He According to Rodger fowler the compression of words in the English language ensures that complex ideas become simpler. In addition this process helps in eliminating vagueness and in bringing out the intended message to the audience. Furthermore in fowler Orwell argues that English as a language is decaying he attributes this to the unconscious actions from modern writers who use “dead metaphors, foreign diction and ready made phrases” among others which render language meaningless. I would like to say that Orwell’s concern is valid in the sense that modern language is decaying and I attribute this to the declining ability among up coming to think independently (Fowler) (Logan).
However I would also like to mention that in the definition of culture, we admit that language is part of culture. In addition I can confirm by citing hundreds of writers that culture is dynamic. Culture changes according to time for an instance increasing technological developments bring about several changes and now and then, and people of different ages can access all kinds of materials from the internet. Therefore we expect culture to follow the same trends and this leads to my observation that language can also change for worse. However as writers we should be on our guards to prevent a negative change. We should also remember that we are free and the same case applies to our freedom of thought this should be our weapon and it should evoke creativity and originality in our writing.
According to Orwell modern writing face challenges that range from the misuse of words to misrepresentation of ideas. In connection to this it is evident that modern writer no longer embrace originality in their writing and this leads to the frequent use of ‘already made phrases’ hence “stale imagery” this kind of writing “lacks precision” because the writer does not have any control over his choice of words. In connection to the declaration of independence I observe that there are instances of faulty language for instance absolute despotism if the writer could take his time it is possible to come up with and present his ideas in simpler terms without using the same words which we see in papers particularly in our studies of the history of America. I am not trying to say that there are grammatical errors in this section of the declaration but words like absolute despotism a very common (Jefferson 146) (Fowler) (Logan).
According to Orwell, political writing does attract many writers due endless issues that are interesting to write about they also attract response through writing. However many writers in this field do not employ creativity; they choose their words from statements that are too common to attract readers. The example in the previous paragraph is a good representation where the writer does not travel an extra miles, he does not tax his mind to evoke more vivid and creative words to deliver his message. They are an indication of someone toying around with ready made words some of which are losing meaning in modern governments however he does succeed in realizing his objectives (Fowler) (Kirszner).
Orwell argues that many writers have the writing skills however they are slaves of their minds and they cannot think freely. He states that an original writer should present other persons’ ideas from a totally different point of view and manage to present the same issues without altering the actual message. The writer should also present the ideas in a language that is simple to the audience and also manage to capture and maintain the interest of the reader this is possible if he can allow his mind to play around with words, phrases and ideas of other people. In the declaration I find the writer presenting his ideas alongside his feelings. And with this he manages to communicate however his repetition become monotonous and there are many instances where the writer uses passive voice for instance “To be tried for pretended offenses” (Logan 86)these and many other occasions in the declaration according to Orwell is another faulty language which we as writers should campaign against.
Furthermore Orwell point out that the use of stale phrases does is not a crime and I would support his argument. However he is quick to state that even though stale metaphors assist the writer to express his ideas without interfering with his message, some of these words inhibit our ability to think independently and be creative because they tend to provide readily available alternatives to language problems which the mind can provide if only we can provoke it. In addition the solution emanating along this line of thought water down English as a language and this is so because the writer doesn’t strain he/she only picks on readily available phrases and pastes them into his essay and that is the end. According to Orwell some of these metaphors no longer have any strong impact on the modern readers who actually need something new, something with a sense of touchy and something that will evoke interest in them. Nowadays people would like to access reading materials that are pleasant to the mind however most of them may not realize any writing faultiness because they also think along the same line (Fischer 27).
According to Orwell another major language problems includes “mixing of incompatible metaphors”. He argues that this problem will in turn lead to communication failure because the writer suffering form this condition is not able to pass his message across. In addition Orwell argues that operators bring life to sentence construction by limiting the use of common verbs. In addition he argues that the use of “passive voice” becomes popular each day. He advocates for a change in this which calls for the more use of active voice. There is more than enough evidence in the declaration where the use of operators is quite perfect however there are other incidences where their use does no justice to this speech. In addition the use does not permit the writer to put across his message effectively without loosing the original meaning. For an instance
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the work of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation (Jefferson 146-147)
The quote above is a combination of metaphorical and idiomatic expressions. It also depicts improper use of syllables and mixing of nouns and phrasal verbs. The word connection from the writers point of view would seek to displays his skills and complexity in his presentation of ideas. However it is very difficult to establish the actual and the objective of this writings. In addition the writer incorporates his feelings in the speech which is Ok the problem lies with the use of words thus affecting the delivery of the message. This according Orwell is faulty language and leads to vague presentation of ideas (Fowler).
Today many writers tend to use ‘big words’ in place of simple phrases and statement. They also use adjectives to give a sense of weight to political situations that do not deserve this kind of treatment. Orwell argues that another group of writers will use “foreign words” in writing to bring out a sense of culture into their work. This has impacts a lot in the writing in of quality and effective communication. In the declaration we find that the quality of the message that Thomas Jefferson is communicating is affected by the using words that are criticizing making some of his statement lack in meaning. In addition Thomas in his bid to elaborate or at some instance exaggerate the current state of his complaint, he is guilty of using words and phrases that have a substantial degree of pretentious dictions such as ‘sufferable, impel, compete among others. In quote above there are instances where the use of strong words in a political context is present along side other language crimes. It therefore contributes to lack of clear objectives in his message (Wills).
