What type of essay is politics and the english language

Language is the network of communication in thought, spoken words, and written verse. It is structural and formed through the development and adaptions of human beings.

As art itself, language takes the configuration of the world and conveys itself in a diverse manner. Although, some persons argue that language shall be strictly followed and contain no modifications for that ruins the sole purpose of language being our system of disclosure. The misuse of language is evident in the battle between presidential candidates Donald Trump. The topics of the declining of the English language and political writing are frequently discussed amongst several people.

The English language is constantly being altered with the introduction of new phrases, through generations and social media. Political leaders typically give speeches containing vague language to justify actions taken in places around the world. Work : Essays : Politics and the English Language May Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.

Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or. After reading the article, one notices how often these rules are broken by authors all the time.

Written and spoken language is what sets humans apart from other animals as intellectuals, but if our language is declining, is the intellect of our society going down the same slope. Orwell begins the narrative by refuting standard assumptions of the English Language, and that language is a reflection of the shape of society.

In his essay he quotes five passages, each from a different author, which embody the faults he is talking about. As an instrument, language can be manipulated for various purposes. As Orwell will show, language can also manipulate those who use it unconsciously. He presents a list of corrupting habits that cause writers to think poorly and thus write poorly.

The list includes unoriginal or mixed metaphors, pretentious diction, and abstract or meaningless language. When a person becomes lazy they allow their language to think for them. In this way, political writers end up following a party line. By using set phrases, they pantomime ideology without thinking. Independent thinking is necessary for a healthy political life.

As corrupted language smothers independent, original thinking, it thus serves a political purpose. Orwell demonstrates the deceptive effect of various political terms, showing how elevated, complex and abstract language actively disguises ugly and violent concrete realities. Orwell sees the use of honest language as political act in itself, a form of resistance against insidious and widespread manipulations of rhetorical structures. Orwell argues that just as thought corrupts language, language can corrupt thought, with these ready-made phrases preventing writers from expressing anything meaningful or original.

Writers should let the meaning choose the word, rather than vice versa. We should think carefully about what we want to say until we have the right mental pictures to convey that thought in the clearest language. Although Hulme and Orwell came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, their objections to lazy and worn-out language stem are in many ways the same.

Hulme argued that poetry should be a forge where fresh metaphors are made: images which make us see the world in a slightly new way. What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? Nevertheless, the link between the standard of language and the kind of politics a particular country, regime, or historical era has is an important one.

If I recall correctly, he was wrong about a few things including, I think, the right way to make a cup of tea! In all seriousness, what he fails to acknowledge in this essay is that language is a living thing and belongs to the people, not the theorists, at all time. If a metaphor changes because of homophone mix up or whatever, then so be it. Similarly, the use of active voice has led to unpalatable writing which lacks character.

The passive voice may well become longwinded when badly used, but it brings character when used well. That said, Orwell is rarely completely wrong. But the idea of the degradation of politics is really quite a bit of nonsense! Always good to get some critique of Orwell, Ken! Hulme camp than the Orwell — poetry can afford to bend language in new ways indeed, it often should do just this , and create daring new metaphors and ways of viewing the world.