The continuous decline is simply due to the fact that future generations continue to come up with foolish and slang language. The pristine original English language will eventually have no current generations that speak this language- the archives of it through literature will be all thats left. The reason for this is this"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. " No one is willing to take these extra precautions as our generations motto is to lean toward the shortest and simplest way versus the more challenging and extra mile proper way. Imitation is the the leading cause of the disease we now call the english language and we will only continue to decrease in properness and increase in slang.As generations continue the slang language will only continue to , too decline and get shorter till the everyday language will revolve around acronyms !
When I found out that he wrote this 70 years ago, I was beyond floored because you would think as powerful as his message was it would have gained a lot of popularity and would have been taken seriously. We have definitely declined in language since he wrote this. In todays society we have many people who don't value speaking or writing properly. All it takes is one person to teach a child the improper way of the English language for that child to spread it to different people. I believe that in the future, the proper way of speaking and writing of the English language will declined even more than it is today. It should be our job to spread this concern and try to find a solution in better educating our youth to write properly.
Orwell mentions that "[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." What factors if language have aided in having these foolish thoughts?
I think that when we use a word over and over again, we tend to abuse the meaning. Because of this, people will take the word a certain way. Someone may have a negative connotation to a word simply because of how they have experienced it used, while someone may see it in a more positive light. After this has been done many many times, it becomes unclear to what it really means, and it no longer has one solid meaning. When it has gotten to this point, it no longer has meaning, because everyone takes it a different way. Another reason why a repetition of a certain word may render it meaningless is simply because it is overused. When is used less, people will take the time to notice it. However, with constant repetition, people will eventually become indifferent to it. This is true to common phrases, like cliches, as well.
The repetition of certain words over and over again can render them meaningless because overuse can destroy those words. When people hear the same cliche words again and again, they tend to lose their effect. Overuse can also lead to misconstrued meaning. People who chose the same basic words for what they say tend to mean something a little different each time they use the word, because not every sentence they say will have the same feeling or intention behind it. This causes words to lose their meaning, and therefore effect and purpose. Their is not point in using a meaningless, ineffective word, but people still continue to do it, which is why so many words have become subject to this. It is the same with writing; if you write the same thing over and over again, it makes it seem like you don't know what you’re talking about. Whatever is repeated will become meaningless and lose its credibility.
Words are said in order to convey a message and so there is some truth to them even in politics. The problem with politics is that message usual comes with an ulterior motive of trying to convince the audience. This is not necessarily a negative thing however this means that what is being said is only true depending on the ulterior motive. This is why trusting politicians is a very difficult and why people very much value honesty. It is almost impossible to tell whether or not a politician is using language and words to communicate what they truly believe or what they are using buzzwords to get others to follow their agenda. In this past election, even with all the crude things trump said there were people who even though they were appalled by what he said respected that he was being honest. This is the sad reality of using words in politics that individuals can spout horrible things yet that is still better than feeling like you’re being lied to.
I believe that in politics words are said to portray points using facts and reason, but I also believe that politicians use certain buzz words to attract certain audiences to their campaign or movement. by including these words politicians can potentially draw in people that otherwise wouldn't care about their candidacy and those people can rally behind this candidate even though they might not like everything else about the candidate. Politicians don't always mean what they say and everyone knows that, so therefore it is not outlandish to say that they use certain words to attract voters that they don't mean to do or uphold when they are in office. Politicians for the most part are only looking for your vote and there are very few politicians genuinely out there for your best interest. Now a lot of politicians are being elected for being outsiders and actually mean what they say so that they can effectively work for and by the people.
To everyone, different words have different meanings. This comes from experiences that people have been introduced to. For example, democracy to a Jew during the Nazi's rein would mean survival. In America today, democracy is a right, it is what is owed to citizens. People take their positive experiences of things, lifestyles, or events, and take them for granted throughout their life. A single word can bring back terrible memories. For example, the word "November" brings back memories of when she was raped by her step-brother whereas "November" to mean means Black Friday shopping or almost there to Christmas. A single word has the power to change a person's life.
