The Corruption of Language
Ben Grono *
Language that carries political discourse is constantly under threat of corruption, making George Orwell’s ideas about the manipulation of language as relevant to politics now as they were over half a century ago. This essay begins by exploring the language that Orwell contested ‐ from vague and meaningless discourse to far more manipulative concepts ‐ before focusing on the way in which the objective reality that Orwell subscribed to has been undermined and how the use of language in contemporary politics has moved in directions that he did not envisage. As perceived by both Nietzsche and Lakoff, the concept of truth itself is caught up in a constant battle to influence the way people perceive the world around them. This framing and reframing illustrates a much more complex link between truth and language than even Orwell envisaged. In conclusion, the difference between corrupted language and persuasive framing is now blurred beyond Orwell’s recognition, leaving the revival of language as yet another concept in dispute. The human ability to use language and communicate with others about matters not immediately in front of us gives us an understanding of reality greater than our personal experience. 1 This shared truth transforms a world dominated by the unilateral exercise of power into one where deliberation can take place and power can be negotiated and shared. 2 Orwell realised that there is one caveat to this progressive role that language plays in human society. Because the limits of language often prescribe the limits of thought, vague expressions, deliberate ambiguities, obscured meaning, and unfathomable phrases corrupt public language and obstruct people from formulating complex * Ben Grono is in his second year of a combined Bachelor of Arts (Political Science and International Relations)/Bachelor of Economics degree at the Australian National University. He is a current resident of Bruce Hall. 1 Murray Edelman, The Politics of Misinformation (2001) 88. 2 J.G.A. Pocock, ‘Verbalizing a Political Act: Toward a Politics of Speechʹ, in Michael J. Shapiro (ed), Language and Politics (1984) 30. 56
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
arguments, carrying out serious deliberation and making informed decisions. 3 Public language is integral to discerning truth, deliberating on the state of reality, and sharing power. Yet language seems to be most corrupted by public figures who are most influential in our society. The way that the language of contemporary politics is misused to deceive us and obscure reality mirrors Orwell’s imagined future in which truth and honesty are absent from political discourse. 4 However, no matter how deceptive contemporary political discourse may be, the corruption of language is nothing new. This corruption is central to exploitative politics, and, as Orwell proclaims, the ‘defence of the indefensible’. 5 Ambiguity must be recognised as deliberate and a major purpose of some political language. 6 In Politics and the English Language, Orwell was most critical of vague and incompetent political language that concealed reality by tending away from concrete meaning. 7 This language ‐ weasel words, stale metaphors, managerial buzz words, pretentious diction and other meaningless phrases ‐ continues to proliferate in contemporary political discourse. Seeking a shield against attack, public figures instinctively use ambiguous expressions, described as weasel words, to complicate meaning. 8 Reflecting the observations made by Orwell in his own era, contemporary political discourse is padded with the buzz words of managerial language, signalling conformity and approval at the expense 3 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico‐Philosophicus (1922) 21; Don Watson, Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language (2003) 28. 4 Richard Jenkyns, ‘Mother tongue’, Prospect 106, 16 January 2005; Frank Furedi, Politics of Fear (2005) 5; Douglas Kellner, From 1984 to One‐dimensional Man: Critical Reflections on Orwell and Marcuse (2006). 5 Timothy Garton Ash, Orwell for Our Time (5 May 2001) The Guardian <http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,4860
93,00.html> at 15 April 2008. 6 Edelman, above n 1, 81. 7 George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, first published in Horizon in 1946, The Completed Works of George Orwell <http://www.george‐
orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html> at 2 April 2008. 8 Don Watson, Watson’s Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Clichés, Cant and Management Jargon (2004) 5. The Corruption of Language | Ben Grono
57
