George Orwell's Politics And The English Language

George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language” discusses the effect that political and economic changes have on the language of a society. Orwell’s essay is based largely on his opinion that the English language has declined as a result of the economic and political changes that the world experienced. He explains how simple English is more effective for telling someone what you want to say instead of using large, confusing and foreign words that will only make you sound smart. Orwell argues that these words are useless and that they fill our essays with words that take away the meaning of the essay and have no value. Orwell creates a tone of dominance over his writing. He makes readers feel that he is in charge of his writing and

what he is saying is right, even though it is not based on solid fact. In reality, most of Orwell’s support for his claims are actually based on his opinion of why the examples he gives us are bad English.
During his essay, Orwell makes the reader believe his opinion and to support his opinion in using different strategies.

One way is by using description. An example of description comes in when Orwell analyzes the five examples of bad English that he gave us at the beginning of his writing. Orwell uses both his opinions to describe these passages and factual evidence such as the number of words, number of syllables, and the number of foreign words. He describes to his readers why each of his five examples goes with his opinion that English has changed and against his opinion that English should be kept simple. Orwell also uses comparison and contrast. An example of this comes in when Orwell compares the verse from Ecclesiastes and his modern day translation. He compares the two passages in terms of factual evidence, number of words, but also on his opinion. After comparing and contrasting the two, Orwell shares his opinion that the Ecclesiastes verse is better written because it is simpler. Orwell also utilizes the rhetorical strategy of cause and effect. The most obvious of these examples comes in when he says,” German, Russian, and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.” This passage lists the cause of the deterioration as the change in government. Orwell’s entire essay is actually based on this cause and effect of government changing

language.
“Politics and the English Language,” though written in 1946, remains timely for modern students of language. In this essay, Orwell argues that the English language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. To show his point, Orwell cites writing from two professors, a Communist pamphlet, an essay on psychology in Politics, and a letter in the Tribune. In all these examples, Orwell argues that there is two common faults. Those faults are staleness of imagery and lack of precision. In his follow up analysis, he discusses general characteristics of bad writing, including pretentious diction and meaningless words. His purpose in the analysis is to show the special connection between politics and the debasement of language.
Orwell maintains that in his time political speech and writing are “largely the defence of the indefensible.” Which means the actions of ruthless politicians can be defended, but only by brutal arguments that “do not square with the professed aims of political parties.” He gives examples of the British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, and the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan. Orwell continues to defends his opinion of how language has a huge part in taking control as well. People, who are respected greatly tend to express themselves through the use of big words that a lot of people probably don't know. But since they are highly respected, people go with what they say and think it's what they want to hear. In other words, these foreign words create a sense of confusion but play with the mind of the person hearing it.
I believe that people in charge of leading this country have to be up to standards of both understanding the language and how to use it, but also need to represent it in a manner of simplicity. Since the language is in fact changing, words need to be acquired that fit the need of the people so their is more understanding. However, older language shouldn't be dropped just so we could become accustomed to the new words. Having a leeway of both the new and the old can help us come back to the sophisticated language that can make us stronger and more intelligent.