politics and the english language test (woods)

Orwell's rules

*1.* Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. *2.* Never use a long word where a short one will do. *3.* If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out *4.* Never use the passive where you can use the active *5.* Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday equivalent. *6.* Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous

sentence 4

*In a single coherent sentence give a description of the intended audience and/or the relationship the author establishes with the audience.* EX. Because the audience is emotionally vulnerable and volatile--and initially sympathetic to Brutus--Mark Antony first pretends to share his audience's regard for Brutus before turning the crowd against Caesar's killers.

sentence 3

*In a single coherent sentence give a statement of the author's purpose, followed by an "in order" phrase.* EX. The purpose of this speech is to rally morale within the troops and distribute assignments in order to organize and inspire the troops for one of the biggest upcoming battles of their lives.

sentence 2

*In a single coherent sentence give an explanation of how the author develops and supports the major claim (thesis statement).* EX. Eisenhower makes this assertion through his use of incredibly charged language to intensify the motivation of the troops by reminding them of all the "liberty-loving people" and "oppressed peoples of Europe" that will be saved with their efforts.

sentence 1

*In a single coherent sentence give the following: (a) name of the author, title of the work; (b) a rhetorically accurate verb (such as "assert," "argue," "deny," "prove," disprove,""insist," etc.); (c) a THAT clause containing the major claim (thesis statement) of the work.* EX. In General Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech Order of the Day, Eisenhower gives a speech to assert his military troops of their day's assignments and to prepare them for the journey ahead.

In each of the following paragraphs - 4, 5, 12, 15, 16 - Orwell uses at least one metaphor or simile. Identify each figure of speech. Then explain how it works and whether you find it rhetorically effective.

*Paragraph 4:* In paragraph 4 Orwell uses a metaphor saying, *"As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of terms of speech that are not hackneyed".* This works because they are comparing an idea to concrete saying that the ideas are formed like concrete but are not forming. I think it could be rhetorically effective but not needed in this situation because Orwell could have accurately explained this without the metaphor. *Paragraph 5:* In paragraph 5 Orwell uses a metaphor saying that, *"In between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves."* This metaphor is rhetorically effective because the point that he is trying to make is that there is a large group of metaphors in the English language that have lost their powerful meaning because they have been overused, just like things that are in a dump. You bring things to the dump that cannot and should not be used anymore and that is what he is trying to say about metaphors. *Paragraph 12:* Simile: *"he may be unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church."* This effectively portrays the mind of a writer who is absently composing a piece. Anyone who has attended mass can relate to the lack of thought involved in reciting memorized phrases. Metaphor: *"one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them".* This comparison of a speaker to a dummy emphasizes Orwell's position that writers and politicians are often mindless and often machine-like. The audience can see that the speaker's original thoughts and personality are not involved in his composition. *Paragraph 15:* In paragraph 15, Orwell uses a simile when he says, *"A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details".* This simile works because it accurately describes how Latin words or phrases can confuse people much like snow. I would consider this rhetorically effective and helpful to his point. Orwell also uses another simile when he says, *"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 squirting out ink".* This simile compares someone spewing out information to a cuttlefish squirting ink. I don't think this has as much of a rhetorical effect as his first simile because most people can understand the idea of snow. This simile might not make sense to some and doesn't add much to the writing. *Paragraph 16:* In paragraph 16 Orwell uses a simile when he says, *"and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern."* This simile compares horses answering a call to people being compelled to write. I would consider this rhetorically effective but once again not really needed to understand his point.

Rhetorical Precis breakdown

*Sentence 1:* The Major Claim of the Text *Sentence 2:* The Significant Rhetorical Strategies/Choices *Sentence 3:* The Author's Purpose & Intended Effect on Audience *Sentence 4:* The Author's Awareness of and Relationship with Audience and Speaker's Intent

purpose: (reason for text)

*explore the impact of totalitarian thinking on language* -people that are willing to make the change in lang. need to come together and get rid of its decline cycle because it is reversible -political writing is bad writing and it is largely on the defense of the indefensible but since thought corrupts language and lang corrupts thought they need to work together to cure the decline

"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"

*orwell is gathering the audience with a universal appeal that is addressing anybody that cares about the matter* -if you are one of the people that cares at all about the English language -orwell delays the subject until audience point is declared -bother: lang. is an annoyance

George Orwell argues against the "belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" Explain why you do or do not agree with Orwells position.

I agree with Orwell's position as I feel that *language is shaped for our own purposes more prominently.* Our *settings highly impact our style and language choices*, as language used in a school or work environment can be drastically different then language used amongst close friends. *Formality is always shifting to suit the circumstances*, and students, although learn more language associate language for their subjects. It is also important to *maintain consistency* in language so that we can go back to prior text and study it. (A word that is used for math most likely will not be used in an History essay)

What is the purpose of the additional information provided in Orwell's footnotes for paragraphs 7 and 8? Why do you think Orwell chose to put the information in the footnotes rather than in the main text?

