It is just his opinion. Just like any other language English is changing, not necessarily improving, to reflect changes in culture, politics, and people of the people who speak the language. Just look at slang, the words our parents use, the way our grandparents speak, etc, etc. We still are consistent in structure, grammar, and maybe denotation, but the connotation of many words have changed.
I agree that it is how opinion. He may think its changing for the worse and becoming bad while others may think the change is a positive one. I don't think it could be argued that it is consistent because languages change as a result of society and society isalways changing in some way, so English has to be changing but the change does not have to be good or bad. Evidence of the change can be seen through how his essay is written. It is very scholarly and some of the words used are more obscure now because they have become less relevant. Not only have the uses of certain words changed but the actual words that are used differ from what they were years ago. Language can change faster than now compared to when Orwell wrote the article because of how easy and quick communication is with people every where.
As someone who writes often, I tend to avoid cliches in my writing. They're almost guaranteed to make an editor or agent cringe, just from the fact that they are so overused, and often very broad. However, there are some instances in which the case can be made for the use of cliches. Cliches are derived from some observed pattern, whether this pattern stems from fiction or real-life happenstance. If an instance of one of these patterns is a necessary part of the story, a cliche might be effective, as cliches are quick, catchy ways to describe a situation. That being said, I think it's very much up to the author to judge whether a not a cliche is acceptable in their writing. They need to ask themselves, "am I using this because I need it? Or am I just using it out of convenience?" The answers to these questions are thereby story-dependent. Since many authors answer, "yes I need this" to the above questions, we see a prevalence in cliches. Actual effectiveness of the cliche is at the discretion of the reader.
Orwell addresses many written forms of literature, but he barely discusses day-to-day conversations. Can his rules for proper English be applied to conversation in a practical manner?
Of course they can! The whole point of Orwell's essay is that language should be used to communicate clearly and effectively, and since spoken language and conversations between people are the most basic form of communication, it most definitely applies. This is true because if people don't understand what you are saying, they won't be able to respond to it in the way you want them to, especially if the words that you are using have multiple meanings that could be interpreted differently for each individual. For instance, you could say “Use your dexterity to extend your arm like a rope unbinding” and the person may not know to respond by catching the Frisbee. Another way that it could apply to personal conversation when the individual speaking doesn’t even know what they are really saying because the language is so convoluted. I actually have witnessed personal conversations with people in social settings such as parties where the group is discussing politics or something similar with a very defined rhetoric, and when the group is expressing their beliefs, someone says something that seems very profound but also very canned. For instance, someone could express how "we need to implement a policy that safeguards the borders of this great nation and promotes democratic values." However, when that individual is questioned about what that actually means or criticized about his or her beliefs, the person may have a hard time defending them because even the person speaking don't know what they mean, the individual just heard some pundit on CNN say them.
What are some other words that are used in a "consciously deceptive way," specifically in current events and politics, and how and why are they used in this manner?
It's clear with certain current events that words can be a really powerful tool that can and do deceive their audience. "Deplorable" is one word that comes to mind. Candidates use words with a negative connotation in order to essentially belittle their opponents. Other candidates may use these words to rally their troops in order to rise against their opponent. Either way it's a mind game. Politics has become more about mudslinging than about actually politics. You are more likely to see a campaign ad tearing down one candidate rather than one focused on what a political candidate's views may actually be. Words play the biggest role in this. Not only do words connotations play a role but also, their context. Who is being described, addressed, etc. all play a role in how the words can deceive. Have words intentionally been left out or specially chosen? Words and their contexts are frequently used to deceive their audience.
Many politicians use phrases that are consciously deceptive in every political race. Everyone will do anything to win, especially when money is being invested. Our most recent election with Donald Trump has had so much controversy around it that now there is a conspiracy theory going around that Trump only said all the things that he did during his campaign to appeal to middle racist America. They are using evidence of interviews with him now after being elected where he is saying that he is going to keep some parts of Obamacare or that he has nothing against gay people as proof that he deceived everyone in order to be elected. Not saying this is true at all, but if it is then him saying all these things during the election,like the need to throw out Obamacare or build a wall, could have been some sort of a euphemism used to dramatically explain his plan and deceive people from what he may have been really thinking.
I definitely think so. In a lot of ways, the political rhetoric has become meaningless and redundant over the years, as the political system stagnated despite a constantly evolving social climate. It is clear that President-elect Trump resonated with people who were/are tired of a political environment dominated by filibusters and meaningless talk. Whether that makes him a capable leader, however, is another discussion entirely. On the other hand, while Hillary was significantly more qualified by her political background, she was held back by the same thing, in the form of scandals to varying degrees. Despite in many ways saying the same things, in the sense that both promised to help the working class, fight for minorities, and improve the country, the people gravitated more toward someone who represented, to them, a person against the established system. In that sense Trump is very clever, for recognizing a desire for drastic change to the political machine in the general populace.