To everyone a single word like democracy can mean many different things because the meaning to a person depends all on everyone’s individual experience. As Orwell mentions, “there no agreed definition” and this is due to the fact on how every single country runs their “democratic” system in a separate, unique way. Also, the fact that words like these are so intangible that they only loosely define a concept, and not a well though out one. Words like these that have no concrete objects or images attached to them hold different meanings to every individual and also as Orwell says this is sometimes why they’re still being used. These words also change their meanings throughout times. Back in ancient Greek times this word directly could’ve meant a governmental system that was primarily based on what the citizens voted on. In current times, populations have grown in overwhelming numbers altering the term of democracy and causing it to mean something different, like in the united states the people have a say but the electoral college (therefore, the elite) have the actual final say.
Words and phrases that are cliché now weren't always cliché. There was a time when the phrases taking the L and only time will tell were not cliché. Those things at one time were original and not used by many. Now everyday those phrases are used and are completely overused. They are no longer clever or unique, they are now general and a part of the daily language. We use those phrases because they caught on. People liked the phrases and that is how they gained a popularity that continues to grow. The cliché phrases spread so quickly. More and more people begin saying them and the more people that say them the more the amount continues to grow due to the phrases and words becoming a social norm. People tend to conform to those around them and unconsciously many will follow in others footsteps whether they realize it or not. That is why we use so many clichés. People rub off on other people and conformity is inevitable. Cliché words and phrases is just another example of that occurring.
I believe that Cliche language and saying come from groups with similar interest and likings and are used as a form of communication and joining together. Cliche language is normally things that are said that draw attention or make people feel good about something. People hear something that was said, it catches their attention and they like it, and then they start using it. This keeps happening until everyone ends up hearing it, not because they like it, but because they hear so many people say it. Then it becomes Cliche. For example, if you're taking to a friend and they say something that you really like or it is funny, chances are next time you are talking to someone you will say what you heard. Use politics for another example, politicians will say things that are cliche or everyone knows so that they can draw attention to themselves and gain popularity. Cliche language is all about what people thing and if they decide to use it or not. But, if something becomes cliche, that means it is a common thing that is said.
I think language is abused in order to further political agenda because I think language is a weapon that is always locked and loaded. Considering language is essential communicating we tend to disregard how heavy our words can be. I think when people, like politicians, try to further their political agenda they use a language that they feel carries importance and authority but that can often not be the case. The language that is often associated with furthering political agendas is constantly being throw in rotation by others trying to further their political agenda. Often times those people that are using the same language are morphing it and changes its syntax to represent what they want to express instead of using different language all together. The constant use of the same language is the main way i think language is abused in order to further political agendas.
Orwell writes, “A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?” In regards to English language, why is it important for a writer to ask these questions?
It is important for a writer to ask himself (or herself) these questions to ensure that the message of the piece is being delivered as clearly as possible. "What am I trying to say?", in my opinion, is important to prevent the long-winded and ultimately meaningless tangents we often come across in writing. It encourages one to "state their case" in the most concise way. "What words will express it?" promotes the use of scholarly vocabulary to validate that the writer is knowledgeable in whatever field he/she is writing in and it also relates back to conciseness. "What image or idiom will make it clearer?" is important to appeal to the reader's senses and allow them to visualize the words that they are reading or hearing to guarantee that the idea is understood. "Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?" can be used to make certain that the mental picture has some resonance and isn't just a string of words that won't make any difference once the reading is done. These questions are of utter importance to create a piece abundant in clarity, higher level vocabulary, and conciseness.
Orwell's final rule states, "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." What does this mean and how is this rule relevant in the use of the English language today?
Orwell describes the language of politics as "ugly and inaccurate.” He defines political language as a language “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” The main purpose of using vague language in political speech is that candidates and other members of politics can get away with lying. Politics as a whole is known for its grimy, often crooked ways. When vague rhetoric is used, a person can get away with saying something profane, and then covering it up by saying he/she meant something else, or that the audience was confused by how unclear it was, and it was not meant to come across that way.
People in politics often sound like robots during their political speeches. Orwell wrote, “If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness…is at any rate favourable to political conformity.” Why is this example by Orwell frighteningly relatable to some of the political language of current day?