In paragraph 7, Orwell discusses *pretentious diction and how words are often used to dress up a sentence, but instead make it vague and confusing.* As an example, Orwell adds a footnote about how flowers are often called by their Greek names, not for any practical reason, but just to make the text sound more scientific and sophisticated. Orwell adds this example in a footnote because it didn't fit very well with the main message of this paragraph. Throughout the paragraph, Orwell was discussing how "dress up words" were overused and vague, but his message about flowers was almost like an intrusive thought. *It didn't go with the flow of the text, but it was still relevant to his thinking process, so this idea was placed in the footnotes.* It was a necessary thought for him to present to his audience, but his paragraph's structure did not allow for him to smoothly add this example into the text. The second footnote appears directly after the topic sentence of the paragraph titled "Meaningless Words." After stating that many kinds of writing involve the frequent inclusion of long passages which nearly completely lack any meaning or distinct message. This is particularly prevalent in art and literary criticism due to their inherently subjective and opinionated nature with the often use of abstract terms with no distinct definition that is simply left to be interpreted by the reader. The footnote he decided to add after the first sentence is an example of the sort of criticism he referred to with a long and almost meaningless passage. *It helps to substantiate his claim as it uses exhaustive and confusing phrases such as "trembling atmospheric accumulative hinting at a cruel, an inexorably serene timelessness."* He also elaborates on more subjective topics such as the perception, image, and aesthetic of the piece of art or literature. The critic appears to make comparisons between the art or writing with other works, that the reader may or may not be familiar with. The example footnote *serves as prime evidence for his claim, reinforcing the fact that much language largely lacks any sort of meaning.* He likely did not include the example in the text as it is quite long and would have interjected the text somewhat unnecessarily and would not have flown seamlessly into his proceeding evidence. It is much longer than his other examples, and so *it likely would have broken the reader's train of thought.*

Orwell wrote this essay before he was well known for his novels. He uses the first person, yet he does not directly state his qualifications to speak on language. How does he establish ethos?

Orwell establishes ethos by *referencing a variety of literature to show his points.* Although he doesn't directly say it, Orwell *shows that he is very well read.* He also shows *knowledge in the affairs* of multiple nations and wartime events, noting that he pays attention to issues. Throughout the entire essay, Orwell shows his *awareness of the English language by setting up his own essay* in an organized way and providing specific examples of "good" and "bad" English. He also establishes ethos by *caring for the decline of the English language* and showing that since he does care he has a passion and experience with language. Essentially, Orwell doesn't directly tell of his ethos, but he gives off the vibe throughout his entire essay that he is an expert of the English language.

why does Orwell object to "ready-made" phrases and "mixed metaphors"

Orwell objects to "ready-made phrases" for the main reason of the *writer taking the easy and most convenient way out*. When writers submit to using arranged phrases, they don't have to bother with focusing on the rhythm of their sentences because it is already arranged. Along with that, Orwell also objects to "mixed metaphors" because he states that the purpose of metaphors is to create a mental image in the writer and the reader's mind. When two metaphors clash, it becomes clear that the *writer is not imagining a specific image in their head, rather that he is taking the easy way out.*

What is orwell's purpose and how might the historical context of post-world war II affect that purpose?

Orwell's purpose in writing this essay is to *describe how and why language, along with civilization as a whole, is on the decline.* He explains that because the two are so intertwined that once one begins to decline then so will the other. He also makes his audience aware of the fact that over time the value of the English language has been reduced because of the "bad habits" in writing and in politics. The historical time period, post-World War II, plays a large role in the drive and purpose of Orwell's work *as he discusses the connection language has to political decline and dangerous propaganda.* Nazi Germany during WWII was suffocated in propoganda which led to devestation on a large scale. This would lead Orwell to *warn people of the effects that such manipulated language has on thoughts and minds.* He describes how politicians use techniques like pretentious diction and misleading words to lead people astray and believe things that are either not true or not as they seem. He adds the idea that many political words have no agreed definition, only connotations and this is dangerous because politicians use these words to mislead people. Seeing the devastation done by propagandic writing of WWII, Orwell *compels people to change their language and look out for dangerous language.*

What does Orwell mean when he asserts, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought"

When Orwell says, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought", he is trying to say that *if language is used incorrectly once then that connotation and incorrect meaning of a word or phrase can be spread throughout usage and then over time people have an incorrect meaning as their definition of a word.* To explain this, Orwell uses the example that "a bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation." If language is misused one time, it can *spread either through tradition between generations* and slowly mislead and corrupt people's thoughts, or if the person who made the mistake is well-known, *people will imitate his/her bad usage* and continue to corrupt the English language and their own thoughts. In this way, the corruption of language and the corruption of thought go hand-in-hand.