This has been a difficult idea for me as I do love the proper use of language. I found myself having to remember that we are talking about language and politics rather than language and literature. I find it difficult to read a piece of work that is not well written and usually give up at some point and stop reading it. But when we marry it with politics and having to get a message across to the American people, ALL the American people (this includes non-traditional American citizens), than yes, using what Orwell refers to as a "decline of language" is necessary. Your neighbor, co-worker, or friend may not have had the opportunity to be educated to a degree where proper usage of the English language is easy for them to understand. Is this their fault? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was just enough for them to learn English as a second, maybe even third or fourth language. So would that mean that they should not be entitled to a form of speech that they would understand? After all, this is their country also and they should not be discouraged to get involved because it is "above their heads".
I could understand Orwell's views, except concerning foriegn language, if it were a literary or scholarly speech. But that is not what he was discussing. He was focusing on politics, and politics are for everyone, the educated and the uneducated alike must know, and are absolutely entitled to know the current events of the country they live in.
Kathleen,
ReplyDeleteI understand your inability to read something that’s poorly written because I have that same problem myself! Also, I'm glad that I'm not the only person who isn't offended at the fact that political writings are not up to Orwell's standards. However, the fact that political writings are poorly written does not personally bother me. My intelligence doesn’t get insulted while listening to a political speech because I believe that one should take into account the target audience of the speech, writing, essay, or any other way a politician’s soapbox is being expressed. If a speech only appeals to people with English degrees, then chances are that politician will not be popular among the general public. Perhaps a politician must use all the “wrong” grammatical tactics to appeal to an audience that has learned these “wrong” habits. Makes sense kind of, right?
Hey Kathleen! I wanted to say that I agree with you about politics being for the masses. I think that someone who is trying to convey a message to the masses, without knowledge of their prior education or language background, has to stick to Orwell's rules for writing. I think being clear and concise are two very important things to keep in mind when writing for the public.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you about finding it hard to read poorly written work. I, unfortunately, see it everywhere now. I even see it in newspapers articles that are written by people who "do that for a living." How can this generation be forced to follow a set of rules when the examples they have before them aren't even up to par?
One reason why nonnative speakers may have a difficult time with our language is that every rule has an exception. It's not as logical as Spanish, which has distinct patterns. One reason why they have difficulty pronouncing the word truck is because they've never seen the letters t and r appear right after each other.
ReplyDeleteOrwell, it should be said, is not suggesting that language should be "incorrect" or "badly written" so that it can be understood. Elizabeth is quite right in suggesting that he is arguing for concision and clarity, something that will make it clear to everyone including new speakers. His argument is that politicians use language that either hides their meaning or makes it more palatable. Consider the difference between referring to "collateral damage" and "killing civilians." Which one is a new speaker of the language most likely to understand? which one is most likely to appall the listeners regardless of their proficiency in the language?
ReplyDelete