When you go back and look at every political ad published during the 2016 election you will see that the two candidates focused strongly on one point about the other candidate: their language. Hillary Clinton used Donald Trump's insensitive use of language and harsh words as the focal point of her attack campaign. Trump stated several times that Clinton was a liar, which works under the assumption that the words Clinton speaks are untrue. While I believe this is not the way a political battle should go, and in my opinion policies and plans are much more important than whatever attack advertisements either party sends out, this election was strongly fought with a verbal fight. Also, when addressing their supporters they both used words that would appeal to this specific audience. This strategy allows for the candidate to make the audience feel as if they understand what they want and what they are thinking.
I definitely think that this whole election cycle and the result of the election were the product of a general frustration among Americans with the political establishment. Politicians use a specific type of vague rhetoric to make themselves seem more trustworthy and to build their credibility among voters. I believe that a lot of people were just "burned out" on the idea of career politicians and those members of our government who haven't gotten a lot done while in office. Every election cycle, whether it is presidential or congressional, candidates make a lot of promises in order to attract voters. Sometimes these are promises they can't keep, but it doesn't matter to them as long as they get re-elected. So as a result, people want change and they want someone who can break the mold and accomplish that for them. If we look at Clinton and Trump, Clinton supporters voted for her because she was different. She's a woman and therefore in one of the minority groups that liberals and progressives are fighting to gain rights for. She is an experienced politician and used her language to hit the big social issues our country is facing today: race, sexuality, gender. She appealed more to millennials because the social issues are the most important to our generation right now. Trump's supporters voted for him because he was also different. He is not a career politician. He is someone coming from outside of the political arena and therefore might have the ability to make some real change because he has not yet fallen into the political trap of being motivated by just trying to get re-elected. As for his speech, it was brash and controversial, but different enough to attract support. He made many points that appealed to many of the Americans I mentioned earlier who are fed up with the state of our country and want to take a chance on someone new. It was his flashy speech that fueled the media's coverage of him on a constant basis and most likely got him more voters because of the unintentional spotlight that was put on him, regardless of whether it was a good one or not.
Orwell makes the point that some language changes are voluntary, rather than part of a natural course of linguistic evolution. Can you think of any conscious changes that have been made to the English language in recent years?
Stemming off from what Orwell says, I strongly believe that words that express emotion have no specific meaning to them. This is because words that express emotion are purely subjective. Emotion cannot be conveyed, it can only be experienced. Everyone has a different idea of what love, happiness, sadness, and joy is and means, and depending on the situation, the context, and the person who is conveying and the person who is receiving, these words mean different things.I dont really have a question, it was just something I was pondering about and wanted to share.
The meaning of words change due to changes in society. But why do words change in the first place? What causes the definition and meaning of words to change?
To what degree are the conventions that Orwell is arguing for, such as reducing conventional metaphors, a method of turning English into a language of elitism by complicating language further than necessary?
I think that they could be interpreted as a little of both. Politics is often filled with deception and ambiguity in order to gloss over certain details that could upset the public. In this way, it could seem as though the ambiguous and vague language associated with politics is merely a product of the practice. It could also be interpreted that in order to convey deception and violence to the public, politicians turn toward these vague words and phrases in order to best deceive the public. The argument could be made for both sides and I personally believe that it is a little bit of both, with political language being insincere and vague intentionally to obscure certain practices, but also occurring unintentionally as a result of the shadiness of politics in general.
Most speeches nowadays are written to try and connect with a specific group and give that group a certain message. This is especially the case with many political speeches. Many times, politicians are trying to convince voters to vote for them, while giving a speech. In order to make their policies clearer, they tend to use so called "lay-man" terms. This allows audience to have an easier understanding of these rather complex policies. I think politicians deliver their speeches in a more "human-like" manner because in politics it is so important to connect with people. In politics, it is of the utmost importance to seem like you are a normal person that is just like everyone else because this allows for connection to the supporter base. Thus, when the politician’s staff is writing the speech’s, they tend to try to use as much common language as possible to appeal to the audience’s sense of familiarity.
How long does it take for the meaning of words to change? Can they change faster now because things can be more readily shared? Is one word changing meaning considering evolution or corruption of the language?