of simple verbs, active voice and meaning. 9 Our growing awareness of the natural environment on which we depend has spurred the creation of the most recent set of buzz words and meaningless terms. The most notorious of these words—often labelled as astro‐turfing—are the adjectives ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’, which can (and are) applied to any idea or policy in search of support. 10 Other phrases include ‘being proactive’, ‘social responsibilities’, ‘sustainable value creation’, and ‘stakeholder engagement’. 11 The 2007 Sydney APEC Leaders’ Declaration on climate change, energy security, and clean development remains a prime example of vague language tending away from the concrete. APEC economies announced that ‘we agree to work to achieve a common understanding on a long‐term aspirational global emissions reduction goal to pave the way for an effective post‐2012 international arrangement’. 12 Considering that a decade had passed since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, and binding emissions reduction targets on many national economies entered into force in 2005, 13 the aspirational (and not binding) goals that the APEC declaration refers to are meaningless weasel words designed to give nothing more than the appearance of commitment. Whilst weasel words allow politicians to escape without making any real commitments, meaningless political language can also exclude people from communication altogether. People can only engage in political discourse if they are familiar with the terms being used to communicate meaning. Pretentious diction and pompous language – both meaningless jargon – are used to conceal meaning and shield against uncertainty. People are excluded from whole areas of discourse, particularly when related to economics, because they are not fluent in George Orwell, above n 7. Furedi, Politics of Fear 7. 11 Stephen McGrail, ‘Beware those Corporate Weasel Words’, The Age (Melbourne) 23 February 2008. 12 Asia‐Pacific Economic Coorperation, Sydney APEC Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development (2007). 13 UNFCCC, Essential background: Kyoto Protocol (2008) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php> at 10 April 2008. 9
10
58
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
meaningless words like ‘diversity’, ‘transparency’, ‘social cohesion’, ‘inclusion’, ‘adding value’ and ‘stakeholding’. 14 Orwell’s attack on vague and imprecise language extends to words that have so many interpretations that dishonesty is signalled simply by evoking them. 15 Orwell argued decades ago that democracy, freedom and justice each have conflicting meanings and yet all three of these terms are still evoked daily. 16 The fact that these provocative terms are so vague and open to interpretation poses a threat to political deliberation because they can be used to justify any policy or program. Contemporary political discourse is riddled with other examples of contested references, most notably ‘terrorism’, 17 ‘competitiveness’, 18 and ‘efficiency’. 19 While ambiguous language surely conceals meaning and makes truth less accessible, Orwell also described the potential of language to actively shape meaning and corrupt thought itself. The concepts of ‘Newspeak’ and ‘doublethink’ in Nineteen Eighty‐Four demonstrate the potential of language to manipulate and restrict public thought. Doublethink is the manipulation of language so that expressions hold two contradictory ideas at once. 20 In Nineteen Eighty‐Four doublethink set logic against logic and was able to represent war as peace and slavery as freedom. 21 Examples of contemporary doublethink that can be observed in the United States’ Bush administration include the Clear Skies Initiative (which relaxed clean air standards for US industry), 22 the Furedi, Politics of Fear 7. Orwell, above n 7. 16 Ron Paul, What’s the Meaning of Freedom? Don’t Ask a Politician (2005) Antiwar.com <http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4737> at 19 April 2008. 17 Ros Atkins, Has Terrorism Become a Meaningless Word? (2007) BBC News – World <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2007/04/has_terrorism_become_a_meani
ng.html> at 21 April 2008. 18 Paul Krugman, ‘Competitiveness – A Dangerous Obsession’ (1994) 73(2) Foreign Affairs 28. 19 Murray Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, Volume IV‐‐The Revolutionary War 1775‐1784 (1979) 266. 20 Kellner, From 1984 to One‐dimensional Man: Critical Reflections on Orwell and Marcuse (2006). 21 George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty‐Four (1949) 6. 22 George Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant! (2004) 100. 14
15
The Corruption of Language | Ben Grono
59
