits.” Orwell wrote this in 1946, but I think part of the reason people have bad habits when it comes to writing is because of technology. Throughout the past decades, technology has grown and is now a big part of our lives! It isn’t surprising to see people out to dinner or walking the malls without a phone in their hand. I think part of the reason is that we use shortened versions of words such as “LOL-laugh out loud” or “JK-just kidding.” Even though this is useful for the texting world, I’m sure George Orwell would be sad to see these words cut in half and not used as often.
“A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.” This passage stood out to me and it’s probably because he compared words to soft snow which I found really interesting. When politicians argue, they don’t always tell the truth but instead cover it up with bigger words and broader ideas. “But if thought corrupts language, language can corrupt thought.” I agree with this also because if you are always thinking negatively, your words will have a negative notion to them. If you’re always surrounded by people who swear or put stress on you, it can corrupt your thoughts. Honestly, it’s just a social dilemma that is influencing thoughts. When you separate yourself from that certain group of people, you can cure your language. Society should really stand back and look at what Orwell has said because he speaks the truth. We need to value our language before it becomes completely controlled with abbreviations.
Texting jargon. Hmmm. Orwell does not like jargon, you can be sure of that. But he may well have liked the first LOL. It was new. It was a strong image. The problem is it has quickly become a dead and empty cliche -- something easy to drop in there rather than search for any better, more pointed expression.
DeleteMaybe we can get into text-speak in the next article: all about concision. Haiku are beautiful because they are so economical, so concise. Tweets could be -- but they come out garbled and mangled instead of precise and beautiful.
I will say I do like Orwells rules, where he states what to do when "instinct fails" in deciding what to say. I especially connect to number 2, "Never use a long word where a short one will do." I would love to never feel pressured to use a long fancy word, and I don't understand why some people feel the need to use those impressive words, at the sake of their audiences understanding. With that said, I don't think it's common for people to use big words unless for presentations, essays, or when absolutely necessary. The way that our vocabulary use has been trending, it's my understanding that people talk more and more in slang. They use the easy words, the words that will get their message across the *easiest*.
ReplyDeleteAmerica has been forever changing. It's becoming more efficient, economical, technological, and a lot more -icals are in the process of developing. Ungrammatical? Yes, but why is that a bad thing? I do love good grammar; I always strive for perfect grammar in my text messages. But I think that “ungrammatical” is the direction that the world is shifting. What is Orwell afraid of? Does he think we are going to slowly slip back into the ways of the cavemen? Grunting and nodding with absolutely zero grammar at all? Our language is going to transition how we need it to because it’s a changing world. I think that Orwell is simply afraid of change. I don’t mean to be insensitive, I hate change as well. I hate seeing texting taking the place hand written letters or phone calls. I hate seeing children playing video games instead of playing outside. But as Orwell said, language does corrupt thought, and thought corrupts language. This to me means that out language is affected by our thoughts and actions, as well as what’s going around us. I think that just as medicine and technology has evolved to our needs, so will our language.
He says it himself! (The page before the article) “Our civilization is decadent and our language - so the argument runs - must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes ... “ It makes me wonder, does Orwell want to cure the collapsing language?
Orwell is afraid of duplicity, and dissembling, and prevarication. That is to say, he is afraid of lies and false-speaking.
DeleteIve never been able to take anyone who throws (really) uncommon words into every day conversation seriously. Or grammar-nazi's. Or people who fret over the schematics of the english language that have softened around the edges, (I watched this video of a girl angrily ranting over calling stretched earlobes "gauges," and I had to wonder why it even mattered to her that much.) I can't always be proper and will often mix up where to place a semi colon; regardless of how well written I think I am, (ha, see what I did there?).
ReplyDeleteLong convoluted sentences don't mean anything to me because I refuse to read it if I need to decrypt every carefully selected word. Just spit it out, man.
I don't like you if you speak to sound smart and not to communicate.If people can't understand you, then you might as well shut up. You make noise to share ideas, not hot air.