I think that society as a whole can come up with a general understanding of a certain word or phrase over time. When this word or phrase is repeated and popularized by celebrities, it can become more meaningful as it begins to spread to others and its use becomes more common. However, sometimes new popular and 'trendy' words can become overused. In this sense, people will use the same word in numerous different contexts and thus the word gains various meanings and understandings. The overuse of a word in society can eventually cause this word to be meaningless. I think for past history, we learn about history through words in a textbook or word spoken by our teachers. In this way, language is the principal way through which we can learn about our past. When learning a new topic, we use new vocabulary that we give distinct meaning to and correlate it with only the past history topic. In this way, past history can make words meaningful.
"Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements."
Why do you think politicians and other leaders use substitution of language like this in their vernacular?
Politicians use this type of language to do the opposite of what Orwell believes language should do. Instead of using language to create an image in someone’s head, their words obscure the image. They don’t want their constituents to comprehend what’s really happening. It’s better for them to think of “pacifying” the enemy rather than killing innocent people that are in the way of the war effort. They manage to tell the truth while hiding its significance. Someone might understand that force was used for the “greater good”, but they don’t understand that it involved atrocities they couldn’t live with. Orwell considers this a perversion of language. He believes that language shouldn’t be used to deceive people. This type of speech lacks any humanity. It doesn’t express any genuine emotion and it only uses predictable clichés and purposefully vague language. Orwell wouldn’t consider a great political speech to have flowery and inspiring language, but an honest and direct message to the people.
America stands out in the international scene due to its extremely heterogeneous population, and the "melting pot" nation contains a wide variety of accents and mannerisms. The cultural diversity of the United States means that two individuals from different areas of the country may have grown up with different names for the same item, or may have similar words with different meanings. For example, a young person who grew up in a bilingual household in Miami will very likely have a different method of communication than an older person who lived their whole life in a rural town in Oklahoma. Though both these individuals identify as English-speakers, the words they each use in daily conversation would make communication between the two somewhat difficult. The same scenario may be true of any two Americans from different cultural backgrounds, but miscommunication within the country is generally not seen as a major issue. A "standard" or "flat" type of English can be understood by a great majority of the population, easing communication of the language. Nevertheless, every culture has its effect on word pronunciation, syntax, and diction used for daily conversation and therefore slightly hinders communication efficacy.
We can argue how much we actually chose to use the language that we do everyday, but when deeply analyzing the words we use and the conversations we have, we tend to gravitate toward the common ground of general society. Even those who claim to be outsiders or independents still have the language and tend to use the phrases that most use. Generally, it is easier to not use these common phrases in generational gaps. Most of society uses common slangs you hear on a daily basis, but you may not hear those in previous generations as much. So, the extent of choice in our language tends to be very minimal.
Would you ever consider writing in the fashion laid out by Orwell's rules on page 4? How much would your writing style differ from what you are accustomed to?
I really liked that Orwell's article included practical ways to avoid the pitfalls of vague speech. It brought my attention to my personal use of language and made me question its effectiveness. I have a very long-winded and pretentious way of writing, but I don't think I rely heavily on cliches. If I were to put these rules into practice, my writing would be much more succinct. The problem, however, is that when I write, I am trying to reach some kind of word limit, as I am doing right now. According to the syllabus, this response has to be 150 words long. I don't mind the stipulation, but I feel like these kinds of guidelines teach our children at a young age to "BS" it and write meaningless words and phrases just to meet the limit. I think that we should take Orwell's proposition into serious consideration, especially in our school systems, and teach kids to write exactly and exclusively what they mean.
Do you agree with Orwell that the decadence of our language is curable or do you agree with argument that we can not influence a languages path just by tampering with it?
Mark Salters Most of the meaningless words we use that are portrayed a sense of formality are very fake. Do we really mean "how are you" to everyone single person we say it to? The answer is we probably don't. We are crowding our language with words that we do not place any meaning behind. It disallows from having full meaningful conversations that are genuine with people. The sugarcoated version of these many meaningless words prevent people from having complete true and genuine conversations with each other. Orwell expresses this concern along with other authors that have considered this too. They realized that it prevents effective communication between people and reduces the genuine relationships people have.
Do you think minimum word counts in our schooling systems are helping kids convey ideas clearly or teaching them to abuse language by using meaningless words and phrases just to boost their word counts?
Minimum words counts are truly atrocious. Let's say someone required the response to be 150 words to get credit. That forces children to use meaningless quotes like “Don't throw turds on a hot day” by Harry Truman. Like that quote does not enrich the response at all but it adds to the word count so it's slapped in. Or like Orwell said, they use awful idioms like “it's all Greek to me” to describe situations that are confusing or does not understand. Right now if some student was typing their response they would think to themselves, “oh I only have 100 words right now”. And then they would add on some random stuff that does not even matter. I think for the most part word counts hinder more than help, but I guess it's a necessary evil. Because on the other side is lazy students who don't type up a coherent response and it's only two sentences. So at least now there's some diamond in the rough of the response.
