My response to the english articles......or rant..

The Preface to Johnson’s Dictionary, first published in 1755.

I am in agreement that a dictionary has a valuable purpose of prolonging and maintaining the English language, it has strong preservative powers that as Johnson emphasizes ‘preserve words and phrases from mutability’.
At the time at which this is written I think the preservation of the English language was much more of an issue, the language was fragile and Johnson contributed to the languages sustainability through the times ahead. As times have changed commerce has become increasingly more international. I do not think that the English language is suffering because of this we are gaining more of an understanding with regard to other cultures now more than ever before. English is such a solid language used by billions of people. We are perhaps indebted to Johnson for being on this course.
Johnson deemed errors in the use of the English language as a result of words being ‘unchained from necessity’. This highlighted the need for the dictionary for English as it had no solid basis and was and still is constantly changing and evolving. In this way the structure of a dictionary would facilitate by clarifying what the language consists of and be also helpful and validating.
Johnson also makes a powerful argument at the end of the article which stands in direct opposition to Swifts, he proposes that no words should become obsolete. As times change so do the accepted phrases, especially in today’s society where the onus is on being PC. I agree with Johnson that some words do come out of use but also would never reject old literary works which show artistry and innovation as well as displaying the language from the specific time period .

Jonathon swift, in a Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue, 1712.

I noticed the language at the beginning of the article was incredibly complimentary to the Earl, Swift flatters with phrases like ‘you had the Genius’ and ‘Your glorious Actions’. This is a ploy which allows Swift to later plead with the Earl to take action as to what Swift deems as the corrupt use of the English language that he stresses is ‘extremely imperfect’.
I was struck by the concern Swift expressed at the maintenance of the English language;
‘Whether our Language or the French will decline as fast as the Roman did, is a Question that would perhaps admit more Debate than it is worth.’
This highlighted to me how fragile and uncertain the future of the English language was.
I agree with Swift with regards to spelling as we speak, this would really strip the language of its etymology. The language would lose its roots from this. Additionally I couldn’t agree more with the statement that old books should ‘not be discarded due to phrases that are no longer utilised, we should focus on a books intrinsic worth.’
Swift adopts a threatening tone when he urges the Earl to take action;
‘I must be so plain as to tell Your Lordship, that if You will not take some Care to settle our Language, and put into a state of Continuance, I cannot promise that Your Memory shall be preserved above an hundred years,’.
He also, very bravely, employs the tactic of branding the Earl ‘the most inexcusable person alive’ if he doesn’t take note of his advice.

George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946

Orwell’s article stands in opposition to both Swifts and Johnsons in that he deems any struggle against the abuse of language as being ‘sentimental archaism’. Orwell very succinctly and convincingly exposes the articles which he has chosen to analyse as lacking in imagery and precision. There is a great worth to precise writing. I feel that being succinct and basic are not the same thing it is very powerful when a writer is able to express themselves eloquently, imaginatively and succinctly. This can draw the reader in and is digestible in a pleasant way.
Orwell holds the same attitude as Johnson with regards to the use of Latin or Greek particularly in reference to science, politics and sociology are thought to be grander.
Orwell outlines far too many mistakes that I am all too familiar with...frightening! I’m sure we all fall victim to the use of stale metaphors, similes and idioms mainly for the sake of time restrictions. I think he makes an incredibly thought provoking argument concerning how we are shaped by ‘ready made phrases’ which do to a large extent shape our meaning potentially to the detriment of our genuine ability to articulate. Equally pertinent was the profound statement ‘if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought’. This led me on to consider the impact of the mistakes made in articulating and how this has a wider influence on others speech.
This article has a rebellious nature to it. It is symbolic of the time in which it was written with the propaganda that would have been prevalent. It is successful in urging the reader to apply caution in reading propaganda and be responsible for their own freedom of speech.