And no, that is not in regards to those speaking foreign languages. It's to those people who find the need to overcomplicate simple ideas so they may shove their nose further up your ass. It's to those who may have some sort of degree in avoiding a very direct question. It's to the people who would rather complain about how someone uses a word than do something worth their time. It's those guys that need to shut up.
I'm not saying I don't care about the formalities, though. The constant misuse of "your" and "you're" on social networking sites is incredibly frustrating. Grammar and spelling and professionalism is important.
Are important?
Whatever.
There's a line, however, where professionalism turns to pretentiousness.
"The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
All I'm saying is that Orwell's got it figured out. He understands that our language adapts to culture and time period. Those who do not adapt along with it end up unable to communicate agreeably. Those who choose not to adapt with it probably wont get heard at all.
Hah, this is great. I laughed at a lot of this, while at the same time I know what you said is true. It annoys me so much when people who really don't have a clue what they're talking about try to win an arguement by shouting long strings of meaningless, convoluted words. Really all they're doing is confusing everyone within ear shot, and making a fool of themselves.
DeleteBut didn't you love how Faulkner spun some of those endless but understandable sentences (all the while saying something meaningful and beautiful) in "The Bear". It was like watching somebody blowing an enormous bubblegum bubble: "Oh, no he can't; it's not possible; even bigger?!"
Delete(I hope you bothered to read them.)
Well, there's a difference. Long run on sentences in stories creates a certain atmosphere when written creatively. When applied to anything else, though, especially paired with an extensive vocabulary, it becomes verbose and pretentious very quickly.
DeleteWhen I first started looking at this essay and I read those 5 example paragraphs I thought this was going to be a tough piece to read. It turned out the point of those was to be confusing, which came as a relief to me since I could now understand what was going on! As I read on Orwell's ideas really struck me as things I should keep in mind in my writing because I've realized I've most likely fallen I to many of the traps he discussed. Specifically I believe I have weaknesses of over embellishing, using passive verses active voice, and using worn out metaphors. Agreeing that these are weaknesses of many people's writing I've made some conclusions on why this is becoming characteristic of modern writing.
ReplyDeleteRecently I've realized how I over complicate my writing. While I'm trying to make it flow and sound smarter, I'm producing the opposite effect; writing that is not clear or concise with many structural issues. When I was writing my college essays I realized how difficult it was for me to pick out the right word to make a sentence flow, make sense, and sound sophisticated. Often times I sacrificed clarity of a sentence to use a word that sounded "smarter," in other words, I chose the more complicated word. I should've realized the more complicated the building blocks of my sentence were, the more complicated my overall sentence would be, making the entire piece confusing. I think when Orwell says that writing is inflated he is 100% correct. There's so much "fluff" in modern day writing that we're losing the stripped-down meaning of what we're really trying to say.
I can picture my 2nd grade class learning about idioms and metaphors like, "it's raining cats and dogs," and "that rock is the size of Texas!" I would've never thought then that we would over use simple metaphors the the point that they don't even convey what we really mean any more. While these examples are very clear and probably much harder to not realize what they really mean, others mentioned in the essay would be very easy to misuse. For example, Orwell uses the metaphor about "the hammer and the anvil" saying many people believe the anvil gets the worst of it when, in reality, the hammer is always broken by the anvil. I think colloquialisms and common phrases have been distorted, modified and tweaked so many times that no one can be sure what it's really trying to say. In reality these phrases weren't made up to fit so many meanings; they were created by the first author for the instance they were first used in. That is where they fit best because it's what they were made for. Yes, they can be applied in many situations, but we should focus on the original way it was used instead of molding the metaphor for our needs. To do this best I believe we should focus on the image that the metaphor is giving. Like Orwell said, "the sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image." If this picture suits the meaning you're looking for, the metaphor fits, but if not don't make it fit. Instead make up a new metaphor that can describe exactly what you want without any questions.