From personal experience, I feel like a minimum word causes students to add in extra sentences that are not needed. I think a better idea would be to encourage the students to try to reach a word count range but if the criteria of the paper are met before the range is reached than points should not be deducted. The purpose of the paper is to express the ideas not show how many sentences you can create on the topic. Unnecessary sentences distract the audience from the purpose of the paper. If the purpose of the paper can be reached in 500 words, why extend the paper to 1000 words? An argument to this could be that students would be lazy and not write much. To meet the criteria of the paper, they would not be able to slap up a few paragraphs. A paper should be written to the point. There should not be any “beating around the bush.”
Do you agree with Orwell when he says it's better to break any of his suggested rules than say something "outright barbarous?" How honest should we be in political speech?
I don't think that we should be worried. I think that changes in language are like changes in animals; natural selection and survival of the fittest works in ecosystems so it should work in language to. Changes in the meaning of words develop from changes in society. Like the meaning for the word "daddy" has a different meaning now than it did a couple years ago. Same with the word "swag". These changes aren't necessarily a bad thing so I don't think that we should be worried about it. Besides, changes and developments in language doesn’t mean that we’re making things too confusing or complex, like Owell said in this passage. I think it just means that we’ve found new ways to express our thoughts; we like to add lots of imagery, metaphors, and other rhetorical elements. I don’t think that these changes should be of concern, or that it takes away from a thought.
Did Donald Trump appeal to the masses because he, like Orwell suggested-though not as eloquently - break from the meaningless phraseology of current politics to say what he truly meant?
I think he likely did the opposite: he still used meaningless phrases and repetitive rhetoric (it is basically a meme at this point), he simply used shorter words that were more comfortable for the layperson and more easily pounded into their head. He was also brilliant at coming up with snappy catchphrases and insults that were readily parroted by his supporters, like "Crooked Hillary" or "Little Marco" or "Lyin' Ted."
I think that the way we say phrases is dependent on the message we are trying to get across or the type of writing we intend on using. If a writer were to use flowery language while writing something like a recipe they would lose their audience quickly. However, if a romantic novelist were to be very straightforward regarding the scene and words exchanged, it would quickly become dull and uninteresting for the audience. I believe that the reason for a lot of language used in writing is dependent on what the reader wants to hear and what will hold their attention. It is also greatly dependent on the way the composer wants his/her message to be received. Therefore, i do not think orwell is correct in stating this because sometimes unsimplified phrases are exactly what is necessary.
"...English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation," do you think this relates to slang, and how quickly it spreads into common language and sometimes even writing?
"When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. 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, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity."
This seems to be a major trend in today's political landscape: using buzzwords and repeated phrases to pound ideas into voters heads to virtually brainwash them into associating these ideas to the politicians. In what ways do you think it is harmful to politics, or even possibly beneficial, to do this?
Cliche'd phrases and metaphors are often a shortcut to convey an idea, as they are so widely known and recognized. Is using a language shortcut reprehensible in your eyes, or can it be justified in certain circumstances?
What are the habits Orwell is referring to?/ How can we get rid of them if he doesn't directly make them known?
ReplyDeleteIsn't "the fight against bad English" just his opinion? Could anyone argue that English is improving or staying consistent?
ReplyDeleteIt is just his opinion. Just like any other language English is changing, not necessarily improving, to reflect changes in culture, politics, and people of the people who speak the language. Just look at slang, the words our parents use, the way our grandparents speak, etc, etc. We still are consistent in structure, grammar, and maybe denotation, but the connotation of many words have changed.
DeleteI agree that it is how opinion. He may think its changing for the worse and becoming bad while others may think the change is a positive one. I don't think it could be argued that it is consistent because languages change as a result of society and society isalways changing in some way, so English has to be changing but the change does not have to be good or bad. Evidence of the change can be seen through how his essay is written. It is very scholarly and some of the words used are more obscure now because they have become less relevant. Not only have the uses of certain words changed but the actual words that are used differ from what they were years ago. Language can change faster than now compared to when Orwell wrote the article because of how easy and quick communication is with people every where.
DeleteIs there any use for clichés in literature? Could the prevalence of clichés be due to not only their convenience, but their effectiveness as well?
ReplyDeleteAs someone who writes often, I tend to avoid cliches in my writing. They're almost guaranteed to make an editor or agent cringe, just from the fact that they are so overused, and often very broad. However, there are some instances in which the case can be made for the use of cliches. Cliches are derived from some observed pattern, whether this pattern stems from fiction or real-life happenstance. If an instance of one of these patterns is a necessary part of the story, a cliche might be effective, as cliches are quick, catchy ways to describe a situation. That being said, I think it's very much up to the author to judge whether a not a cliche is acceptable in their writing. They need to ask themselves, "am I using this because I need it? Or am I just using it out of convenience?" The answers to these questions are thereby story-dependent. Since many authors answer, "yes I need this" to the above questions, we see a prevalence in cliches. Actual effectiveness of the cliche is at the discretion of the reader.