Healthy Forests Initiative (which allowed clear cutting in federal land), 23 and the ‘Patriot Act’ (weakening protections of civil liberties). 24 Orwell would not be surprised to observe that this language is used to legitimise what many see as indefensible ‐ environmental degradation, unjust war, and infringement of fundamental rights and liberties. Rather than expressing two contradictory ideas at once, Newspeak is the use of a one‐dimensional language so that contradictions, creative expression and critical thought cannot be clearly expressed. By restricting vocabulary to terms that only express the interests of the powerful, there are no words available to clearly express critical discourse, thus narrowing the range of thought. 25 In addition to empty managerial language and meaningless political sound‐bites, a contemporary example of Newspeak is the US military’s description of Iraqi Sunni rebels in the Iraq war as ‘anti‐Iraqi forces’. 26 Not only does the term ‘anti‐Iraqi forces’ portray Iraqis as being opposed to their own homeland, but it implies that the US forces are pro‐Iraqi. Most importantly, this example of Newspeak manages to completely conceal the motivation of the Sunni rebels, successfully limiting thought about what they are critical of. While doublethink and Newspeak are universally ambiguous, another form of language manipulation has arisen that expresses a clear meaning to some audiences and remains ambiguous to others. Dog whistling ‐‐ communicating a message with plausible deniability that only some people can hear ‐‐ has become common in a world where prejudiced people still vote and yet prejudiced remarks are not acceptable in public. 27 An example of dog whistling in contemporary Australian politics was John Howard’s launch of the 2001 federal Ibid 21‐22. International Herald Tribune, Return of the Patriot Act (2005) International Herald Tribune <http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/18/opinion/edpatriot.php> at 20 April 2008. 25 Stephen Ingle, ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Literature: George Orwell and the truth’ (2007) 9(4) British Journal of Politics and International Relations 739. 26 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 11th MEU Battles Anti‐Iraqi Forces in An Najaf (2004) GlobalSecurity.org <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/08/mil‐
040812‐mcn03.htm> at 19 April 2008. 27 Josh Fear, ‘Under the Radar: Dog‐whistle Politics in Australia’ (Discussion Paper No 96, The Australia Institute, 2007) 2. 23
24
60
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
election, where he boldly claimed that ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’. 28 As Watson argues, Howard’s statement was a dog whistle because no‐one could disagree with him, yet it allowed the Coalition to win the 2001 election by appealing to racist and xenophobic voters. 29 The deliberate distortion of truth and the corruption of politics that Orwell criticised are still flourishing in contemporary language through dog whistling, Newspeak and doublethink. Wherever these manipulative attempts are made to distort meaning, one party will inevitably become more powerful at the expense of another and truth will be concealed. Orwell’s ideas about truth and the corruption of language contain an important premise. Orwell believed that one objective truth existed and could be understood through clear and expressive language. 30 This presumption gives great significance to clear and precise language, as demonstrated above, and warns against ambiguous expressions and distortions of the objective truth. However, the relationship between our ability to discern reality and express truth is far more complex than Orwell asserted. 31 Luntz argues that ‘perception is more real than reality’ 32 and it is the closest we will come to any promise of truth. Because of the various ways we interpret the world, reality is, in Edelman’s terms, ‘a sequence of moments that change with the situation of the observer and with different observers’. 33 The claim that language should be clear and precise to describe a fixed world is ultimately flawed. Instead, words and ideas evoke a multitude of reference structures, images, concepts and related metaphors that we use to make sense of reality. 34 This understanding of language, widely referred to as 28 Australianpolitics.com, John Howard’s Policy Speech (28 October 2001) australianpolitics.com – News <http://australianpolitics.com/news/2001/01‐10‐28.shtml> at April 14 2008. 29 Watson, above n 3, 92. 30 A.M. Tibbetts, ‘What Did Orwell Think About the English Language?’ (1978) 29(2) College Composition and Communication 163. 31 Stephen Ingle, ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Literature: George Orwell and the Truth’ (2007) 739. 32 Nicholas Lemann, ‘The Word Lab’ The New Yorker (New York) 16 October 2000. 33 Edelman, above n 1, 5. 34 Edelman, ʹThe Political Language of the Helping Professionsʹ, in Michael J. Shapiro (ed), Language and Politics (1984) 45. The Corruption of Language | Ben Grono
61