Orwell seems to convey that writing is losing it's quality because people are getting lazy. I'm sure this has an effect and I agree with Orwell in saying people will find a metaphor or cliche that's already been created to express their thought rather than deriving their own. In addition to this, I think texting and online chatting have affected modern writing. Now don't get me wrong, I love texting and Facebook so I'm not saying give that up by any means! But I understand that the way we talk online to friends forms bad habits for us in formal writing. For example, I've heard of people accidentally typing "lol"into a formal essay. I used to catch myself typing "u" instead of "you" as well, and I have to be even more careful now typing up documents on my phone with the (sometimes inconvenient) autocorrections that my phone makes. I understand that the new age of technology that is evolving before our eyes is affecting everything we do because it surrounds us every day (literally with texts constantly whizzing through the air around and through us!). I think we should try to remain diligent and focused on keeping our writing sophisticated, not text talk, but still simple, not over embellished because were trying too hard. It's a difficult balance but a simple elegance is what is best in writing.
ReplyDeleteOne phrase of the essay I really like the best is when Orwell admits that he's probably made these mistakes in his writing as well! He says, "look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against." This shows me that he knows we're all human, including himself. Whether consciously or not, I would guess everyone reflected on their writing in the instant they read that. Following the example set by Orwell I will say I'm sure in this lectio alone I've made plenty of the mistakes that I just read about and criticized. It will take a lot of focus to change what we've been conditioned to do, but like we said in class the other day, the best thing to keep in mind is, "keep it simple students!"
Apparently my indents don't get published when I copy and paste, but they're there! I swear! :)
ReplyDeleteReally. How hard would that be to do?
DeleteI feel a little tentative writing right now after reading his rules about the English language but here goes anyways. I think Orwell is pretty accurate in his analysis of politics and language. I completely agree with his point that many people try to use more complex phrases to hide their true message. I know that I am guilty of stretching a few essays in the past to make my point and I think today, everything is about image and saying all the right words can definitely make people have a certain opinion about you. I really like the section of the essay where Orwell describes how a politician would present an event so it would sound less horrific than it really is. Words are powerful and the wrong words are dangerous. When Orwell rewrote the passage from Ecclesiastes, it reminded me of an activity we did last year in English. We were given a list of ornamented common saying and we had to decipher what the saying was. A twenty-word sentence would mean the same thing as a four-word phrase. I know that whoever wrote these had no motive to deceive us, but I can’t say that about everyone in the world.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is all about choosing the right words, and over time, English words have lost much of their correct usage. I don’t feel as strongly as Orwell about the severity of our regression, but I don’t think it is as easy as he thinks to fix our language. The world is full of billions of people and getting everyone to suddenly use the correct words for everything would be nearly impossible. I also think most people wouldn’t feel motivated to try to improve. It is depressing, but I don’t think our language won’t be getting better anytime soon.
Overall, Orwell seems intelligent, but not too preachy. I enjoyed his use of examples to illustrated his point and I liked the essay in general.
Dani says: The article was a little difficult for me to focus on, but it did have some good points. While reading it, I realized some of the mistakes I make when writing and that I agree with many of the tips. Orwell points out many of the mistakes people make when writing a speech or just in normal writing and it could be very beneficial to my own writing.
ReplyDeletePeople try and sound too smart when they are writing, and even though I am guilty of it at times, it annoys me. A lot. (Yes I am aware that the previous statement is a fragment but I am making a point.) I agree completely with the rule “never use a long word when a short one will do.” People will use a thesaurus to find a word that will make them sound smarter and it really just makes them sound stuck up. I’m guilty of doing this, like maybe in college essays, but when I read a sentence, like the “modern day” phrase from Ecclesiastes, my brain shuts off. Big words confuse people! Why say “the car is gargantuan” when you can just say “the cat is fat”. Same meaning, just less snooty. Another rule I agree with is cutting out a word if it can be cut out. Long sentences make the mind drift and you lose the point of the sentence. Honestly, Orwell was guilty of this in this article! How ironic. My mind drifted plenty of times (unintentionally of course) and I would lose my train of thought and my place in the article. Orwell’s rules make a lot of sense and I will start implementing them in my own writing.