A lot of the political jargon today is just repeated by different people and groups, in order to keep those key words in mind. During a Republican debate this past election, Florida Senator Marco Rubio repeated a certain speech word for word twice, until he got called out by Charlie Christ, for speaking like a robot. He then repeated said speech two more times, totaling to four times during the whole thing. This just proves how he was not speaking with his brain, but just words that flow out with no thought. This is dangerous because it shows there is a political candidate who cannot think of his own words to say, or add any variation to the way he conveys his message.
Orwell sets up a series of rules that will help to reverse the loss of meaning in the English language. He believes that people and politicians should not use cliche language that has been overused to the point of meaninglessness. Orwell suggests that words should be used in an original yet simple way to convey meaning. Only the words that best describe the meaning should be used, rather than settling for using words that are associated with something but might give a different meaning. He believes that over-complicated and/or unnecessary words should not be included in a sentence. Orwell's final rule suggests that barbaric language be avoided at all costs. This statement hints that malicious and hateful speech is never useful in the English language, and not using it will help to build the language and it's meaning back up.
I believe that the current use of slang in the youth around the country is ultimately working to help the deterioration of language as time goes on. Orwell's main argument is we are simplifying the language too much and not truly saying what is academic and needs to be said, rather we say what is right. This is for a lack of academic vocabulary and this deterioration of language being accepted for awhile now. As people use slang in their daily speech, they are taking steps backwards in developing their academic vocabulary. Instead of expanding their knowledge with new words to replace others, people will now use a hip word that is trending. The problem with these trending words is that they soon will pass and mean nothing. Now the generation grows up with a lack on knowledge with language by restricting themselves to slang. I do believe the increase use of slang socially is helping deteriorate the language just as Orwell says.
I believe the lack of authenticity and inability to "tell it like it is" is most definitely ones of the reasons political figures are labeled as liars. The name "lack of authenticity" itself suggests that they are not being truthful. Given that there is a lot of pressure on political figures to say the right thing, to win the majority vote, I can see why they might change up their opinion a lot. That being said, I do not believe they should sugar coat it, they need to be able to tell it like it is. This in particular reminds me specifically of the tactics Donald Trump used in this election. I think people appreciated the fact that he was straight up about things and really told it like it was. Although he has no filter, that is not necessarily the best move, politicians do need to have some sort of filter.
I believe that when it comes to political campaigns smear campaigns work much more because of something called othering. When you are told that someone is all these bad things, you can only assume that the other person is the exact opposite of those things, which is most commonly good things. That is why smear campaigns are much more popular than hyping yourself up. When one talks themselves up it is not assumed that the other person is the opposite of those things. The only difference between before seeing the ad and after is now you are good and that person is still just present in the race, the ad had no good or bad outcomes for them. With smear campaigns the result is the “smearer” comes out looking better than before and the “smeared” comes out of it all looking worse.
After reading, can you recall during this busy political season anytime that a candidate used inflated style of speech instead of painting the true mental picture and describe?
In my personal opinion, politics in general constantly use this inflated style of speech to manipulate the public into following their message even if it may deviate from their true goals. However, in this political race in particular, the candidates on both sides were constantly saying things that I just felt like had to be taken with a grain of salt. Trump was a mastermind of inflated speech, one of peoples biggest reasons for following him is how "straight up" he is, and how he "tells it how it is". Yet im not sure if I was watching something different but in every political debate I saw involving Trump he did nothing but evade questions unfavorable to him and his political position, and the use of inflating what he is going to do to the country with giving his plan on how he was going to do it. Instead of painting the true mental picture mentioned in the question.
Describe an art criticism you have read that would prove to "almost completely lacking in meaning" as the author describes, and do you believe Orwell is correct in his thinking of it being meaningless or far fetched?
I believe that so long as we are a society so infatuated with digital technology, constantly creating new ways to communicate other than letter-writing or even the archaic face-to-face conversation that the English language will be in decline. Although that may seem rather pessimistic, I believe it to be a realistic and important point of view to at least give some thought. When we find more value in tweets and texts and less value in spoken words and conversation we become increasingly more lazy. It is as a result of such laziness that our language declines. To put a specific time frame on the decline of language is near impossible as it has been in recession for quite some time. The likelihood that there will be a reemergence of appreciation and practice of the "true" English language is slim to none.
