Introduction
People consider political writing and speech making as portrayed by George Orwell persuasive and manipulative. Convincing the reader at the expense of the effective use of language is the only thing that such a writer has at the back of his/ her mind.
In his essay “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell argues that this ineffective use of language that leads to the decline of a language has some political or economic force behind it and is not necessarily because of bad influence from an individual writer (Orwell 142).
The paper calls upon the reader to create a linkage between corruptive or corrupted language and its effectiveness in political manipulation. There are instances whereby the writer has the meaning and instead chooses to conceal it or distort its meaning at the expense of the reader in order to manipulate him/ her in a way or another (Taylor 35).
The paper describes and analyzes some of the tricks such as operators or verbal false limbs, pretentious diction and the use of meaningless words that writers use in political writing with the intention of getting their impact in the English language.
Operators or verbal false limbs
Operators and verbal false limbs is a very common characteristic of modern writing in which writers choose to use some phrases rather than just pick the exact nouns or verbs in their writing.
A good example is the use of phrases such as those given by Orwell that include; render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, and serve the purpose of, among others (Orwell 147).
These phrases can otherwise be substituted with simple nouns and verbs. In political writing, these alterations alter the meanings as attributed to the time of publishing the essay.
At that time, Britain was still recovering from the hangovers of war and the politicians needed to alter the language to be able to manipulate the citizen’s understanding of the political context (Hammond 50).
This trend is alive to this day considering the many alterations introduced to the English language by politicians to the extent of completely obscuring the original words once used. Language has the ability of masking the truth and misleading the public.
In recent political speeches, politicians use such phrases to hide the real intentions and meanings through provoking controversy and later denying what they really meant in their speech. For instance, when delivering a speech to a group of supporters, a certain politician recently used the phrase “set on fire” (Lewis 23).
The real intentions of the politicians are not clear as the supporters went on to set fire on a building that harbored a group of opponents. When linked later to the killings the politician defended himself as having only meant that the supporters to be vigilant and aware of the political atmosphere.
As Orwell states, “All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia”(147),language is altered through the use of these indirect phrases to manipulate the readers and create defense to the politician s when they are held responsible for atrocities committed after their give their controversial speeches.
However, this assertion by Orwell is contestable considering that man being a political being is always engaged in politics and that not all politics is a bunch of lies. The reader should however note that in most cases the English language has been sacrificed at the altar of insincerity as Orwell states “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink”(Orwell 145). It is therefore clear that it is through malice that language is altered intentionally in recent times using operators or verbal false limbs.
The malicious devising of campaign slogans lures voters to a given politician whom they would have otherwise opted not to vote for (Chilton 56). Examples include; “Vote for Change”. Through a close analysis of this phrase, one comes up with the questions as to what change means as well as what it includes. ‘Change from what to what?’ The use of a simple word could have expressed this more vaguely.
Pretentious Diction
Pretentious diction refers to the general use of complex words as opposed to the use of simple statements to give the work a certain scientific ‘impartiality to biased judgments’ (Orwell 145).
As described further by Orwell, every political school of thought has its chosen pool of words that it uses to substitute with simpler terms to create a feeling that it is the only true way of life. For instance, the communists have coined the word “Comrade” to create a feeling to the members of the communist movements that they are part of the highest decision making organ of such parties.
The use of such diction propels propaganda in modern day politics as described in Orwell’s portrayal of the totalistic government of Oceania in his novel “1984”. The party has come up with a new language known as “Newspeak”.
Some critics such as Paul Chilton relate “…the use of language in “1984” with the story of the tower of Babel…the new language turns into confusion, which eventually destroys the civilization after God destroys the tower of Babel” (2). The use of such words such as “bourgeoisie” and “Proletariat” by capitalists makes each group regard its opponents as the other and therefore fuel the enmity that exists between the two social groups (Chilton 67).
However, even with the revolution that topples the Bourgeois class and hands over power to the proletariat, the language does not change and the words remain in the language. This leads to viscous cycle and a collapse in the society, as it remains unstable and always under the threat of political revolutions.
Most writers use some seemingly sophisticated words as a way of proving their command of the English language. By the use of these words that could have otherwise been replaced by other more simple words, these writers instead of making the language grow only lead to the disappearance of the original words which is harmful to the language.
To ensure that they appear more educated and therefore qualified for political positions, some politicians use the tactic of replacing simple words with more advanced vocabulary or words borrowed from another language. Others who use these words to ensure that their audiences do not get the correct meanings and therefore vote for them or appear influenced without their knowledge also do this.
Meaningless words
This refers to the use of abstract words that are so open to interpretations to the extent that they do not have any precise meaning anymore mostly used with political terms such as; Democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, and justice (Orwell 143). These words have meanings that are so diverse to the extent that they cannot be reconciled with each other.
This implies that the words mean different things to different people. In a political writing and speaking, contemporary politicians use these and other words of this sort in political campaigns whenever they get the chance to drum support.
For instance, the exact meaning of democracy seems unknown since very many countries that have differing systems of rule term themselves as democratic countries (Rodden 45).
Different politicians, to indicate to the system of rule that they support, have used this system of governance differently, a case held as the ideal system of governance that ensures the upholding of human rights and further fostering equality. This interpretation is always subject to alterations upon a close analysis of the structures of such governments posing as democratic.
Political alignments and political parties bearing the word “democracy” have stemmed up to woo the citizens into voting them into leadership.
Upon comparing and contrasting a number of systems that claim to be democratic, it is possible that the apparent differences would outweigh the similarities. As argued by Orwell, upon attaching only one meaning to the term would disqualify many people who use it (148).
Words such as ‘patriotism’ and ‘loyalty’ have lost an agreeable meaning in recent times. This stands after considering the different usage of the words to connote differing ideas. A corrupt leader would possibly term as disloyal or unpatriotic those people who oppose him/her or have differing ideas to what he terms as the way forward.
A good example is whereby people face execution when they think they are doing the most patriotic duties such as defending oppressed people as in the case of human right activists. This differing understanding of words can lead to so many misunderstandings as portrayed by Orwell.
People seem influenced in recent days to make decisions in favor of something which if provided with the right information they could have opted otherwise.
Conclusion
People can corrupt language to manipulate the masses into making decisions that they would otherwise have opted against. As revealed in Orwell’s essay, politicians and other people seeking to influence others tend to manipulate language to achieve that end (Shelden 393).
This has been a strategy employed by politicians around the globe in the political arena as the competition is becoming steeper and steeper. It suffices to note that most of the words tend to change meaning as time goes by and with the changing contexts (Taylor 34).
This has led to some politicians or other people seeking to influence masses taking advantage of these words to bring about meanings that are motivated by personal selfishness.
Works Cited
Chilton, Paul. Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto Press, 1988.
Hammond, Jean. A George Orwell Companion. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982. Lewis, Florence. The Tyranny of Language in Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1984. London: Comedia Publishing Group, 1983.
Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language in Nineteen Eighty-Four: Text, Sources, Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1963.
Rodden, John. The Politics of Literary Reputation: The Making and Claiming of “St. George” Orwell. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Shelden, Michael. Orwell: The Authorized Biography. New York: HarperCollins, 1991.
Taylor, David. Orwell: A Life. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003.