Skip to main content

Orwell’s Views on Language

  • Chapter
The Language of George Orwell

Part of the book series: The Language of Literature ((LOL))

  • 78 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See J. Milroy and L. Milroy, Authority in Language (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), Ch. 2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. A readable modern textbook on sociolinguistics is M. Montgomery, An Introduction to Language and Society (London: Routledge, 1986).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic (London: Arnold, 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  4. On dialect in fiction, see N. Page, Speech in the English Novel (London: Longman, 1973)

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. N. Leech and M. H. Short, Style in Fiction (London: Longman, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. Adams (ed.) Critical Theory since Plato (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971) p. 434.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Tannen (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Norwood New Jersey: Ablex, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Maclure, T. Phillips and A. Wilkinson (eds) Oracy Matters (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. de Saussure, trans. Wade Baskin, Course in General Linguistics [1916], reprinted with an introduction by J. Culler (Glasgow: Fontana, 1974) pp. 71ff.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics