George Orwell points out that many writers have diluted the message of their writings by the use of many phrases of either local or foreign origin. These phrases either do not apply to the intended meaning, or were intentionally added for vagueness due to a political environment.
I cannot point to a specific example as my research for my first essay is in the infant stages. But as a novice follower of politics, I can recall many instances where I was left wondering what it was that I just read or heard. Many political writings and speeches are written with such care as to purposely use clichés and large uncommonly used words to intentionally leave the writing or statement open for individual interpretation. I believe this is also done to raise the perceived intelligence level of the one delivering the message, leaving the reader or listener with the assumption of, “I guess I am not smart enough to understand”.
I believe that the argument against the evolution of language referred to by George Orwell is sustained. Political and economic situations have had an obvious impact on how writings of columns, news, and political speeches are composed today. As society certainly enters an era of the twenty-four hour news cycle, political correctness by means of stating carefully chosen words, or words intentionally used to cloud the statement is a regular occurrence. The second edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary has over two-hundred and fifty thousand words in it. Surely we can construct reasonable, understandable dialog from these entries without the addition of clichés or words of foreign origin, (As I use a French word to make my point).
I am in agreement with Orwell on the basis of his argument. Many writers, critics and politicians would be better served following the advice that simple understandable language is the best approach for delivering a clear message. But if I may, I do believe the cliché of, “do what you say, say what you mean,” may apply here. I guess the larger question for me is, “do they really want to deliver a clear message with complete understanding?”
Only amusement came to mind with the thought of two hundred and fifty thousand different words in our English language, yet we run to other languages throughout our writings. Of course I am not pointing the finger at you, merely our language writers as a whole. The same goes with the idea that we tend to use metaphors far more than need be. As I portrayed and emphasized throughout my blog, I believe that a lack of enthusiasm and enrichment into the ‘old way of writing, is the abundance of ease. George Orwell provided a wonderful example of where the ease is exposed.
ReplyDeleteWhen we think of the word we are trying to say, we tend to write something ‘smarter’ than what our brain originally provided. Sometimes in doing so, we may be running to another language such as Greek, or Latin, or perhaps we are running into a totally different meaning than the original word in the first place. Yet, more often than not, we are running into a circle by saying and repeating what many others have already said, or expressed throughout their writings. Great first blog Jason, you only helped strengthen my thoughts on this topic!
Nicholas Phillips
Jason, what a good blog. I agree with your analysis of Orwells essay. I also agree with the over use of metaphors in our use of the English language. I too, am "guilty as charged". I apprieciated your point about the age of the 24 hour newscycle with its carefully chosen words and political correctness. This kind of language is annoying as well as disturbingly vague. I agree that we should be able to construct reasonable dialog without cliches. (But I liked yours that you added, it helped to prove your point!). You are right, people should stick to saying what they actually mean. Thanks for getting your work done early, it helped me focus my thoughts as well. Great Job! Rene Bayouth
ReplyDelete