English language

II. In his 1946 essay, Politics and Language, George Orwell addresses the stagnation and misuse of the forward-looking English wrangle. In particular, Orwell addresses but does not limit his discussion to the use of delivery in the political spectrum. Increasingly, Orwell attempts to demonstrate, written actors line has become unnecessarily complicated and umpteen times insensible. In describing particular offenses such as dying metaphors, operators or verbal paradoxical limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless linguistic communication Orwell shows how the meaning of ideas and the language itself is sometimes lost in the over-the-top prose of the writer.Orwell calls for a simpler turn to language, which doesnt seek to necessarily eliminate particular turns of phrase or phraseology but quite increases the precision of the words and to this extent the ideas. Instead of losing their ideas in convoluted sentences that say little and mean even less, Orwell calls on writers and politicians to mouth themselves with clarity and a familiarity with the language they choose to employ. III. Orwell addresses the misuse and overuse of language in political and general writing.He shows how writing or speaking in a manner that is seeks more to impress than take, modern writing increase lacks imagination and coherence with the message frequently being lost in the words rather than being expressed by them. 2. Orwells remnant is not to eliminate the language that is misused but instead to gear up the writer in the misuse and to promote clarity in writing. 3. Orwells reasoning behind both his argument and his conclusion appear to be a love of language.While he admonishes overused metaphors, he presents several of his induce end-to-end the text. He is not asking for perfect writing but rather an appreciation and an understanding of language and the ideas it is used to express. 4. N/A 5. N/A 6. Orwell presents several fallacies in his argument, chief among them bei ng the generalization of the fin examples he presents at the beginning of the essay as indicative of modern writing. Also present is a faulty causal argument that connects the fickleness of politics and ideas with this kind of writing.However, its important to note that while simplifies this offspring in this manner, Orwell also addresses these fallacies within his argument. He makes it clear that by dramatizing the preponderance of this type of language, he is simply attempting to better employ language to all the way express his ideas. 7. Orwells argument is largely based upon personalised observation. in that respect is the distinct feeling that while Orwell has support in this idea, peculiarly when he notes the popular distaste among journalist for worn-out and uninspired metaphors.However, Orwells own observations of the over-done quality of academic and political writing. 8. Arguments could be made against Orwells claims on language, particularly in his attacks on liter ary/art criticism or political literature. Literary and art critics coming from a particular schooltime of thought could make the argument that in addressing their topics they must seek a new language to express their distinct interpretations. Politicians would make an argument against Orwells claims to their insincerity which they attempt to cover with language a lack of ideals or actual stance.N/A 10. There is much information omitted from Orwells argument, especially the writers who learn not fallen to abusing and misusing language. However, as with the fallacies of his argument, Orwell is clear in noting that he is not speaking of all but rather drawing direction through a handful of examples to a growing trend. 11. Overall, Orwell presents a watertight though admittedly biased argument. That it is Orwell himself who admits to this bias, illustrates the presence of his own ideals of clarity as beauty in language as a basis for the essay.My foster assumption allows that ther e is a major basis of truth in Orwells argument and that the commonality of the types of language he rails against are as prevalent now as it was in 1946. 13. While the personal edge to Orwells argument could be seen as a drawback, I believe it instead highlights the very personal nature of language and how it is meant to express rather than suppress ideas. In his essay, Orwell is advocating for this expression and a strengthening of language through proper use and clear understanding. 14. Orwells essay corpse as valuable today as it was in 1946.He could not have predicted and would likely be disheartened that despite his call to lingual armor that society and politicians continue to use dying metaphors, operators or verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words. However, his lessons of clear, simplistically beautiful prose is as needed to today as it was 60 years ago. Politicians and regular people alike still mist behind overblown and misunderstood language, f ailing to understand their own words and creating ignorance as the rest of the world struggle to understand as well.