Swift, Johnson and Orwell

Swift’s arguments for trying to preserve language in one static state seem short-sighted and unsubstantiated. He seems to constantly make value judgements about language that are only based on current cultural ideas, namely that Latin is somehow superior to other languages, and therefore languages that have more Latin in them are more refined and better. His judgements about the quality of language are ostensibly about the sound of the language – ‘This perpetual Disposition to shorten our Words, by retrenching the Vowels...’, but he promptly reveals the social prejudice that this opinion is formed on – ‘...is nothing else but a tendency to lapse into the Barbarity of those Northern Nations from whom we are descended, and whose Languages labour all under the same Defect.’ When I read this I was immediately reminded of more contemporary bias about regional accent and dialect. Many people hold that somehow standard English and received pronunciation (mainly spoken by wealthy people in the South) are somehow inherently better or more correct than Northern dialects.

Swift’s idea about women speaking in a nicer way seems absurd and comical! I wonder if a similar ‘study’ would show today’s women to be more inclined to ‘Vowels and Liquids’ and the Italian language.

The focus on the merits of constancy and permanence seemed strange to me. I wondered if there might have been some Christian background to the linking of static and purity. He cites the bible and the common book of prayer as important facts in the fight against change in language. Without sufficient standardisation of language over time perhaps the Church’s indoctrination would be less effectively continued.

Change in language doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me – it seems exciting that language is alive and never quite the same from one day to the next or from one speaker to then next. I wondered if this easy acceptance relatively and constant change is because we live in a postmodern era.

He states that simplicity is ‘one of the greatest Perfections in any Language’, but doesn’t substantiate this point. One of the reasons that I am passionate about English is because of its richness and complexity.
The idea that it is the monarch’s role to improve the language of his or her country is interesting. Perhaps if he had referenced Alfred the Great here he would have given his argument more weight. As it is he implies that language can be deliberately altered but doesn’t explain how this might be achieved.

Samuel Johnson’s preface seems to start from an almost wishful statement similar to Swift’s ideas. ’Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition.’ He is much more rational though, and says ‘I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify.’

He shows that he understands the changing nature of language ‘Total and sudden transformations of a language seldom happen; conquests and migrations are now very rare: but there are other causes of change, which, through slow in their operation, and invisible in their progress, are perhaps as much superiour (sic) to human resistance, as the revolutions of the sky, or intumescence of the tide.’

George Orwell brings to question to issue of whether language is something that is within our control or not in his first paragraph ‘Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.’ He raises the interplay between language and thought, pointing out that our language conveys our thoughts, but also shapes them.

I agree with most of his points about bad writing, particularly his points about pretentious language and meaningless jargon – I’ve certainly railed against those. I agree that it is good to understand how language is being used so that we can ‘uncover’ what and why something is being said. This is especially true with regards to politics, as he points out, but also with regards to the media and advertising.

He says ‘By using stale metaphors, similes and idioms, you can save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself’ and ‘ They will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent – and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.’ These statements are a good description of what is wrong with much poor quality writing. I agree with these ideas, and I think they, along with his rules, are good advice to take into account when striving to improve your own language, or understand the language of others.
This seems to concur with his opinion too; he states in his final paragraph ‘One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits’. But, this doesn’t really explain how he thinks language can generally be changed for the better. He stated in his opening that the ‘corruption’ of language is curable. He doesn’t seem to explain how, and I’m not convinced that it is possible.

I can imagine recommending George Orwell’s essay to students. Asking us to read it and reflect critically on it was a good sneaky way of getting us to think about our writing without being dictatorial to us, a technique I can imagine using with my own students.

I still feel that language is changing and ambiguous, and rather than this being something to try and guard against, is in fact the great thing about language. I agree with Orwell’s plea for precise and concise language use, and I think a drive towards this is central to being an English teacher. I have been thinking about why it is that so many people are content to use language imprecisely and sloppily – any ideas?

when i use language lazily its usually a way of guarding against sounding 'posh', pathetic!