DeleteOrwell addresses many written forms of literature, but he barely discusses day-to-day conversations. Can his rules for proper English be applied to conversation in a practical manner?
ReplyDeleteOf course they can! The whole point of Orwell's essay is that language should be used to communicate clearly and effectively, and since spoken language and conversations between people are the most basic form of communication, it most definitely applies. This is true because if people don't understand what you are saying, they won't be able to respond to it in the way you want them to, especially if the words that you are using have multiple meanings that could be interpreted differently for each individual. For instance, you could say “Use your dexterity to extend your arm like a rope unbinding” and the person may not know to respond by catching the Frisbee. Another way that it could apply to personal conversation when the individual speaking doesn’t even know what they are really saying because the language is so convoluted. I actually have witnessed personal conversations with people in social settings such as parties where the group is discussing politics or something similar with a very defined rhetoric, and when the group is expressing their beliefs, someone says something that seems very profound but also very canned. For instance, someone could express how "we need to implement a policy that safeguards the borders of this great nation and promotes democratic values." However, when that individual is questioned about what that actually means or criticized about his or her beliefs, the person may have a hard time defending them because even the person speaking don't know what they mean, the individual just heard some pundit on CNN say them.
DeleteWhat are some other words that are used in a "consciously deceptive way," specifically in current events and politics, and how and why are they used in this manner?
ReplyDeleteIt's clear with certain current events that words can be a really powerful tool that can and do deceive their audience. "Deplorable" is one word that comes to mind. Candidates use words with a negative connotation in order to essentially belittle their opponents. Other candidates may use these words to rally their troops in order to rise against their opponent. Either way it's a mind game. Politics has become more about mudslinging than about actually politics. You are more likely to see a campaign ad tearing down one candidate rather than one focused on what a political candidate's views may actually be. Words play the biggest role in this. Not only do words connotations play a role but also, their context. Who is being described, addressed, etc. all play a role in how the words can deceive. Have words intentionally been left out or specially chosen? Words and their contexts are frequently used to deceive their audience.
DeleteMany politicians use phrases that are consciously deceptive in every political race. Everyone will do anything to win, especially when money is being invested. Our most recent election with Donald Trump has had so much controversy around it that now there is a conspiracy theory going around that Trump only said all the things that he did during his campaign to appeal to middle racist America. They are using evidence of interviews with him now after being elected where he is saying that he is going to keep some parts of Obamacare or that he has nothing against gay people as proof that he deceived everyone in order to be elected. Not saying this is true at all, but if it is then him saying all these things during the election,like the need to throw out Obamacare or build a wall, could have been some sort of a euphemism used to dramatically explain his plan and deceive people from what he may have been really thinking.
DeleteDo you think that a general frustration with the established, convoluted political rhetoric played a role in the current US election and how so?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think so. In a lot of ways, the political rhetoric has become meaningless and redundant over the years, as the political system stagnated despite a constantly evolving social climate. It is clear that President-elect Trump resonated with people who were/are tired of a political environment dominated by filibusters and meaningless talk. Whether that makes him a capable leader, however, is another discussion entirely. On the other hand, while Hillary was significantly more qualified by her political background, she was held back by the same thing, in the form of scandals to varying degrees. Despite in many ways saying the same things, in the sense that both promised to help the working class, fight for minorities, and improve the country, the people gravitated more toward someone who represented, to them, a person against the established system. In that sense Trump is very clever, for recognizing a desire for drastic change to the political machine in the general populace.
DeleteWhen you go back and look at every political ad published during the 2016 election you will see that the two candidates focused strongly on one point about the other candidate: their language. Hillary Clinton used Donald Trump's insensitive use of language and harsh words as the focal point of her attack campaign. Trump stated several times that Clinton was a liar, which works under the assumption that the words Clinton speaks are untrue. While I believe this is not the way a political battle should go, and in my opinion policies and plans are much more important than whatever attack advertisements either party sends out, this election was strongly fought with a verbal fight. Also, when addressing their supporters they both used words that would appeal to this specific audience. This strategy allows for the candidate to make the audience feel as if they understand what they want and what they are thinking.
