Sad Story

He states, “He has abdicated Government here…” and “He has plundered…” Undoubtedly, he uses the repetition of “He has…” to make known that there are many improprieties the British have done to our people in the past. This negativity is carried on in the following sentences to provide a sense of confusion of why Great Britain has been dictating in a wrong way. Repetition has a sense of only adding and proving to the cause, in this case, the transgressions the British have accomplished.

In “Politics and the English Language” Orwell takes an aggressive and critical tone. For example, Orwell states that the English dialect has turned into something “…ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” (“Politics” 463). This is his main argument in this particular work. It highlights the way he perceives the state of the English language at that time, and the ways in which it is being destroyed by the mere aspects that are supposed to protect and uphold it. Evidently, Orwell takes this unique approach in a bid to ensure that the world understands his concerns where linguistic preservation is concerned, along with the elements that interfere with their use.

George Orwell, in an essay from Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays titled “Politics and the English Language” (1950), argues that the English language, through a cyclical process of sloven language and foolish thought, has become “ugly and inaccurate.” He supports his argument by using expert opinion, metaphors, and historical context. Orwell’s purpose is to demonstrate the debasement of the English language in order to prompt writers to make a conscious change in their writing . He adopts an informal tone (“Look back throughout this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against”) for writers in a time of political turnover and rising superpowers.

Robert MacNeil, a writer of many great historical articles, was once, a journalist and news anchor. In his article, “English Belongs to Everybody”, MacNeil responds to the fear of many Americans who believe that Spanish will soon sweep over English. He argues that English can not be diluted by any other language as “it has prospered and grown because it was able to accept and absorb changes,”

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

“Intrinsic arguments describe the English language as providential, rich, noble and interesting. Such arguments tend to assert what English is and what other languages are not”. As mentioned previously, notwithstanding that the english language is widely-spoken around the world, diversity is important and for many individuals language is the basis of their culture. Making english the global language is essentially

However, a lack of emotion would have created another issue as it would make appear as if the topic to be discussed bears no importance. Banneker counters this with an asyndeton from line 1-7 with the lack of conjunctions creating a captivating attitude. Also, he emphasizes what he wants to say with three clauses similar in meaning, “recall your mind...look back...reflect on that time” and due to adorning these phrases with strong adjectives the paragraphs final statement is easily accepted by the reader (Banneker lines 1-6). The references to England’s tyranny and the emotions they underwent during those times also assist the power of the paragraph’s last statement as

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.

The English language, although used by almost all across the United Kingdom, has been mutated and altered in so many ways that sometimes we cannot even understand it ourselves.

The good may become the bad and words, like people, are modestly the victims of circumstance. It may seem useless to track, study, and observe the origins of language and the buildings blocks that comprise each phrase, but in studying dialect or linguistics we can trace and assign the historical path or human nature. Language, in some form or another has been with the human race from the beginning of time. The ways in which civilizations have communicated can be reflected and understood through words, as if they were taking photographs of the things they witnessed the whole time. Language as whole is like an immortal being, omnipresent throughout all human

In the words of George Orwell, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Language has been spoken for over 350,000 years. It has expanded tremendously, but its power has never changed. The use of language shapes peoples' perceptions and the depth of interactions because it can demean, avoid, portray emphasis, persuade, and conceal from simple phrases such as “I feel like” and “just”.

Through the evidence, he finds in the passages he can come's up with crucial points created by the connections that all of these passages contain which are, Dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, meaningless words. Orwell discusses how this form of vagueness and improper English used in political speeches and writings. In which political language is very abstract, political language is made in a way that it disguises itself. In which it lacks, imagery and visuals and as they are composed of all the topics, one should not use when it comes to developing works of writing. He states that political writing only shows the audience the side that is most convenient and beneficial to themselves, that is why it is created the way it is terrible English is the route towards political damage.

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.

George Orwell: All things considered, political dialect is overcast and obscure. Legislators don't even endeavor to make their contentions clear. On the off chance that they took after my standards, what they intend to say would be clear. There would be no uncertainty in their written work or their talks as there is presently. The populace is obliged to think about what they mean – how are we to settle on an educated choice in a law based society on the off chance that we can't focus the significance of the political stages displayed today? The choices made by these