Language and Identity: George Orwell and Amy Tan - Coursework Example

Language and Identity George Orwell and Amy Tan are two who have dealt with the issue of contemporary language in their writings, although from different perspectives. In the case of George Orwell, his view on language is more in the public domain, challenging how the public writes and why they do so. He holds the view that the English language is in bad shape and is getting worse and that it is important that this situation be turned around. George Orwell seeks to appeal to the emotions of his readers to push for the idea of clearer and more honest writing, specifically by ensuring that his own work is written in such a manner. Orwell, as a mainly political writer, it is only fair that his essay on the English language has to do with political writing. Amy Tan, on the other hand, differs from Orwell in that her works are of a more personal nature. She takes the stance that language is a private domain, which is absent from Orwell’s writings. While she also dabbles in political writings, even her perspective on this is more individualistic as she champions democracy and capitalism, unlike Orwell, who is more concerned with the workings of the British Empire at large. Orwell expresses reservations about the use of language during his time. He is particularly critical about journalism, academic writing, and political writing, especially its “lack of precision (and) staleness of imagery” (Orwell, paragraph 4). One may conclude that Orwell is arguing that modern prose exists only to draw the reader away from concreteness. For example, the writer gives examples of paragraphs that are meant to identify indecipherable, jargon-filled, and pretentious language that is was increasingly defining the English language. Political writing is particularly singled out as an enemy of communicative and clear English. Orwell (paragraph 16) justifies this position by claiming that political writing is essentially bad writing because it lacks sincerity, has an agenda, and cannot appear uncertain to rivals. This results in language that is lacking in brutal truths, which is covered up using vagueness, more questions, and euphemisms. Orwell sets out his vision of what language must be in the essay, arguing that it cannot have anything to do with archaism and the scavenging of turns of speech and obsolete words. It becomes increasingly clear what Orwell is striving for as one reads his essay; language that is straightforward and provides clarity, expressing the truth by doing away with obfuscation and spin. Tan is able to get her point across successfully, and it is evident from the end of her article that she believes in the use of multiple forms of English to communicate efficiently. This, however, should not be confused as meaning that one form is better than the rest, just that it is authentic to the user. Indeed, (Tan, paragraph 16) shares her belief that the accuracy and level of fluency of language do not indicate logical and clear thinking. The individual’s accuracy when using a language is not a determinant of how accurate the individual is in expressing thoughtful, complete, and clear ideas. The writer uses an example of her mother who cannot speak grammatically correct English, despite having the ability to complete tasks, which are not easy for native speakers, such as having fruitful conversations with the stockbroker on investment issues that are difficult for most people to understand. Tan is particularly adept at using ethos to give her work and opinions credibility, saying that she is a writer and can be defined as a person who has always adored and been fascinated by language and that she spends most of the time thinking of its power (Tan, paragraph 2). Communication and language are intrinsic to the development of humans and is core to life-long learning. However, language is dynamic and changes over time along with how man perceives the words and their specific descriptions. Words tend to gain new meaning and lose old ones with time, which could lead to loss of usage and effectiveness of a language. It is this point that George Orwell builds on in his essay, contending that language is declining because of changes in the political and economic environment of his times (Orwell, paragraph 2). Orwell’s perception of language is that it belongs to the public domain and, as a result, it must be honest and clear enough for everyone to understand. This is in contrast to Amy Tan’s perspective of language, which she views as being more in the private domain. Indeed, she appreciates how language can be imperfect or different because she appreciates the personal nature of language and accepts that there is always room for change (Tan, paragraph 8), unlike Orwell, who believes that language must return to its initial roots of clarity and honesty. In short, Tan and Orwell’s perspectives differ in that, whereas Orwell believes that there should be a standardized type of language that is clear to other English speakers, Tan believes that “Imperfect” English that has influence of the speaker’s first language is just as good as “perfect” English”. Amy Tan in “Mother Tongue” seeks to pursue the theme that authenticity of language is not about perfectly getting one’s point across but, rather, about using words that allow the best possible expression of what one means to say (Tan, paragraph 6). Tan’s “Mother Tongue” is more relevant than Orwell’s Essay because the latter presumes that I am a native English speaker, which I am not. Specifically, it is easy to identify with some of the difficulties first faced by Tan when she came to the US. The standard of English I used was below that of other students in school, especially with regards to pronunciation and weak vocabulary. It was especially intimidating as I read and spoke slower than the rest, meaning that I lagged behind in class. In this case, there was no way Orwell’s argument about the use of traditional, clear, and concise English would have been possible. To begin with, my confidence was tested during those years, meaning that it is easier to identify with Tan’s article compared to Orwell’s article, especially since English was not my first or native language. Still, Tan’s simple use of language as desired by Orwell makes her work more understandable and relatable, especially for an immigrant. The essay is primarily directed at immigrants to the US, especially with regards to her mother who uses fractured English in speech, despite being an avid English reader (Tan, paragraph 7). Orwell’s essay, on the other hand, is directed at the native speaker. From this discussion, it is clear that Tan considers the existence of more than one kind of English, unlike Orwell who believes that only Standard English should be used in communication. In fact, Tan writes her article using these “imperfect” forms of English as spoken by her and her mother, compared to Orwell, who writes in clear, standard language that he believes lends his writing more honesty and easier comprehension. Tan admits in her essay that she was usually ashamed of her mother’s English due to its imperfection and limitation (Tan, paragraph 8), but continues to use this form of English in her essay. From the position of an immigrant whose language of identity is not English, this different forms of English influenced by mother tongue contributes to the identity of the individual. Tan talks about her fascination and love of language, as well as the manner in which language evokes emotions and visual images (Tan, paragraph 2). Orwell similarly thinks that language has to evoke emotion and create imagery and visions, but, in his view, it is the traditional form of English, which is able to do this, rather than “complicated” English. This, of course, is not applicable in Tan’s case, especially where she talks about giving a speech using correct and impeccable English grammar until she spotted her mother and remembered their conversations in “fractured” English (Tan, paragraph 3). An immigrant may find it more difficult to communicate in traditional English, especially in relation to expressing their emotions and vision. However, they are able to express themselves when using English influenced by their mother tongue because this is the language they are used to. As a result, she decides to write her essay using the English she grew up speaking with her mother, which, while not the correct English, could be understood by people like her. In conclusion, when comparing the perspectives that Amy Tan and George Orwell take with regards to language and identity, it is clear that the two authors have differing views about what authentic language is. To Tan, language has more of a private aspect as it involves communication between individuals, which means that one’s ability to best express themselves is the most important part of language. Orwell’s perspective varies, most likely because he is discussing language in the public domain of political writing where the writer will have to communicate with a broad section of society. In this case, his argument for standardized English that has more clarity and honesty is right in the sense that traditional language can be understood by a larger section of society. However, regarding immigrants who are not native English speakers, their ability for expression would be harmed if they were to use such standardized English. By infusing their mother tongue into their spoken English, it will be possible for these individuals to express themselves with more emotion. Works Cited Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. 1946. Web. 6 September 2014 . Tan, Amy. Mother Tongue. 6 February 2008. Web. 6 September 2014 . Read More