DeleteI definitely think that this whole election cycle and the result of the election were the product of a general frustration among Americans with the political establishment. Politicians use a specific type of vague rhetoric to make themselves seem more trustworthy and to build their credibility among voters. I believe that a lot of people were just "burned out" on the idea of career politicians and those members of our government who haven't gotten a lot done while in office. Every election cycle, whether it is presidential or congressional, candidates make a lot of promises in order to attract voters. Sometimes these are promises they can't keep, but it doesn't matter to them as long as they get re-elected. So as a result, people want change and they want someone who can break the mold and accomplish that for them. If we look at Clinton and Trump, Clinton supporters voted for her because she was different. She's a woman and therefore in one of the minority groups that liberals and progressives are fighting to gain rights for. She is an experienced politician and used her language to hit the big social issues our country is facing today: race, sexuality, gender. She appealed more to millennials because the social issues are the most important to our generation right now. Trump's supporters voted for him because he was also different. He is not a career politician. He is someone coming from outside of the political arena and therefore might have the ability to make some real change because he has not yet fallen into the political trap of being motivated by just trying to get re-elected. As for his speech, it was brash and controversial, but different enough to attract support. He made many points that appealed to many of the Americans I mentioned earlier who are fed up with the state of our country and want to take a chance on someone new. It was his flashy speech that fueled the media's coverage of him on a constant basis and most likely got him more voters because of the unintentional spotlight that was put on him, regardless of whether it was a good one or not.
DeleteCan you recall any uses of "mixed metaphors" in texts you've read before? How might they have hindered your understanding?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOrwell makes the point that some language changes are voluntary, rather than part of a natural course of linguistic evolution. Can you think of any conscious changes that have been made to the English language in recent years?
ReplyDeleteStemming off from what Orwell says, I strongly believe that words that express emotion have no specific meaning to them. This is because words that express emotion are purely subjective. Emotion cannot be conveyed, it can only be experienced. Everyone has a different idea of what love, happiness, sadness, and joy is and means, and depending on the situation, the context, and the person who is conveying and the person who is receiving, these words mean different things.I dont really have a question, it was just something I was pondering about and wanted to share.
ReplyDeleteSomething I used to say when I was philosophising with my friends "There is no objective love in this world. Everyone has an agenda." Do you agree?
DeleteThe meaning of words change due to changes in society. But why do words change in the first place? What causes the definition and meaning of words to change?
ReplyDeleteTo what degree are the conventions that Orwell is arguing for, such as reducing conventional metaphors, a method of turning English into a language of elitism by complicating language further than necessary?
ReplyDeleteIs the connection between politics and language inherent or intentional?
ReplyDeleteI think that they could be interpreted as a little of both. Politics is often filled with deception and ambiguity in order to gloss over certain details that could upset the public. In this way, it could seem as though the ambiguous and vague language associated with politics is merely a product of the practice. It could also be interpreted that in order to convey deception and violence to the public, politicians turn toward these vague words and phrases in order to best deceive the public. The argument could be made for both sides and I personally believe that it is a little bit of both, with political language being insincere and vague intentionally to obscure certain practices, but also occurring unintentionally as a result of the shadiness of politics in general.
DeleteHow can words we learn about in history (democracy, racism, etc...) not have a true meaning when they are taught in schools?
ReplyDeleteWhat can politicians do to make their speeches more "human-like" rather than having the speech seem as if it is being delivered by a robot on stage?
ReplyDeleteMost speeches nowadays are written to try and connect with a specific group and give that group a certain message. This is especially the case with many political speeches. Many times, politicians are trying to convince voters to vote for them, while giving a speech. In order to make their policies clearer, they tend to use so called "lay-man" terms. This allows audience to have an easier understanding of these rather complex policies. I think politicians deliver their speeches in a more "human-like" manner because in politics it is so important to connect with people. In politics, it is of the utmost importance to seem like you are a normal person that is just like everyone else because this allows for connection to the supporter base. Thus, when the politician’s staff is writing the speech’s, they tend to try to use as much common language as possible to appeal to the audience’s sense of familiarity.
DeleteHow long does it take for the meaning of words to change? Can they change faster now because things can be more readily shared?
ReplyDeleteIs one word changing meaning considering evolution or corruption of the language?
To what extent does society and past history make words meaningful or meaningless?
ReplyDeleteI think that society as a whole can come up with a general understanding of a certain word or phrase over time. When this word or phrase is repeated and popularized by celebrities, it can become more meaningful as it begins to spread to others and its use becomes more common. However, sometimes new popular and 'trendy' words can become overused. In this sense, people will use the same word in numerous different contexts and thus the word gains various meanings and understandings. The overuse of a word in society can eventually cause this word to be meaningless. I think for past history, we learn about history through words in a textbook or word spoken by our teachers. In this way, language is the principal way through which we can learn about our past. When learning a new topic, we use new vocabulary that we give distinct meaning to and correlate it with only the past history topic. In this way, past history can make words meaningful.
