The Limits of Language

Nicholas Lemann wrote the essay The Limits of Language describing how 60 years later, George Orwell was still right about the English language. Lemann's thesis states that "intellectual honesty about the gathering and use of facts and data is a riskier and more precious part of a free society than is intellectual honesty in language." He says that the information and facts that are gathered are valued more than in this society than the language that is used. He refers to George Bush's speech and the language that he uses. Bush is unspecific, using words such as "enemies of freedom" and "freedom" (freedom being a word Orwell felt had a cloudy meaning, but one that means something good). He, Lemann, moves on to politicians and their slogans. He mentions that politicians focus more on playing with the audiences emotions than clearly stating what the activity will do. Lemann gives a great example of this when he says that "the war in Iraq" is a good name to give it (since that is what the activity is) rather than the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" because that is only the feeling the government wants to trigger. I agree with Lemann in that today's society cares way more about the information and the amount of people following their information (I think that is the reason they play on the audience's emotions, just to get more supporters) than the language that is used to convey these messages.