I break some of Orwell’s rules in my writing. I sometimes use large words to sound smart, I use the passive tense too much, and I sometimes use metaphors and similes that I see in print. We are all human and make mistakes, but I will try to fix mine. My writing can only get better, right? Let’s hope so! As Orwell said, “One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn out and useless phrase… into the dustbin where it belongs.” I hate when people use “one”. I won’t be doing that.
"The article was a little difficult for me to focus on, but it did have some good points."
DeleteAnd those are the things to focus on. These selections are useful -- wonderful even -- but not the main event. So don't worry about the whole. Just glean what you can. get what you get.
Did you know: "The Life of Gargantua and of Pantagruel (French: La vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel) is a connected series of five novels written in the 16th century by François Rabelais. It is the story of two giants, a father, Gargantua, (pronounced: [ɡaʁɡantu.a]) and his son Pantagruel ([pantaɡʁul]) and their adventures, written in an amusing, extravagant, satirical vein. The text features much crudity, scatological humor, and violence. Lists of explicit or vulgar insults fill several chapters. The censors of the Collège de Sorbonne stigmatized it as obscene, and in a social climate of increasing religious oppression, it was treated with suspicion, and contemporaries avoided mentioning it.[1] According to Rabelais, the philosophy of his giant Pantagruel, "Pantagruelism", is rooted in "a certain gaiety of mind pickled in the scorn of fortuitous things" (French: une certaine gaîté d'esprit confite dans le mépris des choses fortuites).
Delete[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargantua_and_Pantagruel]
Corey says: “As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug”
ReplyDeleteI enjoy the way that Orwell perceives the English language. It seems he has finally said what everyone has been thinking, but never ends up saying. Nowadays, a majority of people don’t care at all about what they are writing. They usually just have a certain length or deadline they have to meet, so they decide to plaster together a bunch of intricate words to make themselves sound fancy. This, along with bombarding their foes with zingers and slandering them, is exactly what politicians do. This is exactly what winners of pageants do, and what big award winners do. No one speaks what is directly in their mind- instead they search for specific words to make themselves sound intelligent. Or, people try to make themselves sound good to disguise the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about (a large number of students do this in papers and speeches just to take up space). I believe this is the negative turn that Orwell is saying the English language has taken, and I couldn’t agree more.
“Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader”
This is another section that amused me. Orwell goes on to talk about specific words often used to describe art that have absolutely no meaning. I enjoy this because I believe art critics often look for hidden meanings that aren’t really there. So instead of elaborating their opinions, they describe it with commonly used words like the ones quoted above to make it seem like a fitting analysis when actually, the describing words are used inappropriately, and don’t really describe the work of art at all.
When I started reading this article, I was confused and found it hard to follow. However, as I continued reading I realized I was starting to understand what Orwell was saying. In fact, some parts I found very amusing. For example, "It [modern English] consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug." I found this quotation amusing and relatable because I know people who do this. Basically, it means that nowadays people just repeat what others say, but use words that sound scientific or intelligent, when really it doesn't make a lot of sense or it simply sounds like nonsense. In a way, it is deceptive when people do this, and usually it is done with intent to decieve, because those who read or listen to what people are saying often do not understand what those scientific and long words mean, therefore they think the speaker knows what they are talking about and are at a higher inteligence level. Many people use these big words to act like they understand what they are describing, but instead are using the words to distract others from the fact that, in reality, they have no idea about what they are saying. Using big and scientific words with latin or greek roots does not, in fact, make something more formal or correct, it simply makes things more confusing and nonsensical. I think that people shoould not use words that are not used in every day language. They are not necessary and only serve to fill up space, rather than add any meaning to what is said or written. When someone uses words such as these, I tend to automatically think that they are using the words to make up for what they lack. In other words, they are using those words to sound like they are making an intelligent remark when, really, they are not. Words should not be wasted and adding words that are uncommon and scientific sounding is definately wasteful. We should use the words we know to present a clear and intelligent remark.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I enjoyed reading this article and found that I agree with Orwell's opinion about modern language being full of nonsensical and vague words and statements. If you have something to say, then you're going to want everyone to understand, and therefore should use a language that everyone understands to present a comprehensible idea. I also found humor in Orwell's writing when he made fun of the English language and how people unnecessarily say things in a drawn out way. I think we all know people who do it, and sometimes I even do it, which makes this article easy to relate with real life.
