comments on articles

In Johnsons initial comments on the future of English; he alludes to the continued changing of the English language. Johnson considers that the only way for English to remain, for any length of time without major alteration, would be for the nation to be barely above the level of barbarians and secluded from strangers. In suggesting this he mentions that only those with the time to think and consider creating words, will effect language change “and every increase of knowledge, whether real or fancied, will produce new words....”

Swift is very pompous and snobbish in his approach to the challenge of saving the English language, suggesting that each improvement made, is outweighed by the corruptions taking place. Further questioning the people trying to aid the refinement of the language, they “multiplied abuses and absurdities” he argues. When he goes on to blame the Poets for the destruction of the language with their “barbarous custom of abbreviating words, to fit them to the measure of their verses” he might as well be having a direct swipe at Shakespeare. Shakespeare used abbreviations and creating many new words in the course of his lifetime and work. Orwell counters this argument by stating that “it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer” though he does concede that an effect could become a cause.

Though Swift, as Johnson admits (though does not agree with), does allow for new words being introduced, however not accepting that other should become obsolete. Something which Orwell states is a natural occurrence in that “language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any tinkering with words and constructions”. Language evolution is common, yet Swift states “I see no absolute necessity why the language would be perpetually changing”.

What amuses me the most, is the fact that the ways in which Orwell sums up, how change in written English can be made, can all be applied to Swifts proposal. Granted, Swift had written his proposal over 200yrs prior to Orwell’s assertions, though he could easily have used a few less long words when a short one would have done.

Swifts approach is a little aggressive for my liking, suggesting that change is a bad thing; in 1711 English was hardly the finished product, with many gatherings from other languages. In attempting to marginalise the areas he felt were causes of the weaknesses of the language, its future may have been at risk. In cataloguing the words used in the language Johnson can be thanked for stopping some words from becoming obsolete, if not for the quality of his explanations of the words.

Of the three, the opinions and approach of Orwell are the easiest to comprehend and be drawn too, I would Toe the line with these ideas as I am aware that bad habits are my Achilles heel.

I did not realise until I read your post that Swift was referring to Shakespeare but it makes more sense, as you say, Shakespeare made up lots of new words by abbreviating. I agree Swift didn’t need all those pages!