It seems to me that I have learned more about the English language by reading Orwell’s Politics and the English Language than I have in my five or so years of taking an English class. There are many errors in writing that Orwell talks about that I can directly relate to some writing I do, especially first drafts. His main points are: passive voice is bad; pretention diction is used to dress up simple phrases to give them a more scientific feel, foreign words are used to give the author a feel of elegance and culture, and metaphors that are overused become redundant. Besides the English lesson I learned from this essay, there was an interesting point that shined through. In 1984 Newspeak is the official language and, instead of adding words, the people who work on it, strife to cut out unnecessary words. At first, I was surprised by this idea of control of language and thought it fit like a shoe to the dystopian theme of the book (notice the overused metaphor). Instead, I am compelled to believe that the destruction of words have some benefits.
“If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy… Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable…” In 1984 the implantation of Newspeak will eventually make this idea obsolete. With such a limitation of words, the underlying message will disappear. Citizens of the Party will have such a slim selection of words to choose from ambiguity and vagueness will disappear. Orwell argues that wordiness is an extreme crutch of the English language; this is something the Party is trying to eradicate. However, I suppose the reason that the Inner Party wants Newspeak is not so that English teachers disgusted with the misuse of language will be happy, but rather so that everything said will have one meaning. With Newspeak, there would be no room for interpretation and therefore no excuses.
“Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” This is not the case in Oceania though. For example, during Hate Week, the enemy of Oceania changes just like that, but instead of the members of the Party getting upset, they chose to destroy any evidence that the former enemy was really ever the enemy. With citizens like this, the message a Party is broadcasting does not have to be vague. The Party could state even the most horrendous act without any justification and the Party would revel. In today’s world though, this malleability of language is more than necessary. Certain words can be used to strike certain emotions and certain words can be used to make certain acts less intense.
In Politics and the English Language Orwell is trying to show his readers the disgracefully state that the English language is in, but also to demonstrate its power of ambiguity. Think of it this way: because of people’s ability to think for themselves, if a party is trying to say something less than desirable, the language needs to be clear, but if the people have no free will, extra words are not necessary to cloud meanings as people will believe whatever is told.
Hi Asim! I think you have done an excellent job of explaining the effect of Orwell's writing techiniques and how it relates to Newspeak in 1984. You have clearly provided evidence and gone into depth about your opinions and interpretations. Your use of vocabulary corresponds very well to the context of your sentences.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you used an overused metaphor in this piece and demonstrated one of Orwell's writing techniques. It made your message/idea that much more effective to the reader (me)
You have focused mainly on Newspeak - the language used in 1984. This is great! Towards the end of this piece you talk about the English language could also demonstrate its "power of ambiguity". It would be good if you could expand MORE on the English language used today as well.
Overall good job Asim!
I agree with the idea that words in our world can impact and change things. A clear example of this would be how in our world people are always worried about being "politically correct". If you say a word that isnt "politcially correct" than people are going to frown upon it. In our day and age words can make and break people. However i do disagree with the fact that destructing certain obsolete words is a good thing. It isnt a singular word that counts but how you put them together certain words can set a tone set a theme. If you were to read a description it wouldnt be as powerful if it had very simple words because it would be repetitive and fail at painting a picture.
ReplyDeleteSaumya,
ReplyDeleteI get what you are saying about how some words have become obsolete now a days but I think that my argument about the destruction of words will not be a bad thing. I will clarify what I was thinking. Some words are used by politicians as mere filler and added fluff to beat around the bush. If these words are cut out, the dissection and understanding of certain speeches would become clearer and politicians would not have their words to hide behind. In short, if unnecessary ambiguous words were cut out, the truth would be much easily transferred from one to another. Powerful speeches are powerful because their opinions and motives are strong; they should not be strong because the author's have a strong vocabulary and can use words that will invoke an audience even though the ideals one is conveying are not those that deserve such applause.
Do you agree with me now? Also, Monique, does this above comment talk about what you were saying about going more into depth with English language today?
-Asim
I understand what you're saying and I somewhat agree. For me an example of this is the Vocab section on the SAT. I get frustrated how they test this because at the end of the day most of the words that they ask are not words you will land up using. I do agree that some politicians do use "fluff" to pad their speeches. But it would be hard to destroy words because it would be a subjective decision. Some people may feel that a certain word is useful while others will disagree, so hence it would probably be easier to just leave it.
ReplyDeleteYa I get what you are saying and I reckon I should have reworded may sentence. I realize now that calling for the abolition of "fluff" words is neither plausible or practical. I suppose I was trying to express my discontent for politicians and people who utilize their vocabulary for personal gain
ReplyDelete