I want to say a few words in defense of "fancy-sounding" words, probably because I'm one who's prone to use them. But it's not to impress or intimidate. But usually because it's a word I know, and it's the best word for that occasion. Orwell argues again fancy-sounding words that don't really mean much, if anything.
DeleteAnd also, you've managed to strike a nerve by hitting one of my least favorite words -- "relatable". (See, even the spellcheck feature on this site doesn't like it.) This is one that's come into fashion only recently, and it's a battle that I'm pretty sure I'm doomed to lose. To my mind, "relatable" means something that one is able to relate -- as in, "Tell me about your experience living with the indigenous people in the Amazon basin." And then I would relate to you how it was for me. For what you guys mean by it I would say "that's something I can relate to" (or more the grammatically correct -- if somewhat awkward -- "something to which I can relate"). Or, how about "I can dig that"?
“It is easier — even quicker, once you have the habit — to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think.”
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that this sentence at first seemed to say that people find it easier to do more work than to just write what they mean, but after I thought about it, I decided that I agree. For a person to write something that is really full of meaning and not, at the same time, chock full of space-filling- fluff, it is pretty difficult. When kids learn to write essays, one of the techniques they teach us is “use bigger words to sound sophisticated and get a better grade.” They also teach us that the length of what we’re writing matters. Even though every teacher says “Just write enough to answer the question,” every kid in class knows that in order to get a good grade, it has to be a decently long paper. The few kids who try to fully elaborate and communicate their response in about a page, walk away with a grade no better than a 70%. When a teacher answers with “Just enough to answer the question,” that’s like the kiss of death, because then you have to guess at how long they secretly do want it to be, how long everyone else’s in class is, and judge whether or not your response translates your thoughts in a lengthy enough format. Everyone worries about how long their papers are, because it really is pretty tough for us to write as shortly and concisely as George Orwell would like. Writing my college essay, with a limit of 500 words, was one of the toughest essays I’ve ever written. In nearly every other essay I’ve written, length is a good thing, so that’s how I’m programmed to be able to write. It was terribly difficult to convey all the points I felt were important, in just 500 words. I had multiple people read over my essay, giving me advice on what parts they felt weren’t crucial to the essay. When you’re trying to get into a college or get a great grade on a paper, it’s hard to not go off onto long strings of words and explanations that really could be cut down quite a bit. We feel that if it’s a short paper, and uses simple words even though our thoughts have been conveyed in them, then it will be judged as insufficient. I try not to ramble aimlessly in my writing, but I’m sure at times it does happen. After considering this, it does make sense to me that it really is easier and quicker to fill a sentence with fluff, rather than to simplify it to only the bare necessity of what will get the point across.
"When kids learn to write essays, one of the techniques they teach us is 'use bigger words to sound sophisticated and get a better grade'."
DeleteI want names! Who's doing this?!
As to length -- there is a tendency to reward somebody who's written a lot. You tend to think "oh, the poor thing must have put a lot of time and effort (and heart and soul) into". And maybe you know this person is not the most natural writer. I have asked myself "what's the highest grade I could possibly give this (and still look myself in the mirror)?
That being said -- the paper that is short, but succinct and to the point -- those are as rare as hen's teeth (no, wait, Orwell wouldn't like that). As rare as a snow day in June.
