Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts
George Orwell
“Element”, “Phenomenon”, “Triumphant” and other fake terms annoy me (though I use them because it is expected, what a paradox). Some professors use them all the time, some don’t use them at all. In fact, the only difference is this – understanding useless words is no more than extra work for me to unwrap the idea. This way of speaking or writing doesn’t bring any more meaning to it or make the information more important. George Orwell predicted these conversions of the English language long time ago and made a clear diagnosis for this viral infection of the language with the new, not so meaningful terms – this is all because of politics. Well, now imagine how long ago this transformation started. For many decades the media have been introducing useless words to talk about the things that they don’t want to call by their real names.
Orwell divided these words into a few categories, but I don’t want to get into linguistics and will mention the two core ones, as they all are very similar, in my opinion. He talks about pretentious diction and meaningless words. Words such as phenomenon, element, individual (as a noun) categorical, constitute, exploit, utilize, historical, triumphal and etc. These started circulate mainly to speak about international politics. It’s impossible not to admire how well he described the writers who use such language:
Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and un necessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers. The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words and phrases translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use a Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind impermissible, extramarital, non- fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.”
He is also so right about the fact that particularly Marxist ideology recreated the language to cover up its philosophies. During the peak of socialist propaganda these meaningless terms actively came into play.
English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents, when you can get good results by doing so," Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: "While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
Here you go – a bunch of useless words that vaguely deliver the idea. This type of phrases only throw the seeds of the idea on the soil.
My least favorite authors and professors are those who use these terms and think they are using “dynamic vocabulary”, and, expect, even demand others to use it too. They probably should look more closely at Orwell’s article. So do people who are wonder why we speak (mostly write, actually) the way we do and, and how heavily the language has been politicized. For them specifically, I cited it.[1] I am sure that many have read it and still don’t believe how ineffective and annoying the usage of meaningless words is. It’s not only English – other languages, Russian, for example, have almost the same exacts equivalents.
I feel like since Orwell wrote this essay, “utilization” of “dynamic” vocabulary has reached its extreme. The smartest people I know can use plain language, and it sounds beautiful.
[1] Orwell, George (2006). Politics and the English Language. Peterborough: Broadview Press.