Delete"Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the
ReplyDeleteroads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements."
Why do you think politicians and other leaders use substitution of language like this in their vernacular?
Politicians use this type of language to do the opposite of what Orwell believes language should do. Instead of using language to create an image in someone’s head, their words obscure the image. They don’t want their constituents to comprehend what’s really happening. It’s better for them to think of “pacifying” the enemy rather than killing innocent people that are in the way of the war effort. They manage to tell the truth while hiding its significance. Someone might understand that force was used for the “greater good”, but they don’t understand that it involved atrocities they couldn’t live with.
DeleteOrwell considers this a perversion of language. He believes that language shouldn’t be used to deceive people. This type of speech lacks any humanity. It doesn’t express any genuine emotion and it only uses predictable clichés and purposefully vague language. Orwell wouldn’t consider a great political speech to have flowery and inspiring language, but an honest and direct message to the people.
Can language "prevent thought" as Orwell suggests?
ReplyDeleteHow does the variety of cultures, especially in America the so called melting pot, cause a miscommunication with words and language as a whole?
ReplyDeleteAmerica stands out in the international scene due to its extremely heterogeneous population, and the "melting pot" nation contains a wide variety of accents and mannerisms. The cultural diversity of the United States means that two individuals from different areas of the country may have grown up with different names for the same item, or may have similar words with different meanings. For example, a young person who grew up in a bilingual household in Miami will very likely have a different method of communication than an older person who lived their whole life in a rural town in Oklahoma. Though both these individuals identify as English-speakers, the words they each use in daily conversation would make communication between the two somewhat difficult. The same scenario may be true of any two Americans from different cultural backgrounds, but miscommunication within the country is generally not seen as a major issue. A "standard" or "flat" type of English can be understood by a great majority of the population, easing communication of the language. Nevertheless, every culture has its effect on word pronunciation, syntax, and diction used for daily conversation and therefore slightly hinders communication efficacy.
Delete"But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely."
ReplyDeleteTo what extent do you think the decline of language cyclical and why?
In what ways can societies morph the definition of certain words or phrases? do they contribute to negative/positive associations?
ReplyDeleteTo what extent is the language we each use a choice and not just an acceptance of society's general understanding of words and phrases?
ReplyDeleteWe can argue how much we actually chose to use the language that we do everyday, but when deeply analyzing the words we use and the conversations we have, we tend to gravitate toward the common ground of general society. Even those who claim to be outsiders or independents still have the language and tend to use the phrases that most use. Generally, it is easier to not use these common phrases in generational gaps. Most of society uses common slangs you hear on a daily basis, but you may not hear those in previous generations as much. So, the extent of choice in our language tends to be very minimal.
DeleteDoes "formal" language restrict our ability to communicate with each other?
ReplyDeleteWould you ever consider writing in the fashion laid out by Orwell's rules on page 4? How much would your writing style differ from what you are accustomed to?
ReplyDeleteI really liked that Orwell's article included practical ways to avoid the pitfalls of vague speech. It brought my attention to my personal use of language and made me question its effectiveness. I have a very long-winded and pretentious way of writing, but I don't think I rely heavily on cliches. If I were to put these rules into practice, my writing would be much more succinct. The problem, however, is that when I write, I am trying to reach some kind of word limit, as I am doing right now. According to the syllabus, this response has to be 150 words long. I don't mind the stipulation, but I feel like these kinds of guidelines teach our children at a young age to "BS" it and write meaningless words and phrases just to meet the limit. I think that we should take Orwell's proposition into serious consideration, especially in our school systems, and teach kids to write exactly and exclusively what they mean.
DeleteHow does our increasingly more diverse culture make certain words more meaningless or meaningulf?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Orwell that the decadence of our language is curable or do you agree with argument that we can not influence a languages path just by tampering with it?
ReplyDeleteWhat are some current examples of how euphemisms have been used to hide the true meaning of something in society today?
ReplyDeleteTo what extent are meaningless words, put into context of praise, just sugar coated forms of dishonest innuendos?
ReplyDeleteMark Salters
DeleteMost of the meaningless words we use that are portrayed a sense of formality are very fake. Do we really mean "how are you" to everyone single person we say it to? The answer is we probably don't. We are crowding our language with words that we do not place any meaning behind. It disallows from having full meaningful conversations that are genuine with people. The sugarcoated version of these many meaningless words prevent people from having complete true and genuine conversations with each other. Orwell expresses this concern along with other authors that have considered this too. They realized that it prevents effective communication between people and reduces the genuine relationships people have.
We tend to back all political context and such with a defensive tone, how often is our language strictly a defensive impulse?