In regards to the state of our country in te present, do you or do you not agree with Orwell's statement of "Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse?"
This is such a poignant statement when considering our current political and social situation. The problems we're facing are so overwhelming I'm shaking just thinking about them. That said, I think that a large part of "the problem" (when considering the situation as a whole) lies in our inability not only to speak, but to listen. What good is language, after all, when even if one knows what he or she means and communicates it well, the person that is being spoken to doesn't care to listen, much less attempt to understand what is being said! More emphasis is being put on making oneself heard than on hearing others, which leads to a point where there is hardly any point to using language at all. So yes, I think I would agree with Orwell: many have stopped caring about what others have to say, proving civilization's decadence, and therefore our language, or at least the use of it, is collapsing as well.
As a college student generally writing within the realm of academia, do you agree with Orwell when he states that writing "consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug?"
I don’t agree with Orwell’s statement because I believe through my own personal years of schooling that I have learned how to make every piece of writing my own. Even though other people might have used the same words, doesn’t mean they gave across the same message you are trying to in your own writing, unless you blatantly plagiarize. Writing, in my opinion, is not just “gumming together long strips words,” writing helps people to lay out their thoughts, and in doing so helps them think clearer. When I can write my thoughts and have them looking me dead in the face, it’s easy for me to read back through and fix what sounds off tune. Some college students do feel this way though, especially when they are not engaged with what they are writing about, and simply rush through to make the word count. But I truly believe anyone can write a well thought out paper if they are writing about something they feel passionate about.
George Orwell sates that"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." was are the ways you can think of that we ca take the necessary trouble to correct the language?
if we "come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning"how is i that literature classics still continue to be read, better yet how do they continue to be understood?
What does words in our language having blurred lines in having different meanings, having no set meaning, and even having no meaning at all do to us as a society?
Has the difference between political writing and modern English caused a miscommunication between the American people and the government? Consider Orwell's statement " All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."
If you have read Orwell's books "Animal Farm" or "1984", what connections can be made between them and this essay? (Regarding Orwell's feelings about politics?)
Do you believe that words such as democracy, romantic and vitality that represent such intangible things were created for the writer's selfish purpose to deceive the reader in some way?
Do you agree with Orwell when he states that "the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes?" Why coundn't it be other causes?
Pick specific quotes from the excerpts that you feel were profound and obvious in the election that just took place. Why do you think that since 1946, much of this still seems to be true?
Considering Orwell wrote this 70 years ago, how is it that we have continued this decline of language that he speaks of and continued political chaos?
ReplyDeleteThe continuous decline is simply due to the fact that future generations continue to come up with foolish and slang language. The pristine original English language will eventually have no current generations that speak this language- the archives of it through literature will be all thats left. The reason for this is this"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. " No one is willing to take these extra precautions as our generations motto is to lean toward the shortest and simplest way versus the more challenging and extra mile proper way. Imitation is the the leading cause of the disease we now call the english language and we will only continue to decrease in properness and increase in slang.As generations continue the slang language will only continue to , too decline and get shorter till the everyday language will revolve around acronyms !
DeleteWhen I found out that he wrote this 70 years ago, I was beyond floored because you would think as powerful as his message was it would have gained a lot of popularity and would have been taken seriously. We have definitely declined in language since he wrote this. In todays society we have many people who don't value speaking or writing properly. All it takes is one person to teach a child the improper way of the English language for that child to spread it to different people. I believe that in the future, the proper way of speaking and writing of the English language will declined even more than it is today. It should be our job to spread this concern and try to find a solution in better educating our youth to write properly.
DeleteOrwell mentions that "[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." What factors if language have aided in having these foolish thoughts?
ReplyDeleteWhy does the repetition of certain words render them meaningless?
