Orwell’s Rules for Good Language Essay

Good written and verbal language is essential for effectual communication. Writing in 1946, George Orwell points to several problems with the contemporary use of English. In his estimation, these problems lead to meaningless utterances that are ill-defined and im on the nose. Orwell provides several suggestions for improving the use of English avoid metaphors and over-used figures of speech, use short words in the grade of long words, cut out unnecessary words, use the active voice, avoid the use of jargon by using words from e genuinelyday English, and break the rules if following them will create a statement abstracted in sophistication.These suggestions can be used as a measuring stick to gauge different authors use of the English language. The writings of three authors were analyzed using Orwells suggestions as a guideline, and it was found that Cuthbertson and provide offend the principles of good English while Lutz actively campaigns for the use of clear, precise English. In From the Right, Mike Cuthbertson violates many of Orwells rules and as a result, the writing lacks clarity, and the imagery is not vivid. experience for instance the following sentence To come upon this, I full well knew that some concessions to my gardener wife would be necessary. In this sentence, the author has some unnecessary words (full well) and uses a dormant construction at the end of the sentence. This sentence could be more precise with the implementation of Orwells rules To accomplish this, I knew that I must make concessions to my gardener wife. An separate example of Cuthbertsons use of the dormant voice appears in the following sentence So rural was the area that I actually attended a one-room school house for grades one and two (no kindergarten, then) before a brand new alter school was built in the village and all the area kids were bused to it. Later in the passage, Cuthbertson uses a long, comparatively uncommon word when a shorter, more frequently used word would convey his meaning retributory as well magnanimously proposed could be replaced with selflessly proposed. Throughout the passage, Cuthbertson uses figures of speech that thrust been so over-used they have lost their punch under the watchful eye, to earn our keep, at that tender age, the sensibleer sex, my better half, to keep my ego firmly in check, to lose myself in a good novel, and been put in my place. To be fair to Cuthbertson, it should be noted that he appears to have used this style of writing to serve a literary purpose, namely the evocation of his childhood years spent in a farming community and the lessons that refer to be felt in his married life. However, the authors passive voice and over-used figures of speech trim back from the imagery he seems to want to create in the readers mind. His communication would have been often more effective if he had created new ways of describing his situation. Alastair McKies compilation some of George W. supplys st atements contains some glaring examples of poor English. Not only does Bush violate Orwells suggestions for good English, he appears to be incapable of constructing proper sentences and using words correctly. For example, Bush repeats a made-up word, misunderestimated, three time in one paragraph. In another paragraph, Bush remarks that ticket counters and airplanes will fly. Flying ticket counters would surely be a remarkable occurrence While the flying ticket counters remark is humorous, other of Bushs statements are just confusing.Take for example, We are fully committed to working with both boldnesss to lead the level of terror down to an acceptable level for both. If the United States and its allies are one side of the war on terror and the other side are the terrorists, is Bush saying that he is spontaneous to work with the country of which he is president? Shouldnt that go without saying? Bush, or at the very least his speechwriters, would have greatly benefited from r eading Orwells essay, the following sentence in particular belike it is better to put off using words as long as possible and maturate ones meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. If Bush had a clear idea of what he wanted to say, maybe he would be better at saying it. Orwell has a further suggestion that could help Bush on his way to becoming a clear thinker who uses rhetoric more effectively. For Orwell, improvements in these areas will lead towards political improvements If one gets relieve of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first rate toward political regeneration. In contrast, George Orwell would have greatly admired William Lutz. Lutz spent sixteen years collecting examples of double-speak which he then compiled into a book.Some of these examples are euphemisms for the most horrid things dehired and non-retained (i. e. fired) and negative patient care expiration (i. e. death following a medical procedure). These euphemisms are similar in function to those, mentioned by Orwell, mean to mask indescribable horrors of war or to rationalize abhorrent behavior. Others of Lutzs examples are needlessly change phrasings of simple concepts Exit access is that part of a means of egress that leads to an entrance or an exit. all(prenominal) those words simply indicate a way of accessing a door or window.Still other examples are merely funny occasional protein spill (i. e. vomit) and television with non-multicolor capability (i. e. a black and fair television). These examples are similar to those cited by Orwell when he speaks of the relationship between euphemisms and insincerity. He finds that when writers are insincere, they cloak their touchable feelings in lofty, verbose language. One hopes that with Lutzs drawing attention to the sheer amount of doublespeak that exists in our world, hoi polloi will become more aware of how empty it is and stop using it.In conclusion, Cuthbertson and B ush violate the principles of good English while Lutz actively campaigns for the use of clear, precise English. These three examples come from different genres autobiography, speech, and non-fiction. As such, they provide evidence for the importance of good English as a communication tool in all areas of life. Orwells principles are effective guidelines to follow in any means of communication. After all, it is alpha to be clear, concise, and precise when communicating with others.