Therefore, Orwell state that this kind of writing and of which I also would like to admit that I am used to, doesn’t rhyme with English rules. He is quick to conclude that the phrases depict poor writing skills and lack of originality. They bring ambiguity to the writer’s message thus communication failure. Thomas’s speech does exhibit many of these faults according to the guidelines by Orwell. In addition Thomas Jefferson constantly uses too many words in a number of instances whereas he could use simple phrases which would in turn enhance his communication without affecting his message negatively. For instance Thomas states that “he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people”. In this statement the use of a single term exploiting our land, is more appropriate than the many words which makes the message hard to follow and more boring to the listener (Fowler).
According to Orwell’s assessment on modern writing, he points out that it is a collection of phrases forming passages that in most cases have no specific meaning. One wonders what the writer intends to put across with such writings. Even though this kind writing is popular in art it does not work properly because the main objective of a writer is to pass his massage in the language he knows best and that is writing.
In his writing Orwell argues that political language is leading in language faulting. He points out that it uses words that do not have a specific meaning, words that suite the user in his context. However the language creativity can allow the writer to present his ideas freely and achieve his objectives For instance Orwell states that “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air…….million of peasants is robbed of their farm…….this is called transfer of population….” The use of such words may seam attractive however it does not reflect the actual meaning because it tries to decorate and justify ugly scenes and this is what we call political language.
The use of simple words could do it better but we cannot separate politics and language however we can salvage language from these situation by observing the rules. This may also be enhanced by asking ourselves some very important questions when choosing the words to use during our communication. He argues that if the speaker would ask himself or herself some very questions such as what intendeds to say, what words are the most appropriate to express it what he intends to say, what idiom, metaphor or similes would make it more clear and whether the imagery the speaker is going to use will be fresh enough to create the desired. This would definitely affect the quality of the message we communicate. In addition, Thomas Jefferson argues that the use of stale metaphors and readily available phrases is gaining popularity each day Orwell say that it likened it to “a packet of aspirins always at one’s elbow”. Thomas advices that the best way to better writing or speaking skills is to let go off our complexity and ambiguous phrases and open up for simple phrases to easily run in our mind. For instance he says,
‘You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing you’re meaning even from yourself’ Orwell in (Logan 86-89).
In the above quote Thomas Jefferson advices that the key to effective communication is to let the ideas flow out without ambiguity. In addition he emphasizes on the need to use fresh ideas and avoiding stale metaphors that have no more meaning but ends up affecting our communication.
Orwell argues that writers may have new ideas that they would like to present however they are slave to faulty language and they will use the same words over and over again. This writing technique doesn’t permit the writer to pass across his ideas because he relies on the same old and stale phrases. There is a lot of Latin and Greek language in modern writing the aim of this writing is to stop the use of stale words by creating new ones, by allowing the mind and meaning to guide you in selecting of the best words to use in any given writing. According to Orwell this is not about grammar, it is about simple language, it is about correct choice of words, it about freedom of thought which does not inhibit communication by simply covering the actual message; it is about originality in writing (Fowler) (Fischer) Orwell in (Logan).
According to Orwell, Thomas is in several instances guilty of rather use many negative words and phrases which makes him sound overcame by emotions hence making his message lack in its quality. For instance in his conclusion he says ‘deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends’ This is what Orwell refer to use of language in improper way. In addition, in his effort to try and cover up some of his sincere but rather harsh details in his speech, he is resulting to using too long phrases or words that makes some of his statements vague and have a little bit of euphemism. For instance uses statements such as ‘executioners of their friends and brethren’. He is also using statements that sounds such as ‘fall themselves by their hands’ and ‘nature’s God. This is also wrong according to Orwell (Logan 86-90).
The use of words that are lacking in grammatical meaning is another is another problem that Orwell is citing as a weakness and it is affecting the quality of the message being communicated. Some speakers and writers are not continuously using words that do not have proper grammar they also do not have appropriate application operators in a sentence, some of them may be accidental or intentional as we can witness in Thomas Jefferson’s speech. He has uses the word shown in place of shown, which we are not sure whether it is accidental or intentional. Thus affecting the quality of he is communicating (Fowler) (Fischer) (Logan).
Orwell argues that the speaker’s habit of padding his sentences with many syllables thus he at some points is not able to select the right nouns or verbs especially in those areas that he is a little emotional. For instance Thomas uses a phrase ‘naturalization of foreigners’ and another one like patient sufferance of these colonies. These examples according to Orwell, Thomas is guilty of replacing conjunctions with very many nouns making his statements have a hanging ending. We definitely may say without contradicting ourselves that Thomas has several strong points in his speech because he is avoiding as much as possible using metaphors that are dying in terms of meaning and value in their implication and on the other hand he has constantly used practically modern metaphors and idiomatic phrases such as ‘deaf to the voice of justice’ and ‘high seas to bear arms’ among others, of which in return, they makes his statements have weight and impart the desired message without compromising the proper use of language.
In conclusion, we may say that, the use of dying metaphors always affect the quality of the message, and on the contrary, the use of a new idiom or metaphor makes a phrase have a fresh connotation hence enhancing communication. In addition, use of proper phrasal verbs and connectors enhances message quality and also facilitates communication. This goes along with the use of meaningful words and phrases which helps to avoid pretentious diction and hence bringing clarity in his message. Thomas Jefferson in his speech depicts instances which he is a victim of language faulty. However there are areas in his speech where communication is excellent. Thus my reaction to Orwell argument is that I fully support his point of view, I also admit that modern writer would do with some guidance on how to safeguard the English language (Logan).