ReplyDeleteI think that when we use a word over and over again, we tend to abuse the meaning. Because of this, people will take the word a certain way. Someone may have a negative connotation to a word simply because of how they have experienced it used, while someone may see it in a more positive light. After this has been done many many times, it becomes unclear to what it really means, and it no longer has one solid meaning. When it has gotten to this point, it no longer has meaning, because everyone takes it a different way. Another reason why a repetition of a certain word may render it meaningless is simply because it is overused. When is used less, people will take the time to notice it. However, with constant repetition, people will eventually become indifferent to it. This is true to common phrases, like cliches, as well.
DeleteThe repetition of certain words over and over again can render them meaningless because overuse can destroy those words. When people hear the same cliche words again and again, they tend to lose their effect. Overuse can also lead to misconstrued meaning. People who chose the same basic words for what they say tend to mean something a little different each time they use the word, because not every sentence they say will have the same feeling or intention behind it. This causes words to lose their meaning, and therefore effect and purpose. Their is not point in using a meaningless, ineffective word, but people still continue to do it, which is why so many words have become subject to this. It is the same with writing; if you write the same thing over and over again, it makes it seem like you don't know what you’re talking about. Whatever is repeated will become meaningless and lose its credibility.
DeleteDo you think in all politics words are said due to the pure fact of including them or because there is some truth within them?
ReplyDeleteWords are said in order to convey a message and so there is some truth to them even in politics. The problem with politics is that message usual comes with an ulterior motive of trying to convince the audience. This is not necessarily a negative thing however this means that what is being said is only true depending on the ulterior motive. This is why trusting politicians is a very difficult and why people very much value honesty. It is almost impossible to tell whether or not a politician is using language and words to communicate what they truly believe or what they are using buzzwords to get others to follow their agenda. In this past election, even with all the crude things trump said there were people who even though they were appalled by what he said respected that he was being honest. This is the sad reality of using words in politics that individuals can spout horrible things yet that is still better than feeling like you’re being lied to.
DeleteI believe that in politics words are said to portray points using facts and reason, but I also believe that politicians use certain buzz words to attract certain audiences to their campaign or movement. by including these words politicians can potentially draw in people that otherwise wouldn't care about their candidacy and those people can rally behind this candidate even though they might not like everything else about the candidate. Politicians don't always mean what they say and everyone knows that, so therefore it is not outlandish to say that they use certain words to attract voters that they don't mean to do or uphold when they are in office. Politicians for the most part are only looking for your vote and there are very few politicians genuinely out there for your best interest. Now a lot of politicians are being elected for being outsiders and actually mean what they say so that they can effectively work for and by the people.
DeleteWhat kinds of things would a single word (like democracy for example) mean different things to two different people?
ReplyDeleteTo everyone, different words have different meanings. This comes from experiences that people have been introduced to. For example, democracy to a Jew during the Nazi's rein would mean survival. In America today, democracy is a right, it is what is owed to citizens. People take their positive experiences of things, lifestyles, or events, and take them for granted throughout their life. A single word can bring back terrible memories. For example, the word "November" brings back memories of when she was raped by her step-brother whereas "November" to mean means Black Friday shopping or almost there to Christmas. A single word has the power to change a person's life.
DeleteTo everyone a single word like democracy can mean many different things because the meaning to a person depends all on everyone’s individual experience. As Orwell mentions, “there no agreed definition” and this is due to the fact on how every single country runs their “democratic” system in a separate, unique way. Also, the fact that words like these are so intangible that they only loosely define a concept, and not a well though out one. Words like these that have no concrete objects or images attached to them hold different meanings to every individual and also as Orwell says this is sometimes why they’re still being used. These words also change their meanings throughout times. Back in ancient Greek times this word directly could’ve meant a governmental system that was primarily based on what the citizens voted on. In current times, populations have grown in overwhelming numbers altering the term of democracy and causing it to mean something different, like in the united states the people have a say but the electoral college (therefore, the elite) have the actual final say.
DeleteWhy do you think we use cliche language in our everyday speech?