ReplyDeleteDo you think minimum word counts in our schooling systems are helping kids convey ideas clearly or teaching them to abuse language by using meaningless words and phrases just to boost their word counts?
ReplyDeleteMinimum words counts are truly atrocious. Let's say someone required the response to be 150 words to get credit. That forces children to use meaningless quotes like “Don't throw turds on a hot day” by Harry Truman. Like that quote does not enrich the response at all but it adds to the word count so it's slapped in. Or like Orwell said, they use awful idioms like “it's all Greek to me” to describe situations that are confusing or does not understand. Right now if some student was typing their response they would think to themselves, “oh I only have 100 words right now”. And then they would add on some random stuff that does not even matter. I think for the most part word counts hinder more than help, but I guess it's a necessary evil. Because on the other side is lazy students who don't type up a coherent response and it's only two sentences. So at least now there's some diamond in the rough of the response.
DeleteFrom personal experience, I feel like a minimum word causes students to add in extra sentences that are not needed. I think a better idea would be to encourage the students to try to reach a word count range but if the criteria of the paper are met before the range is reached than points should not be deducted. The purpose of the paper is to express the ideas not show how many sentences you can create on the topic. Unnecessary sentences distract the audience from the purpose of the paper. If the purpose of the paper can be reached in 500 words, why extend the paper to 1000 words? An argument to this could be that students would be lazy and not write much. To meet the criteria of the paper, they would not be able to slap up a few paragraphs. A paper should be written to the point. There should not be any “beating around the bush.”
DeleteDo you agree with Orwell when he says it's better to break any of his suggested rules than say something "outright barbarous?" How honest should we be in political speech?
ReplyDeleteWhat are some more modern examples of ambiguity in language in politics today?
ReplyDeleteWith society constantly changing, should we even be worried about changes in language?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that we should be worried. I think that changes in language are like changes in animals; natural selection and survival of the fittest works in ecosystems so it should work in language to. Changes in the meaning of words develop from changes in society. Like the meaning for the word "daddy" has a different meaning now than it did a couple years ago. Same with the word "swag". These changes aren't necessarily a bad thing so I don't think that we should be worried about it. Besides, changes and developments in language doesn’t mean that we’re making things too confusing or complex, like Owell said in this passage. I think it just means that we’ve found new ways to express our thoughts; we like to add lots of imagery, metaphors, and other rhetorical elements. I don’t think that these changes should be of concern, or that it takes away from a thought.
DeleteDid Donald Trump appeal to the masses because he, like Orwell suggested-though not as eloquently - break from the meaningless phraseology of current politics to say what he truly meant?
ReplyDeleteI think he likely did the opposite: he still used meaningless phrases and repetitive rhetoric (it is basically a meme at this point), he simply used shorter words that were more comfortable for the layperson and more easily pounded into their head. He was also brilliant at coming up with snappy catchphrases and insults that were readily parroted by his supporters, like "Crooked Hillary" or "Little Marco" or "Lyin' Ted."
DeleteAre Orwell's rules already approved by the masses in the literature and writing that is popular?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that Orwell is correct when he says that we should "simplify" our phrases?
ReplyDeleteI think that the way we say phrases is dependent on the message we are trying to get across or the type of writing we intend on using. If a writer were to use flowery language while writing something like a recipe they would lose their audience quickly. However, if a romantic novelist were to be very straightforward regarding the scene and words exchanged, it would quickly become dull and uninteresting for the audience. I believe that the reason for a lot of language used in writing is dependent on what the reader wants to hear and what will hold their attention. It is also greatly dependent on the way the composer wants his/her message to be received. Therefore, i do not think orwell is correct in stating this because sometimes unsimplified phrases are exactly what is necessary.
DeleteHow will politics actually be changed from using simpler wording?
ReplyDelete"...English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation," do you think this relates to slang, and how quickly it spreads into common language and sometimes even writing?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the reason writers tend to use a lot of metaphors is?
ReplyDeleteOrwell uses the word "democracy" as an example of a word that there is no agreed definition on. Personally, how would you define democracy?
ReplyDelete"When one watches
ReplyDeletesome tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial,
atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to
shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some
kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches
the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind
them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone
some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of
his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself.
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, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political
conformity."
This seems to be a major trend in today's political landscape: using buzzwords and repeated phrases to pound ideas into voters heads to virtually brainwash them into associating these ideas to the politicians. In what ways do you think it is harmful to politics, or even possibly beneficial, to do this?
Cliche'd phrases and metaphors are often a shortcut to convey an idea, as they are so widely known and recognized. Is using a language shortcut reprehensible in your eyes, or can it be justified in certain circumstances?
ReplyDeleteHow would you describe Donald Trump's political writing compared with politicians in the past?
ReplyDelete