"Politics and the English Language"

Reading Comprehension Questions

Orwell's essay was a critique of vague, cliche, and pretentious diction; however, it is often misread as endorsement of colloquialism or a catering to diminished vocabulary; this is not his argument; he explicitly states his argument is not about making written English more colloquial or restoring English to a long lost more glorious usage. He is encouraging a greater economy of words, a resistance to ambiguity, a greater commitment to original phrasing, and a greater sensitivity to euphemism and dead metaphors as potential means of manipulation; further, Orwell encourages an adherence to concrete diction and a stye of word choice that enables visualization of writing. His critique of meaningless words, again, is not concerned with the vocabulary of a particular audience but the deployment of words that express a vague emotion rather than a concrete idea. Orwell's critique of language is a critique of techniques often used to manipulate, particularly by politicians, advertisers, businesses and authorities. Both bad writers and politicians often use these same techniques to deceive by using "big words", or misleading oversimplifications, to make their opinions sound more authoritative. This is often achieved by adopting the jargon and trappings of the scientific method or journalistic integrity without actually adhering to its rigors or methods. According to Orwell's argument, we should avoid pretentious diction because it is too often deployed as means to gloss up biased opinions with, "an air of scientific impartiality" and to convey subjective connotations rather than concrete ideas (Orwell, 5). Both euphemism and dead metaphors produce irrelevant images that impart ambiguous emotional associations and can deliberately make vague the detailed, brutal reality being distorted by language.

Common Misreadings of the Essay:

• The essay has nothing to do with grammar or "proper English"; its main focus is on precise and accurate diction.
• If we understand Orwell's argument, slang is to be encouraged because it rebukes cliche phrases. One should define slang if uncertain whether the audience will understand it.
• While jargon is often abused through pretentious diction, jargon provides a practical purpose by enabling literate audiences to discuss complex topics with more precision, so it should only be used with audiences equipped to understand it.
• While dead metaphors are discouraged because they are cliche and often twisted out of their original meaning, vivid and original metaphors are fine provided they produce a mental image that aids in comprehension.

Orwell is not "advocating fake simplicity or making written English more colloquial." He is not arguing that we cater to the sub-literate. He is not rejecting the use of "all big words"- only when they are used unnecessarily or fail to convey a specific idea.

1. What are the underlying assumptions to Orwell's argument he addresses in his introduction?

Which does he accept, which does he reject?

2. What do Orwell's five examples have in common?

3. What is the special connection between politics and language?

4. Paraphrase Orwell's rules for writing.

5. Does he break any of his own rules? Locate examples.

6. Provide your own examples of dying metaphors.

7. Provide your own examples of euphemisms.

8. Paraphrase the four trends contributing to the poor use of language.

9. How does grammar and establishing a standard English relate to Orwell's argument?

10. What do dead metaphors and euphemisms have in common?

11.Make a list of the essay's main ideas.