ReplyDeleteWords and phrases that are cliché now weren't always cliché. There was a time when the phrases taking the L and only time will tell were not cliché. Those things at one time were original and not used by many. Now everyday those phrases are used and are completely overused. They are no longer clever or unique, they are now general and a part of the daily language. We use those phrases because they caught on. People liked the phrases and that is how they gained a popularity that continues to grow. The cliché phrases spread so quickly. More and more people begin saying them and the more people that say them the more the amount continues to grow due to the phrases and words becoming a social norm. People tend to conform to those around them and unconsciously many will follow in others footsteps whether they realize it or not. That is why we use so many clichés. People rub off on other people and conformity is inevitable. Cliché words and phrases is just another example of that occurring.
DeleteI believe that Cliche language and saying come from groups with similar interest and likings and are used as a form of communication and joining together. Cliche language is normally things that are said that draw attention or make people feel good about something. People hear something that was said, it catches their attention and they like it, and then they start using it. This keeps happening until everyone ends up hearing it, not because they like it, but because they hear so many people say it. Then it becomes Cliche. For example, if you're taking to a friend and they say something that you really like or it is funny, chances are next time you are talking to someone you will say what you heard. Use politics for another example, politicians will say things that are cliche or everyone knows so that they can draw attention to themselves and gain popularity. Cliche language is all about what people thing and if they decide to use it or not. But, if something becomes cliche, that means it is a common thing that is said.
DeleteIn what ways do you think language is abused in order to further political agendas?
ReplyDeleteI think language is abused in order to further political agenda because I think language is a weapon that is always locked and loaded. Considering language is essential communicating we tend to disregard how heavy our words can be. I think when people, like politicians, try to further their political agenda they use a language that they feel carries importance and authority but that can often not be the case. The language that is often associated with furthering political agendas is constantly being throw in rotation by others trying to further their political agenda. Often times those people that are using the same language are morphing it and changes its syntax to represent what they want to express instead of using different language all together. The constant use of the same language is the main way i think language is abused in order to further political agendas.
Deletewhy does Orwell suggest that one should put off using words as long as possible? How does it help with the clarity of one's message?
ReplyDeleteOrwell writes, “A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?” In regards to English language, why is it important for a writer to ask these questions?
ReplyDeleteIt is important for a writer to ask himself (or herself) these questions to ensure that the message of the piece is being delivered as clearly as possible. "What am I trying to say?", in my opinion, is important to prevent the long-winded and ultimately meaningless tangents we often come across in writing. It encourages one to "state their case" in the most concise way. "What words will express it?" promotes the use of scholarly vocabulary to validate that the writer is knowledgeable in whatever field he/she is writing in and it also relates back to conciseness. "What image or idiom will make it clearer?" is important to appeal to the reader's senses and allow them to visualize the words that they are reading or hearing to guarantee that the idea is understood. "Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?" can be used to make certain that the mental picture has some resonance and isn't just a string of words that won't make any difference once the reading is done. These questions are of utter importance to create a piece abundant in clarity, higher level vocabulary, and conciseness.
DeleteOrwell's final rule states, "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." What does this mean and how is this rule relevant in the use of the English language today?
ReplyDeleteWhy is political language the way that it is? What is the purpose in using vague and/or cliche language in political speech?
ReplyDeleteOrwell describes the language of politics as "ugly and inaccurate.” He defines political language as a language “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” The main purpose of using vague language in political speech is that candidates and other members of politics can get away with lying. Politics as a whole is known for its grimy, often crooked ways. When vague rhetoric is used, a person can get away with saying something profane, and then covering it up by saying he/she meant something else, or that the audience was confused by how unclear it was, and it was not meant to come across that way.
DeletePeople in politics often sound like robots during their political speeches. Orwell wrote, “If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness…is at any rate favourable to political conformity.” Why is this example by Orwell frighteningly relatable to some of the political language of current day?
ReplyDeleteA lot of the political jargon today is just repeated by different people and groups, in order to keep those key words in mind. During a Republican debate this past election, Florida Senator Marco Rubio repeated a certain speech word for word twice, until he got called out by Charlie Christ, for speaking like a robot. He then repeated said speech two more times, totaling to four times during the whole thing. This just proves how he was not speaking with his brain, but just words that flow out with no thought. This is dangerous because it shows there is a political candidate who cannot think of his own words to say, or add any variation to the way he conveys his message.
