George Orwell Literature Essay

According to George Orwell, political vocabulary is riddled with euphemism and ambiguity. Proponents of the political vocabulary see the battle against the subject as archaic with certain question-begging qualities. The approach to political language stems from people's convictions that English, like any organism, should evolve to serve a range of purposes. However, according to Orwell, misuse makes English hideous and misleading because it causes people to think foolishly. Furthermore, breaking such patterns will improve reasoning consistency and foster political regeneration. In this essay, there is an illustration that George Orwell prefers simple English to inaccurate use of words to fit political discourse in political speeches.
First, Orwell argues against the use of dying metaphors. According to him, new metaphors facilitate the evocation of visual images while old metaphors that are technically dead are used as ordinary words without causing a loss of vividness, hence the two categories are suitable to use in statements. However, Orwell is against the worn out metaphors that exist between the two classes that do not have such evocative influence, but are used because the speakers are incapable of inventing phrases to fit their circumstance (NPR News p3). He argues against metaphors that are used without knowledge of their ideal meaning, especially when the speakers are aware that there is likelihood that they have used them in an inappropriate context. The inappropriate use of metaphorical language is a form of pervasion of the original phrases.

Secondly, George Orwell argues against the improper operators or false limbs that the political language is associated with. He suggests that such operators enable the linguistically incompetent political writers to pick out verbs and nouns and pad sentences with extra syllables that facilitate symmetry. Such phases include ‘have an effect of’, ‘give grounds to’, ‘exhibit a tendency to’ and ‘serve the purpose of’. Under such circumstances, the authors prefer passive to active voice and use of noun constructions rather than gerunds. More so, improper operators include replacement of prepositions with phrases and ending of sentences with anticlimax. To avoid such inappropriate language use, Orwell suggests that is inappropriate to use long words where short ones can bring the required meaning.

Another argument that Orwell presents against the political language is use of meaningless words. Under this category, Orwell asserts that some political writings contain paragraphs that do not have meaning at all. Meaningless words are those that cannot point out to any object that is discoverable, but the reader is expected to do it. For instance, words such as sentimental, fascism, natural death, human, romantic and plastic are ordinarily dead but embraced by political writers to demonstrate artistic language use. However, use of such words has an attribute of dishonesty. An example is when the writer decides to use a word with a particular agreed meaning with an expectation that the reader will develop a different meaning from the same. In the long-run, it is easy to establish that the main intention might be to deceive.

Lastly, George Orwell argues against the use of diction in a pretentious way. Diction entails dignifying sordid processes of international political with war glorification, archaic coloring and use of foreign words to create elegance and culture. Some writers perceive that the Latin and Greek words are better than English well as those originating from the traditional Marxist literature such as German and France. To prevent avoid such problem. the writers must opt to speak in a manner that the meaning chooses the word rather than the word choosing the meaning.

Cases Where Faulty use of Language has been Exhibited

Dying Metaphors, meaningless Words and Verbal False limbs

Theresa May. When referring to the death of Keith Palmer in the accident, Theresa May asserts that ‘he was every inch a hero’(The Independent). In such statement, the speaker adds ‘every inch’ to the statement. She expects her listeners to derive a meaning that she was loyal, but different listeners can interpret the statement differently. Therefore, Theresa May is guilty of using a meaningless word. Another case where she commits the mistake is when she says that “democracy and values it entails will always prevail” and “the values of democracy are shared by free people around the world”. The words ‘democracy and values are meaningless.

In another statements, Theresa May states that “a terrorist came to a place where people gather to celebrate what it means to be free” and “the attacker drove his vehicle at speed into innocent pedestrians”(The Independent). The phrase such as “celebrate what it means to be free” is a dying metaphor. Nevertheless it can be shortened to “celebrate freedom” On the other hand, rather than saying “drove his vehicle at a speed”, May could say that “the terrorist speeded his vehicle”. Therefore, Theresa May is guilty of using meaningless words, using dying metaphors and using meaningless words.

Barack Obama. Barack Obama’s speech has an attribute of using meaningless words. For instance, he asserts that “as a commander in Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people.”(The White House). In the statement, words have been added to make the statement unnecessarily wrong, thereby making the former president guilty of using meaningless words. In another statement, Barack Obama states that “leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.” In this case, rather than saying “speak out against” the president would rather say “fight” because his speech is about the fight against terrorism. There president seems to be uninterested in what he is saying hence he commits a mistake of using a false metaphor. Additionally, the words’ values, terrorism and human are typically meaningless.

Assessment of Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence”

Despite that the speech is perceived to be rational, formal and persuasive Thomas Jefferson stacks phrases and clauses together in statements and commits several mistakes. Among the mistakes is use of straightforward arguments to support ideologies of morality and creating troublesome nuances of grammar in differentiation

First, Thomas Jefferson fails to cut words out when it is possible to do it. For instance, he asserts that ‘all men are created equal’ yet he has an option of stating that of “all men are equal”. Additionally, Jefferson assets that “they are endowed with their creator with certain unalienable rights” rather than cutting down the words in the statement to “they have unalienable rights. Towards the end, Jefferson asserts that ‘”to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world” rather than saying that“ let us present the following facts to the world support our idea”. Moreover, the passive voice generates excess verbiage and leaves readers uncertain about who did what to whom.

