Language, And A Better Understanding

Without a doubt, George Orwell was a visionary during his time. Having endured the period where fascism and authoritarianism as a whole was at its strongest throughout the world, it is unsurprising that he considered its menace the primary problem facing the world. Through his essay, Politics and the English Language, he attempts to express his worry that the transformation of the way in which English is used will have a direct impact on the minds of the general public. Despite the passage of time since this piece was written, his argument certainly has a number of strong points which one can clearly see in the modern era, yet it is not without its flaws.

George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language, first published in 1946, talks about some “bad habits”, which have driven the English language in the wrong direction, that is, away from communicating ideas. In his essay he quotes five passages, each from a different author, which embody the faults he is talking about. He lists dying metaphors, operators, pretentious diction, and meaningless words as things to look out for in your own writing and the writing of others (593-595). He talks about political uses of the English language. Our language has become ugly and the ugliness impedes upon communication. Ugly uses of language have been reinforced and passed down in the population “even among people who should and do know

Politics is the never ending power struggle Americans know all too well. It’s a childish game full of lies, deceit, and beating around the bush where those involved find themselves having to simultaneously put on a smile for the camera. In the writing, Politics and the English Language, the author, George Orwell, discusses why he believes politics in fact are destroying the English language. Throughout the reading, the author makes many great points; however, his tone is interpreted as extreme, and at times, he comes off as radical when defending his claim.

“Others among you, perhaps fewer in number, will say to yourselves: quite so, there is such a thing as Standard English, or purity of speech, or correctness of expression- something worth safeguarding and fostering; but how the devil is one to accomplish that under the prevailing conditions: in a democratic society full of minorities that have their own dialects or linguistic preferences, and in a world in which television, advertising, and other mass media manage daily to corrupt the language

Using the English language effectively can be difficult at times. You must consider many factors: who your audience is, what kind of tone you wish to convey, the message you are attempting to get across, and any kind of lasting effect wished upon a reader’s mind. After reading through two essays, Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” and Brockenbrough’s “Does IM Make U Dum?” each reveals different mindsets about the advancement and usage of the English language. On one hand, Orwell seems to advocate the simplification of speech and writing. Rather than seemingly sagacious phrases, useless terms, and

Language is all around us, it is how we communicate with one another, it brings meaning to literature, and is cemented into our culture. Walt Whitman, a famous American novelist from the 19 century, highlights the effects of language on the American population in his essay, Slang in America. He focuses on positive aspect of slang, how we adapt slang into the english language, as if it is second nature to use, giving a deeper meaning to everyday phrases and words. By contrast, Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell, does not highlight the positive side to slang, instead looking at how authors have started to write with no purpose, no meaning in their texts. George Orwell, in Politics and the English Language, creates an connotation between ideas and an appeal to logos to convince the reader that writers have started to write meaningless pieces of work and could have potentially negative effects on the American people. Compared to Walt Whitman’s use of an unifying tone and an appeal to pathos in Slang in America, that highlights the positive effects of the English language on the American people.

All three authors realize the fact that language has changed and differently develop their main idea based on it. MacNeil argues that rapid social changes, such as immigration and war, have altered English (MacNeil 308). For example, even though people have a tendency

Relationship between thought and language is not something you consider or contemplate in your everyday life. Nevertheless, the answer to this seemingly useless philosophical question might spell the difference between totalitarian control of our minds achieved through manipulation of language and a world of freedom, where human ideas cannot be subjected to blatant perversions as they resonate through intelligent minds, bound only by the power of our imagination. This dilemma has captivated my attention ever since I read Orwell’s “1984” as well as his “Politics and English Language.” In both pieces, Orwell implies a direct correlation between the two notions and paints a horrifying picture of disastrous consequences that a language manipulation can usher in. Orwell’s claim that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” clashed with my own perception of those concepts somewhere deep on a subconscious level. “Language could not possibly alter a thought,” I thought, “How could it? After all, language merely describes my thoughts, whereas thoughts are generally spontaneous ideas, sounds, pictures that flash though my mind’s eye, sometimes so fast, that I fail to grasp them before they fleet away.” Even though in his article Orwell was referring specifically to bad practices that are common in the use of language, the question persisted. Can a language influence thinking in the same manner as thinking influences the words being uttered or does it have

