Sunday, April 13, 2008

Politics and the English language


It’s now under a month till the AP Test, so it’s never too early to take some advice that has stood the test of time in politics…and political science classes.

(From George Orwell: “Politics and the English Language,” first published: Horizon, GB, London. April 1946)
In the essay, Orwell wrote:"[The English language]... becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish... the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly... so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers..."

In arguing against "staleness of imagery" and "lack of precision," Orwell warns writers to avoid

  • "Dying Metaphors" (instead we should use new and vital comparisons)
  • "Verbal False Limbs" (he suggests simple, direct, active verbs)
  • "Pretentious Diction" ("Um, George," I want to ask, "Isn't a phrase like 'verbal false limbs' a bit pretentious?")
  • "Meaningless Words" (like "romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality...")

In the essay, Orwell offers these rules:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous ("Um, George, I know what you mean by 'barbarous,' but what was what you said about 'meaningless words?'")

_______________________

Ken Wedding, after reading exams for a dozen years, has some more suggestions to offer exam writers:

  • make sure they're clear about cause and effect relationships in their answers. The most common logical error I read in exams was the confusion of causal relationships. It was more common that factual errors.
  • avoid pronouns, even if that makes their answers sound "clunky." If students want an exam reader to know what they, as test takers mean, students don't want to leave any doubt about what "it" or "they" or "her" refers to. People sitting for exams are not writing literature; instead students should be trying to demonstrate what they know and how well they can think about what they know. (If students proofread an answer, they can add arrows to any vague pronouns to indicate antecedents. Exam readers will read the arrows.)
  • be explicit about points they want to make. That will make the answer more succinct and more likely to be understood. Vaguely explaining poor reasoning doesn't make the reasoning any better. Long, rambling explanations are most often signals that writers don't know what to say.
  • follow Orwell's rules
  • practice, practice, practice

1 comment:

Mr Wolak said...

The Power of Words are seen with these two current political issues:

1. "Occupation, Not War"

Progressive author and talk show host Thom Hartmann makes the case that we have already won the war in Iraq and that we are losing the extended occupation:

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.
There is no longer a war against Iraq.

It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.

Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.

What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.

The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.

The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.

We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn't have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.

American's don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won - even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada - it tends to create a national good feeling.

On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war - like the German loss of WWI - can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor."

On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.

The various colonial powers of Europe ended their occupations of most of Africa, for example, and there was no national emotional pain associated with it. Churchill's withdrawal from Uganda increased his popularity with Brits.

While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)

If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.

On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.

The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary.

If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities.

Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0619-22.htm

2. Is the working class in Pennsylvania bitter/is Obama out of touch?

What Obama said:

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What the McCain campaign said:

Asked to respond, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called it a "remarkable statement and extremely revealing."

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

What Clinton said:

"I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter," Clinton said this afternoon. "Well, that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families."

Video of Obama's response can be seen here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBWx9