Comparison and Contrast of Politics and the English Language by Orwell and Mother Tongue by Tan A - Essay Example

History and Political Science 9 September Analysis, Summary, Comparison and Contrast Introduction Army Tan is best recognized for his fiction writing in contribution to linguistics. Her essay ‘mother tongue’ focuses of English language from the family and culture point of view. Army’s essay puts forth an argument in defense of an individual’s dialect, which contributes highly to how one’s communication and thoughts are affected, the type of English spoken is influenced and interpretation of one’s ability is miscalculated by others. George Orwell remains a well-known English novelist from the last century and produced numerous recognized essays. His prosperous work ‘Politics and the English Language’ extensively criticizes to humans to use clear language that flawlessly express the true meaning, instead of using a pretentious diction to blur the intentions. Based on the articles, it is notable that the writing of ‘Politics and English Language’ was occurred in a time when political misdemeanor was intense. Use of words and language were perhaps the only way to justify their act. For Army, the article ‘Mother tongue’ depicts of prior mass immigration inclusive Chinese foreigners in the U.S. Thesis: The two authors’ focuses on English language have both similar and different respects. They share on precision and simplicity, but diverge in their focus; for army it’s about dialect and it’s power /limitation while for Orwell is centered on grammar and syntax to abstract words/meanings for political reasons. 2. Army Tan’s essential Points Diversity of English language: Army’s essay demonstrates a clear experience of people caught up in a situation where language and communication with the surrounding people were based on their perception and interpretation. Though she tends to speak standard formal English in school and the public speeches, she admits she uses different (fractured/broken) English while communicating with her mother. Experiences and interaction with people of different dialects and, no matter how formal or informal they speak English demonstrate their passion for the language, style of communication, clear ability to construct images and make impression (Tan harvard.edu). The author affirms that people clearly use different ways of English language to make sense of an issue or their thoughts. Understanding of voice: From Army’s article, it’s clear that people are born in their world of languages; they learn to speak it and despite the changes in the environment, these unique dialects will always find their way back depending on whom you surround yourself with. Army still found herself talking the same broken English with her mother after making the lecture (Tan harvard.edu). This intimate language that one grows with has been stereotyped as a weakness that hinders people from reaching their potential. On contrary, it should be appreciated for assisting one to make sense in the past. People need understand that from a sociological point of view, even English language would keep changing with time. Private stance in the literature to illuminate of the prejudice associated with different types of English: Army takes a private stance and brings in her life’s experiences to relate with her audience. She writes the article in the first person evident from phrase like ‘my mother, I know, with me;’ this allows her to express the language and ideas boldly from a closer and personal level, and clearly exposing the prejudice theme subjected to those who do not speak proper English (Encinas nau.edu). Army engages the reader through personal level experiences, allowing them to comprehend stereotypes given to Asians like poor performance in English, how others take advantage of them or struggle with social interactions across cultures, because of their fractured English. Grammar and variety of sentences: Army employs unique style of witting; mixing long and short sentences. At one point she note’s “my mother was in the room……And it” (Tan harvard.edu). This introduces her ways of enforcing clarity and precision and to convey the meaning or illustration of the prior sentence. Similarly, Army puts her mother’s words in a block of quotation, though relative shorter sentences but full of grammatical errors that makes it almost impossible to understand unless you re-read 3. Orwell’s essential points Manipulation of English to fit political purpose: Orwell claimed that people are fully aware of the misappropriate use of English language/words. He asserted that English words used in his time were strategically chosen to convey misleading communication for political and economic gains. Often, the political speech and writings did not fall far from defending/justifying the misconducts in politic. Orwell admits that such a case of Atomic bomb in Japan could be defended “by a political language that would consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness” (7). The readers and listeners get political writings/speeches void of the reality because the truth is unpalatable to bear. The presence of politics in the societies that people live in cannot be entirely restricted to government and political parties, but to institutions’ leadership and