I believe that Orville brings up valid and interesting points about the deterioration of the Modern English language that I hadn’t thought of before. I agree with most of what he has to say and must admit I have had my fair share of time while I have put proper English to shame. Orville said, “Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.” With such an evolving, fast-paced world that we all live in today, the once complete phrases, sentences and even words have now been abbreviated or shortened. A phrase like “see you later” had now become “c u l8r.” If Shakespeare were to be alive in this time period, he would look at our current Modern English and be aghast. Not only would he be aghast but he would have a difficult time being able to interrupt what we were saying. It’s quite true though, because imagine if you were him. What would you think if you say people using numbers for letters? The man who helped shaped and develop the English language to become as impressive as it is wouldn’t be able to even understand it. Now Shakespeare is the one that students have trouble understanding. In order to read his works a translator must be used. If you think about it that could be the state our English language is heading to right now. In a hundred years, students would read our current books and have to have someone interpret the use of real, full words to them. Just a little food for thought.
ReplyDeleteI am not a very political person but do have to agree with what Orville meant when he said, “Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes.” Part of the slow downfall of the English language could be due to the fact that our education system is struggling and in need of improvement.
This article proves that there is much left to be worked on and improved with the way we talk, write and speak. It goes to show there are many factors, not just one, that are affecting the way we communicate with others.
-Samantha Riley
Shakespeare was brilliantly inventive and innovative when it came to language. (Fortunately for him and us, rules of English grammar had not been codified yet, so he could do as he pleased.)
DeleteAlso, although we tend to read Shakespeare, bear in mind that the language he worked with was meant to be spoken, meant to be heard, meant to be remembered. (And even with that, I could show you passages from one Shakespeare play very similar to those in another, or to passages from another poet or playwright.)
It is everybody's business, in a way.
Surprisingly, I found this essay interesting to read. Many people misuse the English language (I'll be the first to admit I am guilty of this), and George Orwell did a great job of providing clear examples of proper and improper English. A particular line that stood out to me was the following:
ReplyDelete"Words of this kind are often used in a conciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."
I think we can all relate to this line of Orwell's essay, specifically the part that reads, "the person who uses them has his own private definition but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different." Personally, this line reminds me of my father, and after reading it, I couldn't help but laugh at its truth. My father is ridiculous when it comes to words… At the beginning of the year I made the mistake of asking him to read over one of my college essays, and he went crazy with words. He felt the need to replace every thought I had composed in clear sentences with long words that made no sense. It came to the point where I had to just start my essays over because I was losing track of what I wanted to say. He truly has his "own private definitions," of words, as Orwell wrote, and he combines so many of them in long, confusing sentences, that I, as the "hearer", think he means something else.
I make fun of him all the time for this (in a loving way, of course). Sometimes, I have to remind him that a normal, English-speaking person could not comprehend anything he writes. (I usually get back the response, "Brianna, you don't know what you're talking about.") For a man who was raised speaking only Italian, he sure has an extensive English vocabulary.
When HE asked me to edit my college essays, I was hesitant to show him because I knew he would butcher every line. I had to find a nice way to reject his corrections, because he really thought they sounded smarter. In reality, his misuse of vocabulary ruined my thoughts and left the reader feeling dumb. (Definitely not the effect I was going for as I wrote them.)
People need to be more concise, and actually say what they mean. Fancy words can't just be stuck in the middle of a sentence to make its author sound more educated. Like Orwell stressed throughout his essay, people need to use words for the sake of their meanings; to create a specific image. Say what you mean, and mean what you say! Nobody wants to read something that they cannot understand or that makes them feel stupid. Trying to trick your reader into thinking that a word fits with your idea when it really doesnt is deceiving. As Orwell wrote, "Words of this kind are oftenly used in a conciously dishonest way."
Moral of the story: Only use words which illustrate exactly what you want to say, and don't try to trick your readers into thinking that your nonsense actually makes sense.
-Brianna Ricciardone
I was having trouble posting here, but now I believe I got it so please disregard my e-mail!
ReplyDeleteI agree with my peers when they say that this article was very hard to read, but maybe that's because we all aren't that much into the subject. In my way of thinking- English is English and words are yours to do with what you want. I do agree with Orwell, though, where he says that people should have better grammar. One of the first things that I noticed after reading a few paragraphs was how much of a conservative Orwell was. He clearly preferred the English language as it was many years ago and personally I find that a bit unfair. It is impossible to believe that things won't progress as the years go by. This includes the English language. Of course it is going to change as people change and new generations begin to write. He blames the bad grammar on the writings of today, but really I'm sure we can find excerpts of bad grammar from old English. I think that it is unfair to label and entire era or writing as having bad grammar.
