George Orwell: Clear language leads to clear thinking

An interesting story on a new dictionary that is a hot seller in Europe.

[quote]Defining Capitalism Up
George Orwell: Clear language leads to clear thinking.

Friday, October 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell famously lamented that our language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” He was writing about his native tongue, but today a group of young free-marketeers in Central and Eastern Europe have discovered the same thing–discussions of economics in their countries are being poisoned by a vocabulary inherited from their communist past.

Ruta Vainiene, a young former central banker in Lithuania, has decided to do something about it. Last month, she published her plainly titled “Dictionary of Economics.” The response, both in Lithuania and elsewhere in Europe, has been striking. Since its release, the Dictionary has been the No. 2 nonfiction best seller in her native country. And plans are now afoot to translate the book into local-language editions in a number of other countries. Think tanks around Europe are supporting the effort, having seen the necessity of cleaning up economic language and thought that, a decade and a half after the collapse of the Soviet empire, remains infected by history.

“The dictionary was my response to the market need to educate journalists and students about economic jargon that seemed very frightening to them,” Ms. Vainiene said in a phone interview. “It explains the concepts in simple words. But also”–and this is crucial–“explains them correctly.”

The book notes, for example, that “social ‘justice’ is always related to the unjust redistribution of wealth, and ‘fair competition’ is almost always related to unfair government intervention in the economy.” In other words, Ms. Vainiene is trying to educate but also to eradicate the misleading and contradictory doublespeak that infects much economic language, especially as it is used in Europe.

Though Ms. Vainiene intended the book for her own countrymen, she has discovered a much wider interest in her project. The Dictionary is currently being translated into an English “master edition,” which will in turn be translated by think tanks in Europe into other local languages.

Krassen Stanchev, the executive director of the Institute for Market Economics in Bulgaria, is spearheading the effort in his country. “There is a need for a fresh view,” Mr. Stanchev says. “Outside of academia,” which is dominated by the old guard in Bulgaria, “there are three or four think tanks that are trying to offer basic economic information,” but they are stymied by an economic establishment that is loath to change the old ways of thinking.

The prevailing economic cant in Europe is arguably more destructive there than in the U.S. As Ann Mettler of the Lisbon Council, a Brussels-based think tank, has observed, Europe’s social “inclusion” excludes some 40 million people from the work force by driving up the cost of labor on the Continent. But here too one can see signs of the rot that Orwell warned against and Ms. Vainiene is trying to fight. Think of “affirmative action,” which attempts to correct discrimination against one group by shifting it to another. As Orwell put it 59 years ago: “To think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.”
opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007466[/quote]

As it is a register site, I posted the article in its entirety.

I’m suprised no one has posted yet. This is a good topic especially for those of us trying to improve the English speaking environment in taiwan. At the magazine I work at part-time, I am always struggling with the Chinese English teachers to get them to understand that good English writing is clear writing. It may be witty, but it is not wordy. Short sentences, or longer sentences clearly united with a normal conjunction, or broken with clauses that are logically simple to absorb, are preferable to long, labyrinthine sentences that tax the readers concentration and memory. Simple syntax is a sign of a good command of the language and not a lack of facility in using the language.

Whenever I hear the plea, “But we want to teach students how to write at a higher level” I answer that a higher level means more sophisticated thinking and presentation of ideas, and not a lapse into bloated prose.

as an editor I want to kiss you, that be alright? Pucker up sweety!

HG

as an editor I want to kiss you, that be alright? Pucker up sweety!

HG[/quote]

Well, alright… :blush:

Orwell was right. I agree with him and that’s the reason I dropped out of grad school.

elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Sorry Mucha Man, you began to lose them there.

That’s where you completed the job.

Arr um… yeah, diddenum innit ?

