WHY BAD ENGLISH IS A DANGER TO BE FOUGHT

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24983, 18 September 1946, Page 6

WHY BAD ENGLISH IS A DANGER TO BE FOUGHT

WORDS ARE POLITICS

In this talk broadcast bv the 8.8. C. MACDONALD HASTINGS Hi a “markable article by GEORGE ORWELL, in on the connexion between'langua ge and politics. . . . ' peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the ro ß di without food, and it is called ‘transfer of population' or 'rectig tion of frontiers'.” The words deceive us; and so the idea, the

People like me—journalists, commentators, and the like-are, in the very nature of our calling, literary hacks. ’What we write, and what we say, is as ephemeral as the day itself: indeed, I remember one great, old journalist saying to me that he hoped he never wrote anything wmeh would be worth reading the day after tomHe°did not mean that what he wrote was necessarily better f“'SOtten. cause journalism at its best calls lor quite considerable accomplishment, what he meant was that it is the essential quality of journal should be topical. And writing, that is truly topical can srarcSly command, also, permanence of interest. So, most journalism is forgotten. But, once in a long while, a journalist in the course of his day s work produces something out of the bag which is so it seems criminal to let it die with the issue of the journal in which it was printed. One such article recently appeared over here in London. Tonic to the Mind It was published in a small- esoteric monthly devoted to Itteratur? ajid art, called And, not surprisingly since the circulation is Iwuted to very few people, it passed almost without comment. The author who probably wrote the piece for a nominal & is a brilliant British writer—one of the giants, I think—named George Orwell. The article had the dull and unexciting title “Politics and the EnghSßut wist g OrweU had to say was so fresh in thought, so superbly executed, so universal in interest, that 1 would like to tell you in some detail he wrote. After I had reqd it—once casually, the second time carefully, the third time as a solemn duty—l felt as if my taind had had a good tub. I seemed to see things straighter. And, if 1 can, I would like to pass on,, sec-ond-hand, something of the experience tO /ought first to tell you that George Orwell has already made one startling contribution to politics in termsi uf literature. He brought out, a, year ago, a short book called Animal Farm, which was a brilliant satire on the Bolshevik revolution. Literary critics in London took the view that it was the most barbed and penetrating Piece of writing since Swift wrote Gulliver’s Travels.” Orwell interpreted the Russian revolution in an allegory about a farm, in which the animals rose un and threw out their human masters. The lesson was that, m the end the animals themselves began to behave just like their human masters. Curiously enough. Orwell himself has what are called left-wing leanings. His early writing was dominated by his deen feeling for the under-dog. But latterly, he has revealed himself. more anil more, as a seeker after the more hidden truths. Increasingly, he has withdrawn himself from the outward scene and, in every new thing he writes, he seems to be probing deeper for the real causes of world chaos and unhappiness. . . His latest article—this one in Horizon” —is simply an appeal for the more Drecise use of the English language as an instrument of political understanding: but, more than that, Orwell sets out to prove that the decline in the use of decent English is mixed up with the chaos in the world. /The English language has become Ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of out language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. If one gets rid of these habits, one can think more clearly, aufl to think cleat ly Is a Hrst step towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. After that, to demonstrate what he means, Orwell quotes that well-known verse from Ecclesiastes; “I returned, and saw under the sun. that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding. nor yet favour to men of skill: but time and chance happeneth to them all.” Having qumed Ecclesiastes. Orwell proceeds to translate the passage into modern English: Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. That is a witty parody. And it would not matter very much—except to professional writers—if the misuse of language was limited to that sort of thing. But Orwell goes on to point out that this oblique way of expressing thought, this use of words for the sake of words, has grimmer implications.

“Defenceless villages are from the air, the inhabiS?** driven out into the countrvtia •> cattle are machine-gunned the on fire with itjeendiary bulict!’ *■ in the language of modern call it “pacification.'' "MiUioMrfL* ants are robbed of their farms trudging along the roads withomlS" and it is called "transfer oi ponul-H 1 or “rectification of frontiers“aS are imprisoned for years withnniffl 1 or shot in the back of the neck to die of scurvy in Arctic £s* camps,” and it is called "elimin.S* unreliable elements.” There, you see how insincere M language can hide inslncerit? *1 thought. Put that statement into ud language, and 90 per cent of would be horrified. Wrap it uJy} words, and you can literally SBI with murder. Y’ou can defend flu S’ defensible. Half the words that we use nary conversation about politic* St no real meaning at all or, at mtM hS meaning is abused. “Fascism,” lor example, has been improperly so long that it now meaning except in so far u it “something not desirable.” “The words ‘democracy,* 'aadaliaw ‘freedom.’ ‘patriotic/ have each of them several dfitS meanings, which cannot be with one another. In the case of like ‘democracy/ not only is ibiM? agreed definition, but the atten®!? make one is resisted from all All we seem to agree about It &/ when we call a country “democrejp we are praising it; when We tall » “Fascist, ’ we are disapproving, that, the words are swindles.’ What we are doing in politics not trying to make our meahlftSetoS —putting our cards on the table, m Mr Bevin suggests. We are enteritjf Shi world conspiracy to humbug by dressing up facts in fancy words. “We do not say ‘I think’; wsttr - ‘ln my opinion, it is not an unjttitffalS assumption that... /We use : phrases. And the danger is that tU w of the ready-made phrase 18 1 QMti comfortable habit to get into.” \ It is far easier, when you are 1 ing to a stenographer, to uM httl pretentious, and meaningless wi| and phrases. You save mentifl Wil and you leave your meaning ft®. | fortably vague. iS And it is a terrible thing to nsllii K that world revolutions have te| stirred up by accumulations of phrases like this—a Orwell from a typical pamphlet: “All the frantic tains, united in common hatretf g| Socialism and bestial horror of the & I ing tide of the masa revoUilfoaaß | movement, have turned to BCti <■ provocation. . . .” is It is complete jargon, but the jitgty ■ peculiar to Marxist writing. Msfl far, nobody but Orwell has shown ft I the monstrous rubbish it is. Mini | may be a good political doctrine, M | not as expounded by the Word-ftwMffi! who composed that pamphlet. Is there a solution? Orwell says thit in his view, the decadence of linguW is probably curable. “Silly words fiM expressions,” Orwell goes on. often disappeared, not through tty evolutionary process, but owing » W conscious action of a minority. And he quotes two recent examples $ phrases which have been killed W Bft jeers of a few journalists. One at® politician’s promise “to explore Wtt avenue,” the other “to leave no unturned.” Challenging Ready -Made Ptakift Orwell’s message to all of uirfe MW to miss an opportunity to those snowstorms of soft worMWar blown phrases which are caicdWg S conceal an ugly truth. And he to recognise that the present | chaos in the world Is connecteO | the decay of. language, and that probably bring about some iiwg* | ment in the world by atartlng MM verbal end. w “If you simplify your EngHft Orwell, “you are freed from me wct g follies of orthodoxy. You any of the necessary dialects, and g you make a stupid remark 1W will be obvious, even to '-ka Political language—and sists that, with variations this of all political parties—“politi»l Mg J age is designed to maka Uw a® truthful and murder respectable, ano 1 give an appearance of soiiuWß wind. One cannot change 8R a moment, but one can at lean one’s own habits and from one can even, if one jeeft enough, send some worn-out. less phrase—some ‘jackboot, heel,’ 'hotbed/ ‘melting-pot, w.Wg ‘veritable inferno’ or other verbal refuse —into the dustbin ww it belongs.” w