Uncharted Territory


RSS     Archives




If they're talking about the deceptive and manuplative use of language, they're on the right track.
If they're talking about mass surveillance and intrusive government, they're describing something authoritarian but not necessarily Orwellian.


Orwell, George 
(1903–50) the pen name (=name used by a writer instead of his/her real name) of Eric Blair, a British writer best known for his novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, which are both about political systems in which ordinary people have no power, and are completely controlled by the government. Both novels have had a great influence on the way people think about and write about politics, and political systems like those described in the books are sometimes called Orwellian. Orwell also fought on the Republican (left-wing ) side in the Spanish Civil War.

Orwellian adjective
used to describe a political system in which a government tries to have complete control over people’s behaviour and thoughts

deceptive and manuplative use of languageという意味ではまさにトランプはOrwellianのお手本でまさにその語義で記事になっていました。

By Katie Rogers June 5, 2019

WASHINGTON — By the time he left London on Wednesday, President Trump somehow ended his state visit there a full 360 degrees from where he started. Which was referring to the Duchess of Sussex, the American-born Meghan Markle, as “nasty.”

Assessing the perceived degree of nastiness of the duchess in an interview before he left the United States kick-started an Orwellian saga — one that the president single-handedly created, forcefully denied and then revived again just before jetting off for the next leg of his European tour.

deceptive and manuplative use of languageにどのように対抗すべきか、オーウェルはエッセイを書いていますね。以前のブログでも取り上げたものですが、英語学習者にもとても参考になるので取り上げます。


Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.





(前略)What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When yo think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to mak on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never us a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.









Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

政治的な言語……そしてその変種は保守主義者から無政府主義者までの全ての政党について当てはまる……は嘘が真実味を持って聞こえ、殺人が世間体の良いものになり、まったくのたわ言が堅固なものに見えるように設計されている。これらの全てを同時に変えることはできないが、少なくとも自身の習慣は変えられるし、十分大きな声で笑い飛ばせば時には擦り切れた利用価値の無い言い回し……JACKBOOT(革長靴)、 ACHILLES' HEEL(アキレスの踵)、 HOTBED(温床)、 MELTING POT(るつぼ)、 ACID TEST(厳しい検査)、 VERITABLE INFERNO(真の地獄)、その他の一群の言語的廃棄物……をそれがあるべき場所であるごみ箱へと送り込むこともできるのだ。