standardisation-complaints

 

The idea of linguistic decline is always either directly addressed or hinted at in the correctness tradition. Furthermore, the idea of linguistic decline usually carries with it the implication that general standards of conduct and morality in society are also in decline.

BUt omitted the section where people who are thoroughly educated in standard language choose to speak in supposedly non-standard language: as it is more simplistic and pragmatic in conveyance; being able to communicate with a wider variety of local speakers. also more culturally rich and significant.

He mentions the stilted bookish language (cf. the elaborated vocabulary that we discussed above) and upper-class accents of the news bul- letins, and comments that this language is totally ineffective in communicating with the ordinary public. He attacks the artificiality and emptiness of propa- ganda slogans and political jargon – objectively, counter-revolutionary, left- deviationism and the like. Orwell is concerned with failures in communication and with the appropriacy of language styles to their purposes. In the 1944 essay, his most important general point is that there is a huge gap between written and spoken language. Few, if any, of the language complaint writers have rec- ognised this clearly, possibly because their interests have been narrower than those of Orwell; they have not taken as much interest in the multiple social functions of language. 

increase in merch class getting education and prominence, they clamour for common speak

laws that need to be just and accessible to all.

In a much less spectacular way than that envisaged in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell was of course right: we can be lulled into complacency through manipulative use of language by politicians and others on the mass media.  

Language is a knife/weapon; is it good? is it bad? it depends on the will of the one who wields it. The wielder can harm, and the one who receives the blow will be the victim. In this manner, the victim is a victim due to his lack of defence.

But, if both persons possess knives of their own, and when both wield the knowledge of its use, the attack ceases to be one-sided; it becomes a spar, a debate.

The fault, however, does not lie in the language itself: it lies in the way that certain resources of language are being used and passively received.

And he also very clearly articulates how his utilitarian upbringing

has made him into a perfect player in the capitalist

system.

So he criticises the hands, saying that they're to blame

for their problems, for their plight, and that if

he, Bitzer, can save money, then why can't they?