[quote=“Muzha Man”]I’m suprised no one has posted yet. This is a good topic especially for those of us trying to improve the English speaking environment in taiwan. At the magazine I work at part-time, I am always struggling with the Chinese English teachers to get them to understand that good English writing is clear writing. It may be witty, but it is not wordy. Short sentences, or longer sentences clearly united with a normal conjunction, or broken with clauses that are logically simple to absorb, are preferable to long, labyrinthine sentences that tax the readers concentration and memory. Simple syntax is a sign of a good command of the language and not a lack of facility in using the language.

Whenever I hear the plea, “But we want to teach students how to write at a higher level” I answer that a higher level means more sophisticated thinking and presentation of ideas, and not a lapse into bloated prose.[/quote]
Well said.

I hope nobody believes this blathering misrepresentation of the intent of Orwell’s original essay!? What a vain contempt for human rights and insight that the Lithuanian authoress is trying to perpetrate! Anyway, this drivel deserves demotion to the Temp forum, I think…

Except for Seeker, who seems quite literate indeed!!!

:bravo:

GAWK

[quote=“Popo”]I hope nobody believes this blathering misrepresentation of the intent of Orwell’s original essay!? What a vain contempt for human rights and insight that the Lithuanian authoress is trying to perpetrate! Anyway, this drivel deserves demotion to the Temp forum, I think…[/quote][quote]In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell famously lamented that our language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” He was writing about his native tongue, but today a group of young free-marketeers in Central and Eastern Europe have discovered the same thing–discussions of economics in their countries are being poisoned by a vocabulary inherited from their communist past.[/quote] Quite clearly this has hit a nerve. Bloated self-imporatant verbiage rarely accomplishes what it hopes to accomplish.

[quote]Ms. Vainiene is trying to educate but also to eradicate the misleading and contradictory doublespeak that infects much economic language, especially as it is used in Europe.[/quote]yes…yes I can see where this would be counter to some. Thankfully, those people exist mostly in the acadamic realms. Unless you wish to include North Korea and a few other failing communist states.

[quote]As Orwell put it 59 years ago: “To think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.” [/quote] Still so true today. Thank you Mr. Orwell. :bravo:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Popo”]I

Which is, of course, why he was a socialist to his last breath.:slight_smile:

My favorite use of Orwell comes from one of the British right-wing tabloids- can’t remember which, either the Sun or the Daily Express- which, during the Thatcher era, serialised all of 1984 except for the phrase in bold which mysteriously disappeared:

Sending part of 1984 down the memory tube- doubleplusungood!

MikeN -
If Mr. Orwell was indeed a “…socialist to his last breath.” it changes the worth of the statement not one whit. Perhaps an argument might be posited that it is being used outside of its original contextual application - that might be possible. However the basic message contained in this singular complete sentence has no intrinsic ‘socialist’, ‘facist’, ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ baggage.
Its a truisim and as such should be, IMO, valued for its content.
At least thats my opine. :sunglasses:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
At least thats my opine. :sunglasses:[/quote]
Orwell would have just said “At least that’s my opinion.” :wink:

At very least he “would have opined” something or other. For sure he would not have used a noun as a verb in a discussion of clear thinking/writing, especially one that he started. But then of course you knew that already. :wink:

Ironic! :wink:

This post doubleplusgood unequal prolefeed or duckthink.

Contest:
Where can I find a Chinese Traditional copy of the book 1984 and Animal Farm? My mom has difficulty with English and she has not experienced either. Winner will receive the “Party member of the month” award. Award is redeemable for a “get out of Gulag” card.

I’m sure that I’ve seen them in Eslite, and if you can’t find them there I’m absolutely sure you’ll find a few versions in Page One.

Since CS and TC have found a sudden passion for Orwell, I think it is worth examining where people think and feel Orwell would sit in our world given the war on terrorism and all the fighting for peace we are engaged in these days.

To boot off the debate perhaps we can all start chanting the party slogans:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Now of course in 1984 the world is constantly at war, no-one is free and everyone is ignorant. The beauty of this chanting and hey you’ll love this Fred is that the constant repetition of these slogans doesn’t help you detach from reality and find nirvana but turns such slogans into meaningless axioms. Nothing like a bit of doublethink to kick off one’s day.