Language of Politics Essay

Webster’s Encyclopedia defined language, from Latin lingua, â€Å"tongue†, as basically the mode by which humans express themselves vocally and communicate with others. It is the expression and communication of emotions or ideas between human beings by means of speech and hearing, the sounds spoken or heard being systematized and confirmed by usage among a given people over a period of time.[1] The art of using language in such a way that meaning is either limited or produces a new connotation, have only one purpose, that is, to manipulate people in believing other concepts or meanings so that people will not put into bad light or decipher correctly previous actions that have adverse effects to the environment, to people or to the society. Some people believe that our civilization is degenerating and becoming more immoral as time passes us by and that our own language must inevitably share in the general collapse. As the environment continued to be destroyed by our reprehensible actions, surely the abuse of language is also one of the characteristics of a decaying society. Ultimately, the decline of language will have to be traced to its political and economic causes. Language becomes ugly and inaccurate mainly because our own thoughts have become dull and foolish and frivolous. Manipulation of language to cover certain ugly deeds or to paint rosy pictures so as to maintain people support and economic stability is fast becoming the norm in today’s everyday communication. In George Orwell’s †Politics and the English Language†, two qualities that emerged among the five specimens of the English language as it is habitually written are (1) the staleness of imagery; and (2) the lack of precision. He explained that the writer must have a meaning and yet, cannot express it properly or expresses it in such a way that it gives a whole new connotation. The writer might be indifferent to what he is saying and doesn’t care if he is understood at all. Orwell said that this combination of vagueness ad sheer incompetence is one that is most unmistakably marked in terms of characteristics of modern English prose and of any kind of political writing. As soon as topics for discussion are raised, the concrete become abstract and no one seems able to think and speak words that is not hackneyed or trite. Orwell enumerated four tricks by which prose construction is habitually evaded: (1) Dying metaphors – assists thought by evoking a visual image but also a metaphor that is technically â€Å"dead† (e.g., iron resolution) has in effect, reverted to being an ordinary word and can be used without loss of vividness, metaphors that are usually used to save people from inventing new words (e.g., toe the line, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, etc.); (2) Operators or verbal false limbs – saves the trouble of choosing appropriate verbs and nouns and at the same time, pad each sentence with extra syllables that gives it an appearance of symmetry (i.e., render inoperative, militate against, serve the purpose of, etc.); (3) Pretentious diction – words like phenomenon, element, individual, objective, categorical, liquidate, etc. are used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. Adjectives such as epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, inevitable, etc. are words used to dignify the sordid process of international politics; and (4) Meaningless words – words and passages that are almost lacking in meaning are used (e.g., romantic, plastic, values, human, sentimental, natural, vitality, etc. are usually used in art and literary criticism.[2] Orwell provided a clear and detailed explanation as to the means by which people can destroy the usage of language through the four tricks that was enumerated above. Language can be made lively and interesting, and it can be used with malice and intention to cloud people’s perception of things and events that may be detrimental to some individuals, groups or organizations. What is language of politics? It is basically a term used to describe political or social consequences of linguistic differences between people, or on certain occasion, the political consequences of the way a language is spoken and what words are used.[3] Language, based on early definition, can be a speech of a particular nation or any means of passing on one’s thoughts or feelings to others. It is like a person such that over time, it grows and develops, changes as society changes. Often, society (particularly those in politics) uses language or words as weapons. It is used to make someone feel inferior or to hide something that will be detrimental to someone’s wellbeing. Language basically defines who we were, what we are and where we are going (direction). With its power to devastate and its power to influence, language continually evolves and changes, as the society and the environment changes.[4] For politicians, language is indeed a weapon. Creative and apt usage may cause â€Å"death† on political issues or aspirations. It may be used to cover devious acts and horrendous mistakes so that the citizenry will be clueless. Nowadays, an entire art of using language to manipulate citizens’ knowledge and inputs regarding politics has developed. Language is oftentimes used to hide mistakes or to cloud the people’s better judgment. By using misleading language like jargon, confusing syntax and hypersensitivity to very narrow definitions, politicians are able to make people believe in lies or make them act in such a way that will be greatly beneficial to the political position of a candidate. One example of this is when then Secretary of State, Alexander Haig (1981) manipulated words because he was to explain to Congress why a group of Salvadoran soldiers trained and equipped by the United States had brutally raped and killed four American nuns. Haid used every language trick imaginable to suggest that the nuns actually got involved in an â€Å"exchange of fire† with the soldiers such that the image of nuns fighting with soldiers almost obliterated the fact that a crime was committed against the nuns. This is an example of how language can be manipulated to suit the needs of the politicians.