I agree with Orwell on the belief that language is a natural growth and that we shape it for our own purposes. For instance, since I am at an advantage where I have been put into harder classes that challenge me to create arguments that use intelligent sounding words, and which do in fact have intelligent meanings, I use them to my benefit to prove my self right in an argument with my friends in less challenging classes. The meanings they have behind them are complex and are difficult for my other friends to retort successfully. Playing the instrument of language, I am able to bend the meanings of them for my own selfish purposes. As time goes by, my language grows and allows me to have more sophisticated responses to situations that require me to prove myself or to prove others wrong.
I understand that challenging classes solicit a different level of diction, but I'm wondering, can eloquent and excessively complex word choice win an argument, or merely confuse opposition? Orwell, prizing clear diction, argues that redundancy is where the line must be drawn. This goes well with the metaphor that language is an instrument, you can riff and show off all you want, but there is a time and place for that. I think that an serious argument is only capable of handling a few extra notes without losing the simple melody of the song, in the ears of the unskilled listener.
ReplyDelete