Mallory Weiner

Politics and the English Language Essay

Social media continues to have an increased importance in
todays society. One of the highly revered, Twitter, only allows users
140 characters to express themselves. That doesnt leave a lot of
room for fancy words like vitriolic, taking up nine characters, when
mean is only four characters. Using simpler language doesnt mean
that English speakers dont know words like vitriolic; it just means
that in todays society the need to be succinct and still get the point
across is very prominent in our speaking style. Although shortcuts are
often taken to make things more succinct it doesnt mean the English
language has been dumbed down as George Orwell stated. In
Orwells Politics and the English Language he explains why he thinks
English language has been dumbed down and how this has caused
citizens to make uninformed and unintelligent decisions when it comes
to politics. Orwell, however, does not take into consideration the fact
that over time politicians have had to change their speeches to appeal
to different audiences. As time has progressed there have been more
political issues involving younger people and therefore a different tone
is going to be used when addressing them. This causes a change in
language, not a decline.
It is clear, after reading two presidential speeches from different
time periods that the language is diverse. Abraham Lincoln said in his

Second Inaugural Address just before the end of the Civil War, Yet, if
God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmans
two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until
every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid (Lincoln, lines
63-6). An audience today might not understand this statement
because the language is not what citizens today are used to. The
sentence is appropriate for the time period and for the audience that
Lincoln was speaking to. Today this same language would not be
appropriate. For example, in Obamas recent speech about making
college more affordable he said, And right now, the unemployment
rate for workers with a bachelors degree is about half of what it is for
folks with just a high school education, (Obama, paragraph 6). This
statement is appropriate for use in the 21st century because it is more
casual in its use of the word folks. This language would not be
acceptable if it was placed in Lincolns speech. This isnt to say that
the language is too dumbed down in Obamas speech because the
truth is that it is not.
The language in both Lincolns and Obamas speeches are
appropriate and powerful in their own way. Orwell would argue that
the language in Obamas speech is dumbed down because his
audience is not intelligent enough to make informed decisions about
politics if he uses words they dont understand. Today, more than in
the Lincoln era, students are graduating high school and going on to

college so their range of knowledge is vast and plentiful. Students

dont need casual language to understand what it happening in
politics. The sole reason for Obamas speech having simpler language
than Lincolns is because it was more appropriate for the situation at
hand and because it makes his audience feel more connected when
Obama uses a conversational tone.
Students today learn in school that they speak to their friends in
a casual manner and they speak to adults in a formal manner. This
explains why Obamas speech uses a more conversational manner.
Obama was speaking to students younger than himself so it is only
appropriate that he speaks in an informal manner. Obama shows this
from the very beginning when he said, and Ill bet we might have
some folks who just graduated here today, (Obama, paragraph 1).
From the beginning, Obama has called out his audience: recent college
graduates. This audience is younger than Obama so it wouldnt make
sense for him to be so formal with them. Obamas goal throughout his
speech was to reinsure his audience that the cost for college will be
manageable. He succeeds in doing so in his comforting manner and
language.
Contrasting to that, Lincolns speech had a very different tone.
Lincoln was speaking to US citizens of all ages so he had to use a
formal tone. His purpose was also much more serious, as he was
trying to unite the nation in the midst of a Civil War. Lincoln made this

clear when he said, On the occasion corresponding to this, four years

ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war,
(Lincoln, lines 16-19). With this statement, Lincoln is making it clear
that he is addressing the nation as a whole and not just one specific
group within the nation. He does not use conjunctions or slang words
because that would not be appropriate for the purpose of his speech.
Lincolns goal was to inform his audience that the country needed to
be put back together and he achieved this by using harsh language
that reinforced his idea of this emergency.
Orwells Politics and the English Language enforces the idea
that over time the English language has declined and Orwell would use
these two examples of political speeches to prove his point because
the language is so diverse between the two. However, Orwell does not
once mention that audience differentiation might be a factor in the
differences between the two political speeches. If Orwell took into
account the changing audience as time progresses, his thought
process would be different because he would have understood that
language cannot stay constant if the audience is not staying constant.
By analyzing political speeches from different time periods it
becomes apparent that Orwells claims cannot be backed up due to the
fact that he hasnt taken into account the changing audience and the
changing society. As time has progressed so has technology and this
technology has forced the way people speak to one another to change.

This does not mean that the English language has been dumbed
down to accommodate these changes, it only means that language
has had to adapt alongside society.