Reflection on Articles

Robert Cawdry’s A Table Alphabetical and
The Preface to Johnson’s Dictionary

I liked the comparison of attitudes to language between Robert Cawdry’s Introduction and Johnson’s Preface.

Cawdry (and “sonne’s”) A Table Alphabetical is written to preserve the English Language from three main threats that he identifies including: “over-sea language,” British persons journeying to France and returning with “French English” and similarly “English Italianated.” Cawdry is also dismayed that the English languages change between generations so much that “some men …forget altogether their mother’s language.” Cawdry’s last complaint is that English words should be plain to all men and that there should not be a fracturing of language which he describes as the difference between “Court talke” and “Country-speech.”

Johnson’s Preface starts similarly with an admission that his initial purpose in writing his dictionary was “that it should fix our language, and put a stop to the alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered.” Johnson explains that he has realised that he had a foolish attitude to think that anyone could “embalm” language and protect it from “fugitives, and repulse intruders.” He describes an effort to do so to be as futile as attempting to tie down the wind!

Johnson explains the inevitable causes of language change which are the same identified by Cawdry but Johnson is the better read because he is interested in exploring catalysts instead of trying to stop change from happening.

Johnson explains that dramatic changes in the English language have been caused by conquest in the past but modern foreign influences on English are still important but subtler. He identifies trade as an important linguistic link that England has with the rest of Europe and the jargon and language used to communicate between countries a source of new English words. Johnson says that a culture that reads, thinks and develops will invent new concepts, new sciences and so new words will develop. Equally Johnson recognises trends for old phrases and traditions to be phased out and words with them.

Conclusions on the two introductions:

Cawdry appears old fashioned and backward looking in comparison to Johnson as Cawdry’s interest is in the origins and history of words (French words are marked [fr] and so on) and his attempt to preserve English language for the English speakers. Johnson on the other hand makes predictions for future language changes; recognising that social developments like links with Europe and the development of ideas and concepts are factors which influence change.

Jonathan Swift
A proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue

Swift begins his letter to the Prime Minister, the Earl of Oxford, in a tone not dissimilar to sycophant Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice (“your glorious actions… your genius”). Swift’s introduction is an account of the linguistic influences that the Romans, Saxons and French have had on the development of English language and predicts that French language will decay in the same way that Latin did.

Looking at the development of English Swift identifies some key events including: Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, the Great Rebellion of Forty Two, the Civil War, the “licentiousness” of the Restoration and finally the Court of Charles the Second as having affected language in different ways.

Swift lists three corrosive influences on language, beginning with an attack on the play writes who acquire newly fashioned words of “neither Humor, nor Significancy” and give them status by incorporating them in texts. “The Poets” are also convicted of “spoiling the English Tongue;” they fashion new words by abbreviating words and removing a vowel, creating “such harsh unharmonious Sounds, that none but a Northern Ear could endure:” The last of Swift’s “causes” of language degradation is introduced to the reader as a “foolish opinion” that people must write phonetically which has the obvious problem of regional accents changing pronunciation and creating variations in spellings of words.

There follows a terrible analogy about fruit grown in colder climates comparable to language in colder climates and a highly unscientific experiment, or rather, a parlour game without relevance but finally, when the reader begins to doubt if there will ever be any point to all of this, Swift gets to the purpose of the letter: suggesting that a board is assembled (chiefly himself) with the aim of reforming the English language. However Swift writes less than a page about the board leaving the reader feeling quite hard done by considering what they have had to trail through to get there in terms of fruit analogies, etc.

The board will follow the example of the French whom Swift mentioned when he was introducing the history of language as having the best example of language. The board are to dispel the improprieties in language that have been practice and restore words that have become antiquated on the merits of their “energy and sound.” Swift suggests that a method should be formulated for “ascertaining and fixing our language for ever.”

The last point Swift makes under this heading is his most difficult to read:
“For I am of the Opinion, that it is better a Language should not be wholly perfect, that it should be perpetually changing;” which seems to contradict the purpose of the board and that which Swift has commented on so far. Perhaps Swift means language which has changed in the right way but so far we have no distinguishing characteristics of what this might be; we only know that it does not include regional dialect, abbreviations or coined terms.

There follows a bit more waffle as Swift reaffirms his position in the field and states that lots of clever men agree with him and suddenly the tone of the writing becomes very persuasive. Swift is heading towards the end of the letter and a return to his sycophantic style. Swift threatens that the Prime Minister’s great deeds will be unreadable if language is permitted to go on changing: “I cannot promise that Your Memory will be preserved above an hundred years.” The Prime Minister will be forgotten if he does not act now to protect language however Swift promises him notoriety if he does act.
Swift says that the great geniuses of the age need the Prime Minister to protect their works: Swift offers the Prime Minister a historic role.
Swift’s last point is that he wants a wage for his work and he helpfully suggests some practical ways that this could be made possible but adds, of course, as a great genius he is above money.

Conclusions on Swift:

Swift’s article is not persuasive for the following reasons:

His desperate praise of the Prime Minister means that his writing seems less sincere and harder to value

Swift wants to protect English language from change but he does not explain why it is so important that English should remain unchanged

Swift cannot explain how language is changing in terms of trends or social factors and unlike Johnson he does not realise that change is inevitable and an interesting discussion.

Swift’s attitude is that the development of the English Language can be controlled and prevented

This all makes Swift pretty hard to stomach for a modern reader. We know change is not caused by fops, play writes or dialects and we study the development of language with interest.

George Orwell
Politics and the English Language

George Orwell is a breath of fresh air after Swift because he gets to the point. His introduction explains his idea that language is a reflection of society and of ourselves. The introduction to each piece is a revealing comparison: Orwell’s opinion is given credibility by the balanced description of the extracts he has chosen: “they are a little below the average” he admits. Swift’s introduction is one sided and full of adoration of “My Lord” which makes it less persuasive. Orwell provides the evidence for his claims in the extracts which are entertaining to the reader. From the beginning the reader is on Orwell’s side.

Orwell lists his criticisms which are all kinds of ways that English prose writers fail to express themselves: dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, meaningless words; I particularly like his example of mixed images “The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song.” Orwell calls them a “catalogue of swindles and perversions.” Orwell complains the problem with their usage is that “you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague.” Orwell warns that these phrases will think your thoughts for you and hide your own meaning from you and that is when language becomes political.

Orwell writes with overwhelming conviction against politics, he thinks it is dangerous that political speakers make speeches full of familiar phrases. This is where he loses me a bit and I do not understand this argument. Some political speakers are very original; Martin Luther King is an obvious example. Many politicians have trained as Barristers and have to be good at public speaking as it is a big part of political life.

Orwell’s writing becomes less persuasive as he uses emotive words and phrases: “politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia” his writing appears less balanced and scientific.

Orwell believes that we can drive worn out phrases into extinction, he cites the example of journalists who have achieved this end. Orwell makes his own attempt to improve prose with six rules that he claims would prevent the writing found in the extracts.

Conclusions on Orwell:

Orwell’s “catalogue of swindles and perversions” is persuasive: demonstrated by his extracts

Orwell is motivated by his emotional response to politics which makes him seem a less reliable source

Orwell makes an effort to actively change language by creating his six tests whereas none of the other authors have suggested methods

Orwell’s concern for English is that people express themselves properly. I think he is right and people save on effort by using stock phrases sometimes called “schema” of language: a store of language that is appropriate for expressing a feeling or idea. I do not think that this is necessarily bad, it would be difficult to be constantly creating new phrases and I think that mine might sound a bit like Orwell’s example: “The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song.” Although I cannot really imagine that one coming up in conversation.