David Foster Wallace’s essay regarding language and the usage of the English language in America captured my attention from the beginning. Through several gasps of humor and wording geared toward an audience of intellectual scholars, Wallace’s stance on language was raw and honest – nothing was held back that he thought important.

Orwell wrote this essay before he became famous for his cautionary tales, so he writes unbiasedly about the haggardness of the English language. Even though he only uses English works of literature as examples, his view on the dilapidation of language and thoughts, can be universally applied, if people agree with Orwell's warnings. Contrary to what others might think, careless language will lead to careless thinking because creating a thought depends on language and most people do not realize mechanical errors, due to that fact that they might be subtle or just very common. Even though some people might claim that language will depend on context, careless words should not be part of the vernacular just because it is immediately acceptable.

The Language Wars have been waged in the realm of English Literature, Language and Linguistics for years. Both sides of the argument are staunch believers in their position, but are more than willing to concede points to the other sides’ favour. In Bryan A. Garner’s essay, “Making Peace in the Language Wars”, he describes himself as a ‘descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 270), and offers a truce that fulfils both sides of the argument as the crux of his essay. While the separate sides of the argument are relatively easy to define, it seems that no one sticks to them religiously, and the argument is between individuals fighting over individual points. The two sides are that of the descriptivist and that

The 1946 essay written by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” attacks the way writers cloud their ideas with excessive phrases and superfluous diction, causing them to lose the genuine meaning behind their words. Orwell provides his audience with numerous examples of the problems he believes to be the cause of declining English language. Orwell does not cater to the simplistic style of academic writing. Instead he implies that the tactics practiced by modern writers are bad, but can easily be reversed. Orwell provides a convincing argument through his supporting evidence, key words, acknowledgement of opposing views, and offering rules for repair, although Orwell presents an excellent argument and clearly convinces his reader,

Orwell’s statement that “language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” in fact is true in our language in more recent times because of various uses such as propaganda and other techniques such as glittering generalities, transfer, card stacking, the band wagon. Although these effect writing and one’s opinions, other powerful technique authors may use in writing include effective word choice and text along with photographs in political cartoons. Through today’s language, once politics are involved, one tends to become ugly and even foolish at times.

Language is the inevitable medium that people use as a means of communication. However, how that person uses the language that they have varies from person to person. Some view language as a persuasive political instrument and others view it as a means of expression and empowerment. In the essay “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” by James Baldwin, he was able to illustrate the history of the discrimination of language and how black English is not accepted as its own language. Baldwin also shows that due to the lack of acknowledgement of black English, it lacks the power it needs to empower the people who speak it. In the essay “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell, he was able to break down language and explain how language shapes reality. Orwell expresses that he is not considering the literary use of language, but language is an instrument of expression and the promotion of cognitive deliberation and persuasion. Furthermore, both these authors agree that language is a political instrument, however, Baldwin uses this instrument to unite people and Orwell uses the instrument to persuade people.

* In the educational field, the teaching learning cycle is a model used in contemporary teaching in both school and adult educational settings. Rothery (1996 in Derewianka & Jones 2012, pg 43) who originally developed the model used this to aim at disadvantaged children for teaching literacy and writing in the KLA (Key learning areas) who were from socially disadvantaged areas. Over time the model has been phased across other areas of the English language such as listening, speaking, reading as well as writing. The key involvement of the teacher also known as ‘expert other’ in the teaching learning cycle is guiding the learner to understand key concepts in academic literacy through use of scaffolding strategies to transform students