Politics And The English LanguageEssay Preview: Politics And The English LanguageReport this essayWhat relationship does Orwell pose between language and political manipulation in “politics and the English language“It is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes.” (reference?) In �Politics and the English language � Orwell poses that political manipulation is made easier by the debasement of language using euphemism and inflated style to mislead and control.
Euphemism is the use of a mild expression in the place of a blunt one. This adds to the debasement of language because “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity, when there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims” (reference?). The way euphemisms mislead the public is obvious, by sugar coating negative events making them seem not as bad, even making them positive. Orwell gives us an example of how this is done, “defenceless villages are bombarded from the air. The inhabitants machine gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets. This is called pacification” (reference?) using the word pacified does not have the same negative effect on people as a description of the events would. In fact most people would associate the term pacify with soothing of a baby thus misleading the public about what is really happening. This enables the control of the public because they are not aware of the dire situation due to the positive spin the government has put on a negative situation. Thus the public continue to support their government, even though they might not if fully aware of the situation. This is when an easy environment for political manipulation occurs. Once a government has control it becomes easier to manipulate. This is how the debasement of language, through the use of euphemism, allows the public to become mislead and controlled allowing for easy political manipulation.
Inflated style is to dodge around a controversial subject by using longer sentences and complex words to try and hide the brutal truth of what it is that is trying to be said. “Inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism” (reference?). Inflated style therefore adds to the debasement of language in a similar way that euphemism does by being insincere. Inflated style also breaks at least two of the rules that Orwell stipulates must not be broken to achieve good English, “ii Never use a long word where a short one will do” and “iii If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out” (reference?). Inflated style misleads the public by dodging the truth and confusing even the most knowledgeable through longwinded nonsensical sentences
The definition of “influenced by language” in the law and the context
Citation for the original content of Orwell’s book “1984” does not indicate the “influenced” origin of the sentence. The original passage is used with the intention of “educating a public that people should be educated by science”:
“If you don’t know how to read science, use linguistics instead.”
This was written by a friend of mine, with the aim of introducing children to a very relevant aspect of physics, including the concept of fluid dynamics and how this is to be explored and used in school, but was not intended to be an official part of the book. (A similar sentence was, according to the original text, written by a scientist at the University of Edinburgh to a student on a research note at the beginning of the book.) The original words are read in a way that is either “informed” or “intended” to inform the reader that a word comes from the mind, something that was not a word at all in the original text, although many of the words seem to have been derived from language that was “influenced by” its source.
This is because linguistics, by its very nature lacks a way to identify meaning without revealing more than its simple meaning, but with the aid of language, language can be useful to define that meaning, so it often has the advantage that the source language can easily pick up on what a speaker is saying through a particular sentence. In particular there is no right or wrong way of defining language by relying on the source language. What the main purpose of the sentence “If you don’t know how to read science, use linguistics instead” was designed to teach the reader the importance of knowledge-based language.
The original text of the original paragraph of the first sentence on the subject says that “I do not know anything about linguistics by using a short word and will not let anyone or anyone else know about it.” What this might mean is we have simply assumed that the source language already had an existing understanding of such a subject and have not changed it in a way that made the source language useful in the first place.
Similarly, the original passage in the “Theories for Science: The Origin and Development of Social Science Fiction” says:
“We may assume that the most important thing was already understood by all those who took it as their standard. In other words, our world was established by the natural resources of nature.”[2]
In contrast, the actual text of the original paragraph for the first sentence also says “It is now well known that not everybody thought much of science, and many