Jason Cherry made many good points in his blog response to George Orwell. I made some of the same points myself. He made the point that some writings intentionally use bigger words to raise the perceived intelligence level of the author. True intelligence does not always produce bigger words, it produces words that are more precise in conveying the intended meaning to the reader. I have seen many people misuse big words in normal conversation in an attempt to sound intelligent. This works out exactly as Orwell said (and Jason pointed out); it simply causes confusion. I also would like to expand on a point that Jason made in closing. Sometimes it really is better to keep it simple. What is the point of speaking or writing if your audience does not understand what you are trying to say to them?
Saturday, January 22, 2011
"Politics and the English Language"
In “Politics and the English Language” George Orwell argues that “modern” English is vague and lacks the vivid imagery that “good” English consistently uses. He seems to be arguing that “modern” English is so concerned with sounding scientific that it lets the words that are used warp the intended meaning. Although I cannot think of any specific examples, I have seen this happen many times. An author is tempted to use popular phrases in writing. In so doing, they let the words that they use shape the meaning of their work because the vast majority of the time, the phrase is not entirely appropriate in the context that it is used. The result is that the final product does not produce the desired effect on its readers.
I am inclined to agree with Orwell. At least, I am inclined to agree with his argument as I interpreted it. His argument uses specific examples, and he picks them apart in detail. As I read the examples provided, I was not picturing what the author was trying to say. There was simply no visual element them. This is truly an atrocity because the English language easily possesses the potential to paint a vivid mental picture in the reader’s mind.
Language, by definition is an evolutionary principle. The meaning of many words changes, even in the relatively short history of American English. For instance, the word “gay” used to mean “happy” (more or less). More recently, it has been used to describe homosexual people. Today, it is used sometimes even used to express one’s dislike for something. This change seems harmless and is a natural part of what happens to language over time. Still, not all change is good change, and not all change is that natural, harmless change that I explained above. Orwell is essentially calling English speaking people to resist harmful changes to our language so we may still use words to incite vivid mental images. The loss of such an essential component of language would certainly not be beneficial, and he is right to fear this.
I wonder if his stance toward popular phrases is a bit too harsh. Admittedly, there are many times when these phrases are misused, causing a change in meaning as he says. It seems like he is saying that they should be abandoned altogether. In this respect, I would have to disagree with him. When used in the proper context, these popular phrases create an instant connection to the reader. They know exactly what the author is talking about without delay. My point is, there is a proper context for popular phrases, and if we are careful in our use of them they can be extremely helpful.