The statements such as “has refused his assent to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for public good”, “He has endeavored to prevent the population of these sates, for that purpose of obstructing foreigner naturalization” and “he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction not to our constitution” are unnecessarily elongated with unessential words.

In the statement “we must therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them as we hold the rest of the worries of humankind”, Jefferson has added meaningless words to the statement against Orwell’s notion of meaningless words. While the sentence “they have full power to levy war, conclude peace” the improper use of the word ‘levy’ indicates use of metaphors in a careless way. A similar case is when he states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

What is more, there is a statement where Jefferson states that ‘passing laws of immediate and pressing importance for the sole purpose of fatiguing them” to refer to the authoritarian leadership of the Prince (USHistory.com). However, the word “fatiguing” is a form of giving a banal statement a profundity appearance according to George Orwell. On the other hand, the statement “invasion of the rights of people” is an example of a dying metaphor with little evocative power. Additionally, by claiming that “he has erected multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of offices to harass our people and eat their substance”, Jefferson uses two metaphors; erected a multitude of new offices, and harass our people and eat their substances. According to Orwell, such stale metaphors indicate emotion, and are used in the correct context. However, in the statement “deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity”< Jefferson uses a stale metaphor.



In his speech in the Declaration for Independence, Jefferson uses both dying metaphors and verbal false limbs in his statements. He is guilty of giving banal statements appearance of profundity. Meaningless words that are used in the Declaration for Independence include justice, solemnly, descent respect, prudence, patient sufferance, and absolute tyranny over these states, candid world. However, there is no pretentious diction because Thomas does not glorify Latin and Greek words in any of his statements. Therefore, according to the standards of Orwell, the Declaration for Independence is a poor specimen of English prose.

The choice of words can reverse decadence of language. Ideal writers are those that do not use metaphors, similes and other parts of speech that are common in print media. Stale metaphors, idioms and similes leave the statements vague. In case a writer has decided to use a metaphor that is new, the metaphor must fit the context adequately. All emotional writing must consider the meaning of words chosen to convey the meaning as expected. The writers also emphasize on simplicity when speaking by minimizing usage of long words where it is possible to use short ones. Plain simple language incorporating short words and brief sentences without incorporating fluff and verbosity creep into the communication. Orwell also argues that good writer is those that use active language rather than passive whenever it is possible. Active language removes obscurity and improves clarity of statements. To be a good writer, it is also important to avoid using foreign and scientific words and jargon that is equivalent to everyday English. Presupposing specialized knowledge on readers is a gamble.

Comparison between George Orwell and Bruce Fraser

In his argument, Fraser states that that politicians like hedging, a common rhetorical approach that enables the speaker to accomplish politeness, protect rapport, prevent potential confrontation, and appear modes. The language is used for evading questions from reporters (Fraser 201).In Fraser (205), the attribute of little commitment that is indicated in hedging is helpful in concealing the truth. Fraser suggests that hedging has attributes of vagueness deception, equivocation and evasion, a similar attribute to using meaningless words in the account of George Orwell.).Additionally, Fraser asserts that hedging is not grammatical because it does not fall within one syntactical form (p.203). Therefore, as opposed to George Orwell who is strict in the usage of grammar in the political discourse, Bruce Fraser does not oppose the use of hedging that has attributes of poor usage of language. However, he acknowledges that the poor use of language promotes vagueness and reveals the speaker’s dishonesty similar to George Orwell.

In conclusion, George Orwell argues against the modern political language that is comprised of on imagery and staleness and lack of precision. Poor language entails scenarios where the writer is incapable of expressing the meaning of something adequately in his or her mind as well as when he or she says something else inadvertently or is incapable of establishing whether the words have a meaning or not. In other times, the political speeches are such that the words and phrases are too vague or abstract such that when other topics are raised, the concrete aspect of the writer’s words melts down. Speaking or writing in such way is a form of linguistic incompetence rather than an oratory talent as it is ordinarily perceived to be. Generally, Orwell is against the habitual dodging that is linked with choosing few words to make a prose and tacking several phases together that translates to a prefabricated idea.



Works Cited

Fraser, Bruce. "Hedging in Political Discourse. The Bush 2007Press Conferences.".Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture. 2010: 201-212. Print.

http://www.bu.edu/sed/files/2010/10/2010-Hedging-in-Political-Disciourse-The-2007-Bush-Press-Conferences.pdf

The White House. Address of the Nation by the President. 6 December 2015. Web. 25 May 2017. Print.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president

NPR News.org.Politics and the English language. George Orwell. n.d. print. http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/Politics_and_the_English_Language-1.pdf

USHistory.org. "The Declaration of Independence." 1995. Web. 25 May 2017. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

The Independent. Theresa May Speech in Full: Prime Minister says London terror attack suspect ‘tried to silence our democracy’. 23 March.2017.Web.25 May, 2017.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/theresa-may-london-terror-attack-speech-in-full-suspect-british-born-silence-democracy-mi5-a7645491.html