The general idea that society has been getting dumber over time is not a new concept at all. However, British author and essayist George Orwell has a unique explanation for this widespread phenomenon: language. In his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell explains that the recent deterioration of thought and understanding is directly attributable to the decline of language, and the reverse is also true. Although Orwell indicates that a decrease in proper language use has led to a detrimental state of thought, he provides some methods in which this position may be reversed and hopes that his British audience takes to heart and into practice his advice for clearing up language and thus thought also. Over the course of this eye-opening work on the importance of language and its effects upon the thoughts of a nation, Orwell implements numerous rhetorical devices which aid him in expressing his views, including myriad active examples as evidence, inductive reasoning, and frequent appeals to logos.
From nearly the commencement of his work, Orwell proceeds to cite numerous examples of poor writing and speech from prominent figures. One particular example he highlights is a direct quote from Professor Lancelot Hogben:
“Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder”
(5).
What? That’s exactly what Orwell indirectly asks. Utilizing Professor Hogben’s own words, Orwell provides specific evidence of the phenomenon he describes: useless words and unnecessarily complex terminology confuses the reader and writer both, as a lapse of communication takes place. After he pokes fun at a few more examples similar to this, Orwell continues by diagnosing the symptoms of shoddy language use themselves. Listing overused literary devices and presenting a defense for why they are so ineffective, Orwell seeks to educate the audience as to how to properly speak, that their minds may be made clear and full of understanding. A few of these he lists include “Dying Metaphors”, “Operators or Verbal False Limbs”, “Pretentious Diction”, and many more. The purpose of incorporating these is to warn the audience against their use, that their own skill in language usage may increase, and that they may not fall into the same trap as individuals such as Professor Hogben. It is through this means, Orwell argues, that the audience may improve their own thought.
Moving away from the evidence itself, Orwell makes use of inductive reasoning to support his argument. After providing example after example of poor language usage and a resultant lack of understanding, Orwell produces a well-defended generalized statement in the form of a few short, specific rules to follow in any kind of writing or speech:
i. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
(27)
These key notes serve to grant the audience a recapitulation of exactly what Orwell is saying, that they may easily remember a brief list of major mistakes they should be careful not to make. Serving as linguistic flash-cards, if you will, these accomplish Orwell’s broad purpose by reaching his intellectually diverse audience and instructing them to improve their own language in surprisingly practical ways—and, as Orwell reasons, they will allow his audience to improve their thought.
Finally, Orwell’s use of logic specifically in his ultimate paragraph serves to offer a conclusive persuasion to his audience for the case of improving language and therefore thought. In the last sentences of the work, Orwell muses,
“If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself...One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase...into the dustbin where it belongs.” (29)
Orwell is quite the logician here. Realizing that the simplification of English will thus simplify concepts, Orwell convinces the audience with one final statement that a reduction of complexity will “free” them from unnecessary mental clutter. This should be an obvious given, one Orwell uses to his distinct advantage in his last punchline that jabs at the use of current English. Orwell then compels the audience to fix their own issues, with the smooth insinuation that they will appear foolish if they don’t. Logically supposing that the audience will make themselves look bad if they don’t improve their English and thus their thought, Orwell appeals to logos to influence the audience’s own self-image.
Therefore, George Orwell successfully champions the concept of language improvement and its resultant augmentation of thought. Through numerous examples, appeals to logos, and flowing inductive reasoning, Orwell effectively convinces his audience to simplify their English, and consequently make easier their ability to understand material. Orwell’s work perhaps places his audience one step closer to clearer communication and a better grasp of all subjects, removing the fog of superfluous words and empty phrase to produce a smarter nation.
Works Cited:
Dag, O. “George Orwell: Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell: Politics and the
English Language, www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/.
j3
Comments