I belive it is important to keep in mind what Orwell says. George Orwell's idea on regard of the evolution of language is very curious considering that he belives that the development of society is molding language rather than the idea that language unilaterally molds how humans think. Orwell's article shows that he believes that since language is a mechanism for self expression, humans and language are equally responsible for affecting each other. It is as if men molds language so that language can mold thought and vice versa. The English language has suffered several changes throughout the history of Anglo Saxon peoples. Orwell says that the beauty and the effectiveness of language lies in its simplicity, objectiveness and clearness. Moreover, he says that modern English lacks such atributes. I also agree with what he says, as it is common to observe writers using dead and fancier words to seem more of eloquent speakers, rather than using simple and objective phrases becoming effective communicators. Yet, I would like to point out that such vices can be existent today due to globalization. Since latin languages are usually more eloquent and rich in vocabulary, thus rather than being something shaped by the Americans such problems in communication might rather be existent due to the process of immigration and the development of technology. Therefore, even though I agree with what Orwell says about the English language vices, since they are making the reader's role in the communication process meaningless, I believe that his criticism is very insular because all cultures and languages now depend and are molded by foreign cultures and languages.
The article by George Orwell brings up a point that I had not previously thought of before. In this modern day and age we have new technology for mediums of communication like talking over a cell phone or texting. Since we sometimes pay per minute of talking on the phone, or per text (which is made of up certain characters), we tend to try and shorten our language usage as much as possible to conserve money. Because of this we see a simplified vocabulary in the newer generations, as well as a dying English language. Text talk and cell phone talk have become so customary that people, rather than thinking of saving money, just use these shortened forms of communication because of habit and popular use. In George Orwell’s time the methods of English reduction were not as bad. Many people still pertained to a strong English vocabulary and tried to not use words often considered “cliché”. Nowadays I am sure that George Orwell would be horrified. Things like “ttyl”, “omg” or just “k” in stead of their long forms are new examples of words bringing down the dignity of the English Language. If we look at new words like “sick” “rad” or “wack”, that have become very popular in today’s vocabulary, we see that they are just shortened forms of their synonyms, “interesting”, or “wonderful”. Initially they may have been used to shorten the amount of speech, but now they are words that everyone uses regardless. George Orwell brings up the interesting point that such actions are reversible. If we were to continue to use smaller and less diverse words to describe our lives, then eventually we would be left with a bare minimum vocabulary that everyone uses. This would essentially destroy the English Language as most of the words would become obsolete. Orwell says that if we stop acting like this eventually the English Language will return to its normal state. I disagree with this as I feel that it is impossible for us to stop our constant need to shorten everything and make everything easier. Through countless human inventions, our only goals have been to make life easier for people for example the car which makes it so that people do not have to walk. The same goes for language as we try to shorten things to make them easier to say. I believe that we cannot reverse this destruction of language, but eventually the English language will itself become obsolete, not the words. Eventually people will be unable to describe the events in their lives with enough imagery to make another person understand their feelings. Right now we are trying to simplify it to make it easier for people to say and understand, but, eventually we will simplify so much that it will be incomprehensible. Then something new will have to be born, either a different way of communication, or a different language altogether.
The article talks about the decline of the English Language. I do believe that the English Language is declining especially do to the people who speak the language. People have become lazy and chose to butcher the language rather than learn to speak properly. However, is it the natural decline of language that is occurring or the steady, constant change and development of the English language. The English language has already changed significantly from Shakespeare's time until now but what type of English is considered better? Shakespearean English or Modern English? It can obviously be argued both ways, however maybe we think the language is declining when in fact it is only changing to our dislike. There is also a difference between spoken and written English. Written English also tends to be more formal while spoken English is much more informal. In society, less emphasize is focus on how well people speak. Before, it was a complete luxury and blessing to have a tutor a teacher, informing you of the correct way to speak. Nowadays, society doesn't value the quality of the English Language. The article brought up some interesting points that I will continue to think about.
In this aricle George Orwell proposes a very interesting thesis, at least from what I understood from the text. According to Orwell, the English language is becoming worse and worse due to the depreciation of the society itself. Taking into consideration that bad habits have become a common thing and are generally ignored by the people. Thus,, mistakes start to be injected of the veins of society and consequently the language suffers with this by not being properly used. He argues that people, even writers and other qualified professionals commit mistakes by not being able to address the question that they want to answer and one of the argumens that he uses to justify it is that there is lack of sincerity in thei writing, thus, the writers are not able to reach their goal because of the environment the text is being written.
In his article, Orwell suggests that there is an ongoing decay of the English language caused by the inheritance of the society’s political interests, but that this is process is still reversible. I agree with some points he makes, but I strongly disagree with other arguments presented. I agree with Orwell by the time he says that political terms such as fascism are being used by people who don’t even know their true significance, for from personal experience, I know that its bad connotation (due to cruel fascist regimes during WWII) speaks louder than its original definition, which is only of an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. However, I disagree with Orwell by the time he says that people are writing metaphors without even knowing their true meaning or because they don’t want to think sufficiently to write phrases of their own, for most of the times, those who write frequently used metaphors, use them intentionally because they are so common that the reader will easily understand the authorial intention. His analysis is too radically critical, but still, we need to admit that Orwell interestingly approaches the political language and its variations in modern English.
Welcome to ToK.