English and politics Nowadays every real linguist is familiar with Orwells theory Politics and the English Language. Really, his theory is very famous, well-known and actively discussed in our modern world. I would like to give some examples of current world discussions and show if they support this theory and what actually they think about it. Marta Bern in her article, written in 2002 stated that if language can be supervised, it can become the instrument of restriction of thinking in hands of any despot. It has found the reflection in George Orwells theory. New language is created so that the certain ideas of it were impossible to think over.
But it has been distributed only among party workers, usual people used usual language. Really, in opinion of linguists Orwell was mistaken: language cannot be supervised up to such degree, it develops spontaneously. We see that in this point the critic doesnt agree with the author, but them she recognized, that since Descartes time philosophers tried to invent ideal language of a science in which the polysemy of words of ordinary language would be eliminated. In the beginning of XX century Ludwig Wittgenstein has offered idea of creation of the perfect language which would display structure of a reality about accuracy of a geographical map. It was not possible to philosophers; Wittgenstein itself has refused his early ideas, saying, that language is a labyrinth of ways. On the one hand you may approach to any site and know, where to go further, but may lose the way, having got in the same place on the other hand.
Perez A slight alteration to an evidential Consequence: A relational power structure. The Contrast of Jen Gish s who Irish and Chela Sandoval s Methodology of the Oppressed can be understood as relational forces in which one can change the other in both respects. The Idea of a neo-post modernist theory has presented it self in Who Irish. This neo-post modernist theory is disc 6 ted in the Sandoval ...
Here we understand that the critic agrees with Orwell writing about the impossibility of creating the special language for science and politics. Russian scientist Stanislav Kozlovsky in his recent article published on 20July2004, the main question of that is if there is a way to increase the speed of human thinking and whether it is possible to force a human brain to think faster, states that the formation of thinking and consciousness is caused not only by language, but also by the validity. However the influence of language on consciousness consists in that fact that it gives certain “compulsoriness” to the idea, forces it to move on the blazed channels of language norms and as drives emotionally painted difficult and changeable ideas in some general common frameworks. We can make a conclusion that, if to create the language which will cause a direction of ideas of people talking and thinking in it, it is possible to control the consciousness of these people. What would happen to mankind if it was possible? George Orwell in the well-known theory has wonderfully shown it. I would like to remind that according to Orwell the government aspired to replace a modern literary language with a new language.
New language should not only provide the outlook of adherents with sign means but also to make impossible the other currents of idea. Everybody knows what the Orwells experiments ended with, but if to look at the modern world it is possible to see, that formation of thinking of the population of the country by means of language is used by the governments not only in anti-Utopias. Recollect the expressions of politicians and television announcers. Officials are called servants of people, increase of taxes – updating of the state budget “, dismissal – liberation of workers “, a rise in price – optimization of the prices “; a politics for which the majority has voted, – publicly selected “; a phrase inhabitants of the area have problems with the foodstuffs” means, that inhabitants simply starve. I will not more interpret such words and word-combinations, as ” peace-making operation “, “cleanup”, ” prompting of a constitutional order “, ” humanitarian mission “… In The New Statesman Essay – The tyranny of Nicespeak Deborah Cameron said exactly the following: Orwell’s Newspeak was invoked to portray feminist councilors and anti-racist teachers as the new thought police.
SYNOPSIS: Human language is a unique communication system which is different from that of other species. It is so complex and perfect that people couldn! t help wondering where it comes from. It is believed that language is part of our essential human nature and is therefore neither invented nor handed down as a gift. All humans are innately or genetically equipped with a unique language learning ...
Meanwhile, with far less fanfare (and almost no sustained critical analysis), mainstream public English suffered a corporate takeover. I use the phrase “corporate takeover” because the new public language was shaped by ideas and practices that originated in the business world. The critic is right because nowadays in our world we pay too much attention to business, economics and so on forgetting about that wonderful that is connected with literature. So our language is being automatically transformed into something like a set of business terms loosing its inherent beauty and naturalness. Dr. Frank in his work Orwell again and again said: but the real challenge of Orwell’s recommendations on political language is that they cut both ways. Goldberg, turning to contemporary political discourse, points to college campus euphemisms like “socially aware,” “activists for social change,” “sustainable growth,” “tolerance,” “minority,” “economic justice,” as “new clothes for old ideas the young and enlightened are scared to admit they still enjoy.” True enough. But what about “pro-Life,” “compassionate conservatism,” “family values,” “freedom to work,” “coalition partners,” “death tax,” “marriage penalty,” “liberal,” “terrorist state,” “affirmative access,” “tax relief,” or “stimulus package?” Eliminating euphemisms would leave a massive, gaping hole in American political discourse from end to end. If he were alive today, Orwell probably would, as Goldberg says of the bad writing winners, “beat these people into submission with a London phonebook” (in effect, anyway.) But he would probably also give the “War on Terror” a tough time, too.
MYTHS OF THE POLITICAL-ECONOMIC WORLD VIEW A MYTH IS a traditional story that offers an explanation of some fact or phenomenon. Myths are neither wholly true nor wholly untrue. They may have been more true in the past than now, but people act as if they are still true, even when they no longer really believe in them. Some modem usages of the word have connotations that suggest that myths are ...
Really we cant and have no right to eliminate the phrases created by our history. Of course we can create new phrases, that are more up-to-date, but there is no need in killing the old, we still need it for our everyday life in order not to harden completely. No we see that our contemporaries support the Orwells theory in their scientific and political discussions. Some of them completely, some – partly, but they do. And the brightest examples for us are our textbooks for school students. Just look inside them and you will see that most of them are really impossible to be read and understood especially by young people. And then we have a lot of questions like why our children have no interest in politics, more in drugs, and the state is degrading? They just dont understand what is written for them by clever scientists.
The Orwells theory, read and understood carefully, could help to bring the information about the situation in the country and in the world to our new generations. Bibliography Dr. Frank Orwell again and again, the article http://www.doktorfrank.com Stanislav Kozlovsky If there is a way to increase the speed of human thinking? Whether it is possible to force a human brain to think faster, the article http://offline.computerra.ru Deborah Cameron The tyranny of Nicespeak, http://www.newstatesman.com Bern Marta Study modern politics, http://lecton.perm.ru.