Abstract
In 1946, toward the end of his career but with one great novel still to be written, Orwell published an essay called ‘Why I Write’, reflecting on his aims and motives. This paper is helpfully reprinted right at the beginning of the otherwise chronologically arranged four volumes of Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters (CEJL, I, pp. 23–30), and it gives valuable insights into Orwell’s artistic and linguistic goals. At its climax we find the often-quoted comment that ‘Good prose is like a window pane.’ Clarity is the prime requirement in prose writing. ‘Of later years,’ he writes, ‘I have tried to write less picturesquely and more exactly.’ And again in this essay: ‘So long as I remain alive and well I shall continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take pleasure in solid objects and scraps of useless information.’ Prose is to be clear, exact, precise. Orwell’s essays contain many other references to precision and clarity, and in the later years, repeated analyses of what he felt to be abuses of language which worked against this quality of transparency.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See J. Milroy and L. Milroy, Authority in Language (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), Ch. 2.
A readable modern textbook on sociolinguistics is M. Montgomery, An Introduction to Language and Society (London: Routledge, 1986).
M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic (London: Arnold, 1978)
On dialect in fiction, see N. Page, Speech in the English Novel (London: Longman, 1973)
G. N. Leech and M. H. Short, Style in Fiction (London: Longman, 1981).
H. Adams (ed.) Critical Theory since Plato (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971) p. 434.
For extensive samples of transcribed conversational data, see J. Svartvik and R. Quirk (eds) A Corpus of English Conversation (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1980).
Orwell saw clearly the need to describe the speech/writing distinction. In ‘Propaganda and Demotic Speech’ he advocates collecting sample recordings of speech in order to ‘formulate the rules of spoken English and find out how it differs from the written language’ (CEJL, III, 166). For modern work on the distinction, see M. A. K. Halliday, Spoken and Written Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
M. A. K. Halliday, ‘Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning’, in R. Horowitz and S. Jay Samuels (eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language (San Diego: Academic Press, 1987) pp. 55–82
D. Tannen (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Norwood New Jersey: Ablex, 1982).
M. Maclure, T. Phillips and A. Wilkinson (eds) Oracy Matters (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988).
F. de Saussure, trans. Wade Baskin, Course in General Linguistics [1916], reprinted with an introduction by J. Culler (Glasgow: Fontana, 1974) pp. 71ff.
Copyright information
© 1995 Roger Fowler
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fowler, R. (1995). Orwell’s Views on Language. In: The Language of George Orwell. The Language of Literature. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24210-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24210-8_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-54908-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24210-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)