[5] Politicians also mislead its citizenry by using jargon. Jargon refers to the confusing labels that are often attached to things. This is used so that those who are knowledgeable will know precisely what is being referred to. To use it with dishonesty and deceitfulness in mind, jargon is oftentimes used to confuse people with very formal sounding language. One example of this is when a doctor tells a patient that she has â€Å"sever abdominal distension†, encouraging the patient to spend more for her hospitalization, little knowing that it just means she is experiencing â€Å"cramps†. This is oftentimes utilized during wartimes (e.g. during the Gulf War) by politicians to report about â€Å"targets being serviced† which only meant that something possible containing people in it was destroyed. William Lutz, in his book titled Doublespeak, gave another example on the usage of jargon to mislead people. He cited a US$2,043 dollar â€Å"hexaform rotatable surface compression unit†, which â€Å"suffered dramatically degraded useful operational life† when it â€Å"underwent catastrophic stress-related shaft detachment†. Upon hearing this, people will naturally think that the government should be more careful in buying such units when in actuality, it only meant a nut that has a value that is much too costly for comfort.[6] Another way of deceiving the people is when politicians use confusing syntax. Syntax basically refers to grammar and certain grammatical structures can be used to misinform and mislead people. One mistake that was covered up by using syntax was the aborted hostage rescue effort in Iran during the hostage crisis of the 1970’s. The presidential spokesman dispatched to â€Å"inform† the public of the circumstances explained that something had happened, but nothing really happened, there were or were not casualties and the US may or may not have been involved. Lutz came up with another example wherein it shows that politicians try to avoid being pinpointed as the author of bills that invariably raise taxes. Draft tax laws like â€Å"in the case of a partnership with a taxable year beginning 1 May 1986, if such partnership realized net capital gain during the period beginning†¦then such partnership may elect to treat each asset—as having been distributed to the partners†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The readers simply lose track of what is being discussed and are left with no choice but to just accept what is being reported.[7] By using very narrow definitions, politicians are able to effectively deceive people. A politician may apply a rarely used definition to mislead or use a term in its strictest sense while everyone else assumed that the more far-ranging definition applied. One example of this is when President Bill Clinton explained that â€Å"there is no sexual relationship†. Americans assumed that his â€Å"is† also referred to the past and that there has never been any sexual relationship when in fact, he meant that literally at that moment, there was no sexual relationship. Another example is when a plane crashed due to a propeller that fell off and was explained in an FAA report as a case of â€Å"uncontained blade liberation†. The horrible effect of incompetence is thus hidden in a term of â€Å"blade liberation†, misleading people to think that nothing untoward happened. Politicians have so much power when they use language in misinformation and deceit. People will just have to be constantly aware when they are being given jargons, syntax and very narrow definitions that are confusing and vague, making them robots that are programmed to accept and believe according to the whims of those who are in the position of power. References Anderson-Krome, Christopher W. What is Language? Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://www.sebsteph.com/Professional/Bart’s%20class/Rankenfall99/candersonkrome.html. Language. Webster’s International Dictionary. 1998. Trident Press International, Florida USA. p716. Language politics. Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/language_politics. Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. 1946. Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.html. Sample Essay. The COC Guide to Writing: Online Edition. Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://www.coc.cc.ca.us/departments/ENGLISH/Guide/wizard1_200-599/500-599/517b.html. [1] Language. Webster’s International Dictionary. 1998. Trident Press International, Florida USA. P716. [2] Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. 1946. Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.html. [3] Language politics. Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/language_politics. [4] Anderson-Krome, Christopher W. What is Language? Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://www.sebsteph.com/Professional/Bart’s%20class/Rankenfall99/candersonkrome.html. [5] Sample Essay. The COC Guide to Writing: Online Edition. Retrieved 30 May 2007 from http://www.coc.cc.ca.us/departments/ENGLISH/Guide/wizard1_200-599/500-599/517b.html. [6] Sample Essay. Ibid. [7] Ibid.