I also believe that Orwell's thoughts about political writings was out of line. One of the main reasons for the first amendment was to ensure that people could write whatever they wanted about the government and other political pieces. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and they should be free to express them instead of holding them back as Orwell suggests. I think political writing is a big part of history because it shows us how people- writers especially, were feeling during a certain point in history.
All of that being said, I completely agree with Orwell when he states that the same can be said in fewer words. I think we have all tried to use bigger words to make ourselves sound smarter to our teachers but really we use the words wrong and just sound silly! I think it would make it so much easier to read a lot of essays and writing pieces if we understood the words being said. I do think, though, that the argument could be made that people use bigger and smarter words to make it look like they use that kind of language often. I know that when writing my college essay, I tried to use higher language to make it seem as though I had "mature" language that was at the college speed. It stinks that we have to use that kind of language in order to make a smart impression on people. I wish that the idea of what we are saying can be just as important as the quality of words that we are saying. I was confused at the main point that Orwell was getting at because it seemed to me that he was making many points. I agreed with some of them and I disagreed with others which is why I thought the piece was very good- it allowed for a lot of opinions to be made.
Orwell has nothing against new words and evolving language. Indeed, he would say that English must evolve. He argues for getting rid of archaisms. And he's by no means a grammar purist. But he is entirely in favor of clear, honest, efficient prose.
DeleteChance says: “Never use a long word where a short one will do.”’
ReplyDeletePicking a passage out of the article was tough, because so many stuck out to me. But I felt that this captured the essence of my frustration personally with “Modern English”. I suppose this anger has its roots in schooling, where from a young age we have it beat into us that the more syllables you can use in a word, the “smarter” you are. That’s completely false. I cannot understand why as a society we feel that using “They were confabulating in the library” instead of “They were talking in the library” makes you more intelligent. Does using confabulate serve any purpose? I do understand that sometimes, the complex words are more precise; they are a scalpel versus the ax in the surgery of syntax. This being said, the more complex and obscure words are not always necessary. On that note, I do feel that those who can convey the meaning of a sentence, in words all can understand, and in a fashion which utilizes the economy of words, are the smartest. They are the people who deserve the most credit, because they are able to be understood by both the most and least educated of people. In my last lectio I mentioned my trip to Guatemala, and I will in this one again, because it had a profound effect on me, the trip changed how I saw the world, and again after seeing both sides of the spectrum, it is clear that we are all people, regardless of skin color, race, intelligence, education, etc. So to write in such a fashion that would exclude someone by using words that they could never have possibly heard, that seems to me to be blatantly unfair. This action limits your audience and to me personally, makes me hold the words of the speaker in a lower standard, regardless of the content.
One of the lessons we try to teach is to write in a style appropriate to your audience. Different audience, different style. But straightforward is always best.
DeleteRichter says: Well this was a rather irritating read. For a guy who’s so judgmental about everyone’s use of the English language, you’d expect him to able to write in a comprehensive manner. The change in fonts, text size, and the inappropriate capitalizations and italicized letters and words was very frustrating. I had a hard time concentrating on the words because the text was so distracting. I thought that was pretty ironic, considering it’s an essay on the correct way to write.
ReplyDeleteThe author seems like a pretentious jerk who thinks he’s above everyone else because he writes in a more “correct” manner. Just because someone writes things in a more complicated way doesn’t mean we’re going to hell or anything like that. Sure, politics can be annoying and very vague, but aren’t we all used to that by now? Politicians are lying figureheads, and the only way you’re going to get any real information is from a background check. Even if they used straight up, blunt language, we would still think they were lying, because they’re politicians. So it doesn’t really matter.