even in the community and family level. From the moral perspectives in the family to elegant wording and logically structured speech in campaigns are well shaped by the political views in the context. Dimming English language: The future for English language is dimmed to decline. The speakers and writers continue to disfigure the language through use of poor practices on the basis of the grammar. Other than political influences, Orwell argues that English language has becomes ugly and inaccurate because people’s foolish thoughts, but even worse, their slovenliness intensifies the foolish thoughts (1). Due to numerous and consistent writing errors in English, writer fail to construct correct English prose, which leaves their literary pieces with vagueness of ideas, and incompetence for their lack of precision and staleness of imagery. Solution to redeem the language: To restore the bright future of English language, speakers and writers need to pay attention to certain factors in construction of correct English prose. He recommends people to stop the use of dying metaphor where they have lost ability to evoke a reader’s imagination or when a clear intended meaning lack. Avoid the use extraneous verbs and nouns for simple phrases, pretentious diction that introduces vagueness, jargon and lengthy words, and meaningless words that could be interpreted differently. This could assist to stop the wrong writing practice and enforce clear constructed thought of what to write and say. Basically he provides the readers with guideline to aid them in writing clear and correct English. In his argument, it is not always a metaphor, long wording, jargon and foreign phrases among others considered modern writing practices that deliver correct English prose. Descriptive writing: The author uses demonstration to affirm what he is talking about, by pointing out to sentences with poor writing practice. His descriptive texts lead the reader into the expected writing style, but using the first persona in maintaining the control to criticize and guide how people write. 4. Compare and contrast The two authors have common interest in promoting correct English language. The factor of precision and simplicity for clarity appear more to be supported in the essays. Based on the ‘mother tongue’ essay, Army introduces concepts of long and short sentences in the paragraphs to expound on the meanings, while Orwell in his work recommends for precision by use of shorter sentences and words to eliminate vagueness and loss of meaning. You cannot also fail to admit that Orwell focus more on grammar and written English, while Amy projects more on the concept of poor/ broken, but spoken English. Both use the first persona in their writing. The ‘I, me and my’ among others are common, but all serve unique purposes in their themes and driving their arguments. It is in harmony with Army’s share of experiences and luring the audience to continue reading through, to perhaps relate or understand his stance. Orwells uses it to control and challenge the modern writing style while providing a guideline to correct the wrong writing practice. In their contrast, ‘mother tongue’ essay theorizes that diverse types of ‘Englishes’ are the cause of social struggles and prejudice, but Orwell argues that it is the political, economic and poor writing practice by the society that threatens the existence of correct English language. Army appreciates the diversity of dialects and their effects to one’s spoken English, she does not underestimate the mother tongues, but instead moves on to correct the stereotypes and understand better this ‘fractured’ English. Orwell is unconcerned with this point and makes attempt to reverse the dimming English language with a set of writing guidelines. 5. So what? The English language is still evolving. Tracing from past centuries, recognizable spellings as those demonstrated in the wording of 14th century disappeared, vowel shift occurred later, and with increasing immigrations English language has not only shaped them, but further developed. However, it’s vital to realize that this would occur alongside the one’s native dialect. There is ability for people to understand and speak clear and correct English, but it should not serve pre-occupy their live. Their mother tongue is of much essence to them because it gives them their ethnic identity, which they take pride in; one is what their language is (Anzaldua 222). 6. Conclusion The paper clearly introduces you to the two authors; Army and Orwell. It gives you an insight on the background before it explores the essays and their view points. The arguments of the authors in their essays are elaborated differently, but their comparison and contrast indicate where they converge and diverge. The purpose of the essay was to analyze both the ‘mothers tongue’ and ‘Politics and English language’ summarize their work and examine their relations by comparing them. Works Cited Tan A. “Mother Tongue.” harvard.edu. 6 February 2008. Web. 9 September 2014. Encinas, A. A. “Rhetorical Analysis: Mother Tongue.” nau.edu. 30 January 2006. Web. 9 September 2014 Orwell, G. “Politics and English Language.” npr.org. n.d . Web. 9 September 2014 Anzaldua, G. “Language: How to Tame a Wild Tongue.” pearsonhighered.com. n.d. Web. 9 September 2014. Read More