DeleteOrwell sets up a series of rules that will help to reverse the loss of meaning in the English language. He believes that people and politicians should not use cliche language that has been overused to the point of meaninglessness. Orwell suggests that words should be used in an original yet simple way to convey meaning. Only the words that best describe the meaning should be used, rather than settling for using words that are associated with something but might give a different meaning. He believes that over-complicated and/or unnecessary words should not be included in a sentence. Orwell's final rule suggests that barbaric language be avoided at all costs. This statement hints that malicious and hateful speech is never useful in the English language, and not using it will help to build the language and it's meaning back up.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the way someone explains an abstract thought be different than the way a concrete thought is explained?
ReplyDeleteHow does slang that people use socially either help or destroy the deterioration of language?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the current use of slang in the youth around the country is ultimately working to help the deterioration of language as time goes on. Orwell's main argument is we are simplifying the language too much and not truly saying what is academic and needs to be said, rather we say what is right. This is for a lack of academic vocabulary and this deterioration of language being accepted for awhile now. As people use slang in their daily speech, they are taking steps backwards in developing their academic vocabulary. Instead of expanding their knowledge with new words to replace others, people will now use a hip word that is trending. The problem with these trending words is that they soon will pass and mean nothing. Now the generation grows up with a lack on knowledge with language by restricting themselves to slang. I do believe the increase use of slang socially is helping deteriorate the language just as Orwell says.
DeleteWhy does today's political language have to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness?
ReplyDeleteIs the lack of authenticity and the inability to "tell it like it is" the reason political figures are labeled as liars? Why do you believe this?
ReplyDeleteI believe the lack of authenticity and inability to "tell it like it is" is most definitely ones of the reasons political figures are labeled as liars. The name "lack of authenticity" itself suggests that they are not being truthful. Given that there is a lot of pressure on political figures to say the right thing, to win the majority vote, I can see why they might change up their opinion a lot. That being said, I do not believe they should sugar coat it, they need to be able to tell it like it is. This in particular reminds me specifically of the tactics Donald Trump used in this election. I think people appreciated the fact that he was straight up about things and really told it like it was. Although he has no filter, that is not necessarily the best move, politicians do need to have some sort of filter.
DeleteIn what way could you refute Orwell's statement that language loosing its meaning is reversible?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that modern politicians use smear tactics rather than bringing themselves up?
ReplyDeleteI believe that when it comes to political campaigns smear campaigns work much more because of something called othering. When you are told that someone is all these bad things, you can only assume that the other person is the exact opposite of those things, which is most commonly good things. That is why smear campaigns are much more popular than hyping yourself up. When one talks themselves up it is not assumed that the other person is the opposite of those things. The only difference between before seeing the ad and after is now you are good and that person is still just present in the race, the ad had no good or bad outcomes for them. With smear campaigns the result is the “smearer” comes out looking better than before and the “smeared” comes out of it all looking worse.
DeleteAfter reading, can you recall during this busy political season anytime that a candidate used inflated style of speech instead of painting the true mental picture and describe?
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, politics in general constantly use this inflated style of speech to manipulate the public into following their message even if it may deviate from their true goals. However, in this political race in particular, the candidates on both sides were constantly saying things that I just felt like had to be taken with a grain of salt. Trump was a mastermind of inflated speech, one of peoples biggest reasons for following him is how "straight up" he is, and how he "tells it how it is". Yet im not sure if I was watching something different but in every political debate I saw involving Trump he did nothing but evade questions unfavorable to him and his political position, and the use of inflating what he is going to do to the country with giving his plan on how he was going to do it. Instead of painting the true mental picture mentioned in the question.
DeleteDescribe an art criticism you have read that would prove to "almost completely lacking in meaning" as the author describes, and do you believe Orwell is correct in his thinking of it being meaningless or far fetched?
