Introduction
Political literature uses the most artistic language in communicating to the public. People refer to politics as an art that makes anything possible. Policy-making involves persuading crowds into an idea, so it needs a language that is compromising, conflicting, convincing, and cooperative to ensure information passes on according to the politician’s motive. Political writers commonly use vague language to confuse or deviate people’s minds from real situations when addressing the public. Sometimes the legislative ideas do not make literal sense, may mean the opposite of what a politician is trying to pass across, or can use outdated vocabulary. George Orwell argues that the language politicians use is vague, ambiguous, and unrecognizable. In the article Politics and the English Language, the writer uses various rhetorical devices such as pathos and ethos to persuade readers of the languages’ vagueness. This essay discusses the rhetoric devices George Orwell uses to convince the audience of the credibility of his arguments regarding the ambiguity of political language.
Essay Summary
George Orwell’s essay is among his best pieces of literature. In the article, the author identifies and criticizes the way politicians communicate as using bad English. He argues that modern discourse uses meaningless words that are written without a clear format. He begins his essay by focusing on the link between discourse writers’ language and the current political views. According to him, the quality of a language affects individuals’ way of thinking because dialects define thoughts. He states that political language is corrupting the way politics is degraded nowadays, which negatively affects society. Orwell gives five examples of political vocabulary that he considers faulty language (Orwell, 3). From the five writings, he concludes that each has stale imagery and lacks precision. He criticizes the radical author’s method of writing as being meaningless because most phrases are unclear and do not communicate the intended message (Orwell, 4). He also argues that this kind of political writing is becoming common and needs corrections for better discourses.
Rhetorical Devices
Ethos
Throughout the essay, Orwell uses his language expertise to persuade readers of the credibility of his argument on the vagueness of political language. He gives a passage from his writing to demonstrate the effect of how politicians communicate. In the passage “look back through this essay. And for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against” (Orwell, 7), The writer also admits to using the faulty language he is fighting against. Although the essay is well written and clear, Orwell considers repeating words such as ‘again and again’ overusing English. He justifies his argument that faulty political language influences even the best writer such as himself. Using his work as an example of the influence of bad writing, The author proves that he could also be corrupted by political language, urging political writers to use precise language that is less wordy.
Logos
Logos is an author’s approach to persuade the reader’s view through logical reasoning. Orwell persuades readers by giving examples of two sentences containing literal mistakes. He demonstrates that the first sentence contains more words with fewer syllables, does not comprise ancient words, has more vivid imagery, and only one phrase that he considers vague (Orwell, 5). On the other hand, the second sentence has few words and many syllables and does not encompass any imagery or phrase that clearly explains the intended message. According to Orwell, most people write discourses using the second sentence, which is unclear, too wordy, and does not make much sense. In addition to the two sentences, the author gives an example of a bible verse from Ecclesiastes, which he compares to how authors write discourses today (Orwell, 5). Translating the verse from ancient to modern language will result in a meaningless passage if the writer uses political language because ancient language is complicated and requires precision during translation.
Pathos
Pathos creates an emotional appeal to the audience; while using ethos to challenge the reader’s mind. Orwell uses pathos to show readers the pathetic state of political language, particularly when analyzing the fallacies in the politicians’ language. The author argues that political writers use metaphorical phrases that audiences cannot understand; hence do not get a clear picture of what they mean. For example, such authors describe a population’s movement as “millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the road with no more than they can carry” (Orwell, 7). According to Orwell, the descriptions are vague and give a different picture from a simple transfer of people; therefore, the way politicians communicate is disturbing and confusing. By showing the emotional atrocities of political vocabularies, such as the emotional deception, the author of this article gains the audience’s attention and proves the credibility of his argument that lawmakers language is misleading.
Conclusion
Many literature experts criticize politics and the English language as being too idealistic. The world needs more writers like Orwell, who can influence authors to heed his argument for better discourses and social communication. This writer uses the most straightforward and understandable rhetorical devices in discussing and criticizing the use of such a vague language, which gains the reader’s attention on the credibility of his arguments. The ethos and logos challenge the reader to reconsider the use of political language in discourses. Generally, Orwell’s essay is relevant to today’s language use in writing as politics influences most aspects of life nowadays.
Work Cited
Orwell George. “Politics and the English Language. The Orwell Foundation”. The Orwell Foundation, 2021. Web.