Reflection on Articles

Preface to Johnson’s Dictionary

Despite being somewhat outdated, I like Johnson’s rationale for his dictionary ‘to put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition’. Although the evolution of language is natural and necessary, I think that it is good that he wanted to preserve something that is essentially ‘English’ and wanted the language to survive. The idea that the legacy of people and places can be captured within language is useful and important so that we have links with the past.

Johnson accepts that language change is inevitable and explains how new words get incorporated into everyday speech; this doesn’t necessarily mean the language is changing, just that it’s getting richer.

Johnson blames the ‘encroachments of poetry’ and the ignorance surrounding pronunciation for the decay of a language; Johnson is extremely fearful for the future of English and pre-empts that ‘the original import of words’ will be forgotten by use of colloquialisms. It is Johnson’s dread regarding the future of the language that has been the motivation for his dictionary. Whilst language is fluid and will be subject to change and modification the idea of conserving words means that they will live on through our heritage.

Jonathan Swift Article

Swift views ‘Correcting, Enlarging and Ascertaining our Language’ with utmost importance; he believes that the language is being corrupted daily and that ‘every part of grammar’ is being offended. It is a great concern to him that the English language is not as refined as that of Italy, Spain or France.

Swift argues that ‘the English tongue is not arrived to such a degree of perfection, as to make us apprehend any thought of its decay’; he argues for a standardisation so as to make the language less vulnerable. Although it may appear to be extreme to be so resistant to language change; the English language has been fragile throughout history, so if people hadn’t fought for it then it may not have survived, let alone be spoken by six billion people worldwide and be at the forefront of communication.

The need for a secure language is evident; I agree with Swift’s point that an assured language is essential so that writers have a chance of immortality, otherwise great works of the past could go unnoticed and there would be no continuity. I see Swift’s point in that he is talking about the language being abused rather than it evolving naturally. Saying that Swift does allude to the notion that there is no absolute necessity why any language should perpetually change, I think this is just unrealistic and that change doesn’t necessarily mean demise. The fact that other countries’ languages have remained unchanged just reflects their differing histories. Swift blames the ‘defect’ in our language on the uneducated youth and for the arts for borrowing words and phrases: I agree that it is important for people to receive a quality education so that they can learn about language but not with his criticism of playwrights; playing with language is what makes these plays and compositions so powerful.

In reforming the language it is not clear whom Swift thinks worthy of deciding which words should be thrown out of the language and why he thinks this is required; who is to say that some words are more precious that others? You cannot sensor free speech. I find it quite amusing that Swift has threatened the Earl that if he doesn’t settle the language then the Queen’s legacy will not be preserved; this shock-tactic appears quite excessive but I guess he has a point, he is clearly worried that the language will become obsolete and cares very deeply about this matter.

George Orwell Article

Orwell’s opening statement is that the English language is in ‘a bad way’ but that to struggle against this is perceived as ‘sentimental archaism’; he questions the notion of language being a ‘natural growth’ and argues that it is an instrument which we can shape for our own purposes.

Orwell suggests that modern English is full of bad habits but that this is completely avoidable. He claims that modern English prose is marked by a mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence. It would appear that Orwell holds the English language very dear to himself and that abuse of it angers him greatly. Orwell’s detest for the ways in which people write is intense; I would hate for him to have read anything I had written! The point he is making is that ignorance regarding language use is having a detrimental effect on the language.

Orwell expresses a dislike for foreign words used in the English language; I would disagree that this is necessarily a bad thing; they add to our language and give it an extra dimension. Foreign words were borrowed as there were no English equivalents for these words at the time; it doesn’t mean that Orwell had to use these phrases if he finds them so offensive!

I do agree with Orwell on his point that if words do not have an agreed definition, then their use leads to vagueness. His contempt for ‘insincere’ political writing is an important point; it is this kind of language use that facilitates propaganda and is dangerous.
Although this article appears exaggerated, Orwell does make his point very clearly; I empathise with his distaste for the ‘pretentious, Latinized style’ that lacks any meaning. His advice to use the ‘fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning’ is valuable as conciseness is often more effective.

By the end of the article I could clearly see Orwell’s point (although I was tempted to choose a longer word over ‘point’); ‘language is an instrument for expressing thought and not for concealing or preventing it’.