ReplyDeleteI believe that so long as we are a society so infatuated with digital technology, constantly creating new ways to communicate other than letter-writing or even the archaic face-to-face conversation that the English language will be in decline. Although that may seem rather pessimistic, I believe it to be a realistic and important point of view to at least give some thought. When we find more value in tweets and texts and less value in spoken words and conversation we become increasingly more lazy. It is as a result of such laziness that our language declines. To put a specific time frame on the decline of language is near impossible as it has been in recession for quite some time. The likelihood that there will be a reemergence of appreciation and practice of the "true" English language is slim to none.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the state of our country in te present, do you or do you not agree with Orwell's statement of "Our
ReplyDeletecivilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the
general collapse?"
This is such a poignant statement when considering our current political and social situation. The problems we're facing are so overwhelming I'm shaking just thinking about them. That said, I think that a large part of "the problem" (when considering the situation as a whole) lies in our inability not only to speak, but to listen. What good is language, after all, when even if one knows what he or she means and communicates it well, the person that is being spoken to doesn't care to listen, much less attempt to understand what is being said! More emphasis is being put on making oneself heard than on hearing others, which leads to a point where there is hardly any point to using language at all. So yes, I think I would agree with Orwell: many have stopped caring about what others have to say, proving civilization's decadence, and therefore our language, or at least the use of it, is collapsing as well.
DeleteAs a college student generally writing within the realm of academia, do you agree with Orwell when he states that writing "consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by
ReplyDeletesomeone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug?"
I don’t agree with Orwell’s statement because I believe through my own personal years of schooling that I have learned how to make every piece of writing my own. Even though other people might have used the same words, doesn’t mean they gave across the same message you are trying to in your own writing, unless you blatantly plagiarize. Writing, in my opinion, is not just “gumming together long strips words,” writing helps people to lay out their thoughts, and in doing so helps them think clearer. When I can write my thoughts and have them looking me dead in the face, it’s easy for me to read back through and fix what sounds off tune. Some college students do feel this way though, especially when they are not engaged with what they are writing about, and simply rush through to make the word count. But I truly believe anyone can write a well thought out paper if they are writing about something they feel passionate about.
DeleteGeorge Orwell sates that"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." was are the ways you can think of that we ca take the necessary trouble to correct the language?
ReplyDeleteif we "come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning"how is i that literature classics still continue to be read, better yet how do they continue to be understood?
ReplyDeleteDo people (politicians) intend to use language as a tool but end up using it as a weapon? How so?
ReplyDeleteHow relevant do you believe pacification has been to shaping the world into what we all know it as today?
ReplyDeleteWhat steps would you take to reverse the evils of language?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the implication for words like democracy having no set definition? How does this affect our government?
ReplyDeleteWhat does words in our language having blurred lines in having different meanings, having no set meaning, and even having no meaning at all do to us as a society?
ReplyDeleteThe author states that "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity". What do you think he means by this and how do you feel about it?
ReplyDeleteHow can this excerpt be applied to this years presidential election?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about Orwell's statement, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible."?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDO you believe Orwell was writing from a bias stance, and if so, how can you back up this claim?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Orwell when he says that a damaged or "foolish" language can actually lead to foolish thoughts and ideas in a person?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion when Orwell says words such as Democracy, Socialism, Patriotic, and Freedom have no meaning? Do you believe that they do?
ReplyDeleteHas the difference between political writing and modern English caused a miscommunication between the American people and the government? Consider Orwell's statement " All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."
ReplyDeleteWhat are some possible economic causes for the changes in language?
ReplyDeleteIf you have read Orwell's books "Animal Farm" or "1984", what connections can be made between them and this essay? (Regarding Orwell's feelings about politics?)
ReplyDeleteOrwell prefers to write in a way that is more simple and eliminates pompous writing, how can this alter and halt the creative writer?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that words such as democracy, romantic and vitality that represent such intangible things were created for the writer's selfish purpose to deceive the reader in some way?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for us to change our ways and write properly?
ReplyDeleteWhy is political considered bad writing?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Orwell when he states that "the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes?" Why coundn't it be other causes?
ReplyDeletePick specific quotes from the excerpts that you feel were profound and obvious in the election that just took place. Why do you think that since 1946, much of this still seems to be true?
ReplyDelete