“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.” This line, concocted by American author George Orwell, highlights the idea that language has become increasingly less honest throughout the world. Among other languages, English is extremely complex. Filled with metaphors, several words with the same meaning, and strong diction, it is easy to get wrapped up in glittering generalities. Language has the ability to relay ideas in an effective way; over the decades, however, it has been utilized by powerful figures to belittle citizens and cause them to do whatever the leader wants. According to Orwell, language has the ability to not only express but also conceal ideas. Politicians manipulate language to conceal the truth on a daily basis, and professors, teachers, and journalists must stop encouraging their speeches and words to the people. Professors and teachers tend to show students examples of politicians’ speeches and praise their ideas although they are often one-sided and tend to make little sense. Journalists recount these politician’s ideas and even use language to corrupt their own readers into thinking a certain way. To develop and convey the connection between language and thought to his audience, Orwell utilizes antimetabole, hyperbole, and simile.
Orwell uses figurative language in the form of a simile to open up his argument, thus hooking his audience into his main idea. He states, “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...
... middle of paper ...
...rats attack republicans with unfair terms and words. Journalists do it as well in their own right; rather than speaking for themselves, they report on a politician or other public figure’s speeches and twist it in such a way that the audience either hates or falls in love with argument that the public figure made, not the journalist. Citizens are being treated as if they have no brain; those in power expect us to believe everything that comes out of their mouths. How is this fair? It is no different than Great Britain treating the colonists unfairly and expecting them to follow through with every act they pass simply because they have technical representation in Parliament through another British politician. Americans are not sheep, nor are they stupid. Therefore, citizens must, starting at the grass roots level, stop those in power from treating them in such a way.
In the essay “From Ancient Greece to Iraq, the Power of Words in Wartime” by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, Lakoff discusses the fact that words are a tool as well when it comes to wars. She talks about the differences between our natural want and ability to kill things, and the mental training soldiers receive to make it easier for them. Lakoff talks about the practice of dehumanizing the “enemy” through nicknames that make us feel superior then our foes, and the repercussions of using this type of language. In the essay by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell talks about the decay of the English language, especially in political writings. He discusses the fact that when it comes to writing, political being the main focus, it’s
One of the most essential ways in which feelings are expressed by humans is through language. Without language people are merely robotic figures that can not express their thoughts because language is in fact thought. When this speech is taken away through complete governmental power, a portion of human nature is also taken away. In 1984, due to totalitarianism, language has begun to transform into a poor representation of humanity and natural human expression. Orwell states, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” In the novel, a new language, Newspeak, has emerged. Newspeak has drastically limited the vocabulary of the English language
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell: Critical Essays. London: Harvill Secker: 2009. 270-286. Print.
The main idea of paragraph 13 is that Orwell clears up many misconceptions that people might have about his essay and reinstates that he believes that quality over quantity is something that the English language needs to work towards and that archaic rules can be broken in order to achieve this. 12) The first ironic rule is to, “Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.” This rule is to make sure that people are creative in their writing and add a bit of spark to the writing. Another reason the rule is stated since hackneyed phrases often get muddled with other ones, which results in a muddled
Many people can relate to receiving an essay paper back in which they believe that the grading is unfair. Grammatical errors, style, and subject are areas that receive the most attention. However, it may not be the writers’ work that is ineffective, maybe it 's the English language itself that is lacking in quality. Similarly, George Orwell in " Politics and the English Language" convinces the audience that the causes of the decline in the English language are the vagueness and meaningless of prose that is receiving impact from political jargon. Orwell effectively persuades the readers by addressing opposing views, providing examples that offer support to sub-claims, and creating reader connections while simultaneously
North Korea, China, and even Cuba are similar to 1984. They try to control their people just the same as in 1984, and just like in Jonestown. The only people who were free in 1984 were the Proles. The community in Jonestown began as everyone wanting to be there, and then as conditions worsened the people wanted to leave. They were not allowed to, much like 1984. The people in both situations are similar, in that they are oppressed by their governments, but only the people in Jonestown are given the ability to think they are even able to
An Analysis of George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” (1946). Orwell’s article on the English language is on point because it defines how people have become lazy in how they communicate with each other. This type of “slovenliness” is part of the problem in terms of why the English language is often misused by the speaker: “The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” (Orwell para.2). Due to the speaker’s laziness, the language becomes confused, and the person begins having “foolish thoughts” that do not have very good accuracy. This mental process is one way that Orwell defines the importance of language as a tool for clarity of thought, which is important when conveying a message to another person or group of people.