Anyway, the line that stood out to me the most was, “Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” I found this to be very true, but what I really liked was the way it was presented. The line, “Make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind,” basically defines political speech. The government makes war sound like a godsend and casualty rates look like a necessity by stringing together complicated and scientific words into vague statements that often don’t relate to the issue at hand at all. While it sucks that Politicians do this, everyone kind of knows they do it, so nothing they say is taken at face value. Sure, the government may use intensely warped English, but I doubt the common citizen does, and those are the only people we really need to listen to anyway.
"The change in fonts, text size, and the inappropriate capitalizations and italicized letters and words was very frustrating. I had a hard time concentrating on the words because the text was so distracting."
DeleteAgreed. And this was the best, most visually-pleasing version I could find. But that's not Orwell's fault.
"While it sucks that Politicians do this, everyone kind of knows they do it, so nothing they say is taken at face value."
And what's the price paid? What happens when we all see democracy as a pointless charade? What comes next? And what happens in the meantime? We pay as much for defense as the next fourteen countries COMBINED! And nobody questions this for a moment. Meanwhile schools are crumbling, kids go hungry, people can't go to a dentist. Orwell makes me want to do more than shrug my shoulders.
Chiara says: I , like Phoebe, am very tentative to write after reading a criticism of the English language. I have scattered thoughts about this essay.
ReplyDeleteThought #1. I think the most striking part of it for me was the quotation at the beginning that Orwell used to explain the decline of a language.
"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
At first I was unsure of how this comparison pertained to the topic of politics and the English language. I better understood its meaning as I read later in the article: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." This second quotation came after a paragraph about politics in countries under the rule of a dictator. (which I will discuss in a moment). I understand now that Orwell meant that foolish political thoughts corrupt language which in turn corrupts the political thought and practice even more.
Thought #2. Being a lover of history, I really liked the paragraph that said:
" All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find -- this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify -- that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship."
This is interesting to me because of its historical context. The article was written in 1946, a time when political ideals were all on opposite ends of the spectrum. There were dictators, presidents, and prime minsters all at war. Of course Orwell thought other countries had deteriorating languages -- they all had a different political system than his. This is a brief thought, but I felt like sharing.
Taylor says: Although George Orwell is considered to have written some of the most influential pieces of literature from the 20th century, I do not agree with most of his points in his essay "Politics and the English Language". This is because although I find many of his points to be enlightening, and "correct" I feel that he is missing one of the major points of language in general- that it is an art. The English language is not the paint by number page which Orwell suggests it should be, with strict rules and regulations. Instead it is a mosaic built up shards of other languages held together by a glue of new phrases and even gestures which we as Americans (and Brits) are meant to understand.
ReplyDeleteWhen describing "Dying Metaphors" Orwell says that people are too lazy to coin new phrases and instead repeatedly use the same ones like play into the hands of, for example. I do not agree with him that our society has become lazy in this aspect because these phrases have become less viewed as phrases, and are instead seen as words to the common person. They are as ingrained in us as verbs and nouns, and so do not need to be replaced or changed. However, at this point Orwell does present one point which I found to be rather interesting, about the phrase the anvil and the hammer which he says is often perceived as the anvil getting broken in the encounter. He then goes on to say that in real life the hammer is often the instrument that is ruined, and so many writers do not think about what they are actually saying when they use phrases such as this, and often present phrases which do not make sense in the real world.
In Orwell's paragraph on "Pretentious Diction" he says that "Words like phenomenon, element, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments." I took this to mean that many writers, rather for literature or science, only used this type of vocabulary to sound smarter, or to persuade people by impressing them with their intelligence. I strongly disagree with this point as well. I believe that vocabulary is a tool to show your intelligence and culture, but that is certainly not its main purpose. I believe these sorts of words are used because they often give a more specific meaning to a statement, and so make it easier for readers to see the true meaning of the statement. This would be especially helpful in the sciences where each discovery is clearly separated from all others.
Although Orwell vividly shows how he believes the English language should work and how it is now, I do not agree with him, although I can see how he would come to the conclusions he did. I am not totally sure that his opinions did not come from him being in a "bad place" in his life, and that is why he had such a negative few on something as simple as language.