Damon explains in certain situations or careers disinformation is required to protect feelings, or to ensure advancement or survival. For example, reassuring a teenager that they “look good” when in fact they may not look picture perfect, or a politician who is addressing the public regarding a controversial matter. It is true that complete honesty may not be favourable in all circumstances, especially in situations in which it is a protective or survival measure. Citing the work of famous author George Orwell, Damon discusses the dishonesty built into political speech. This is contradictory to the fact that the author claims that the value in honesty is dwindling or was held at higher regard in the past, even if it is an example of exception to the truth, it still shows no ultimate change in peoples behaviour only gives example that dishonesty has existed always. George Orwell wrote the essay “Politics and the English Language” in 1946, 69 years ago. If politicians have been less than transparent in their use of political language for at least the last 69 years, then nothing has changed and this does not signify the recent or pending breakdown of society due to dishonest
Harris, Roy. "The Misunderstanding of Newspeak." George Orwell. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. 31-34.
Orwell argues that society is completely oblivious to the constraint that is involved in every day life. There is no individual in society and that everyone remains the same. “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” (46) Not only does a limiting of words show society that by controlling methods of co...
Tragic events occur daily around the globe in 2015, these occurrences have become routine. The world has considerably changed in the past five years; this is mainly due to the Arab spring (A term that symbolizes the fall of oppressive regimes in the Middle East. While in the Middle East the Arab Spring is TAKING PLACE, in America gun control is a major issue. One of the many letters written by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty Four is that of oppressive governments and the basic freedoms of humanity. This specific article and 1984 share similarities in how both discuss the nature of humans. The main themes they discuss are: Death, Loss of innocence, as well as hope.
I strongly agree with Fromm’s viewpoints and interpretations of Orwell’s 1984 text. He warns that the future federal powers will dehumanize society and leave everyone alienated. Thus, I agree with Fromm to the extent that he acknowledges the fact that humanity can indeed cease to exist as a result of our own self-destruction as well as the effect of our actions. Many of his opinions and warnings expressed by Orwell to an extent appear in contemporary society.
War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. The party slogan of Ingsoc illustrates the sense of contradiction which characterizes the novel 1984. That the book was taken by many as a condemnation of socialism would have troubled Orwell greatly, had he lived to see the aftermath of his work. 1984 was a warning against totalitarianism and state sponsored brutality driven by excess technology. Socialist idealism in 1984 had turned to a total loss of individual freedom in exchange for false security and obedience to a totalitarian government, a dysutopia. 1984 was more than a simple warning to the socialists of Orwell's time. There are many complex philosophical issues buried deep within Orwell's satire and fiction. It was an essay on personal freedom, identity, language and thought, technology, religion, and the social class system. 1984 is more than a work of fiction. It is a prediction and a warning, clothed in the guise of science fiction, not so much about what could happen as it is about the implications of what has already happened. Rather than simply discoursing his views on the social and political issues of his day, Orwell chose to narrate them into a work of fiction which is timeless in interpretation. This is the reason that 1984 remains a relevant work of social and philosophical commentary more than fifty years after its completion.
The writers and political speakers use “pretentious diction” to try and make boring or repugnant statements captivating or rational. Orwell felt political writing was the foe of simple, direct
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 better,” (598). Ugly language has been gaining ground in our population by a positive feedback mechanism.