a ‘frame’, makes reality manageable and meaningful, and acts to direct our thought and action down particular pathways. For example, people could not understand the word ‘swim’ without reference structures such as the feeling of suspension in the water, the strokes people make while swimming, the benefits of an active healthy lifestyle, and any reservations about the look of swimwear. As Edelman claims, ‘images then, rather than meticulous descriptions, become the currency in which we think about and mutually negotiate changes in the world we inhabit’. 35 The fact that images are open to interpretation means that a central and unavoidable aspect of language and reality is ambiguity. Truth can be argued to be a vast array of images and metaphors that have become so well established that we have forgotten that they are in fact only images and metaphors we use to make sense of the world. 36 Nietzsche realised the importance of these images and metaphors, and that by simplifying our understanding of truth to a manageable reality we are ignoring alternative simplifications that use different imagery and metaphors. 37 Gemes explains Nietzsche’s view that ‘in believing we are not reporting how the world is; rather, we are prescribing a way of looking at the world, a means for furthering a particular form of life’. 38 It is at this point that truth becomes central to politics once again. Reality can be interpreted in a limitless number of ways that direct thought, emphasis and political action in particular directions. Reflected in Nietzsche’s concept of the Ubermensch, the ability to promulgate our own version of understanding, or frame, is beneficial because others can come to approach the world and reach conclusions in the same way that we do. Contemporary politics has become a fight to determine which frames operate in the public mindset, which metaphors are used to approach politics, and which version of truth is most dominant. 39 This battle bears little resemblance to Orwell’s concerns. Instead of clearly expressing an objective neutral reality, victory is now the propagation of versions of truth using frames and imagery. Edelman, above n 1, 12. Walter Kaufmann, The Portable Nietzsche (1982) 46‐47. 37 Ken Gemes, ‘Nietzsche’s Critique of the Truth’ (1992) 52(1) Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54. 38 Ibid 52. 39 Fear, above n 27, 15. 35
36
62
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
Political strategists on both sides of politics have realised that they can alter the goals we seek, what counts as good or bad outcomes, the way we reason, and what counts as common sense to their own advantage by manipulating the frames that we use. 40 Lakoff, an adviser to the US Democratic Party, argues that if facts are presented to us that do not fit the frame of reference with which we use to interpret the world we will simply ignore them. 41 Luntz, an adviser to the US Republican Party, shares the same sentiment. Lemann summarises his view that ‘if you introduce a subject using language that will produce a strong opinion, no subsequent information will get people to change their minds’. 42 Luntz’s ‘word labs’ harness the language of ordinary citizens so that political rhetoric can be developed to manipulate already existing frames of reference in the American psyche. 43 An example Lakoff uses of manipulative framing is the term ‘tax relief’ in the US. 44 Framing using the word ‘relief’ implies that there must be an affliction, and that those who relieve the affliction are heroes, whilst those who insist on preventing relief are unfavourable. This being the case, the term ‘tax relief’ subconsciously frames taxation as an oppressive affliction and those who reduce taxes as liberators. ‘Tax relief’ was first used by the Republican Party, but with constant repetition it is now used by Republican and Democrat alike. 45 This manipulation has skewed the entire public frame of reference away from taxation as for the common good towards taxation as an unfair burden, making any argument to maintain or increase taxation lost from the beginning. 46 Orwell would argue that the framing and reframing of contemporary political language is manipulative, and it is. However, given the ambiguous nature of language and perception itself, no objective truth will ever be discerned and framing will remain unavoidable. The irrelevance of any objective truth to political discourse has been recognised for many years. Nietzsche openly sought to ‘seduce’ his Lakoff, above n 22, xv. Matt Bai, ‘The Framing Wars’, The New York Times (New York), 17 July 2005. 42 Lemann, ‘The Word Lab’. 43 Ibid. 44 Lakoff, above n 22, 3. 45 Ibid 4. 46 Matt Bai, above n 41. 40
41
The Corruption of Language | Ben Grono
63
readers through extreme rhetoric and Plato argued that truth was not a requisite element of rhetoric, which is designed only to persuade. 47 Traditionally, leadership has been defined as the moment when a politician enlightens the thoughts of his audience to create a public frame of reference for events. 48 Luntz claims that framing, far from being manipulative, simply validates people’s gut instincts and helps them to understand the world from the assumptions they already have. 49 However, framing and manipulative language in contemporary politics is quite distinct from all of the rhetoric that has come before it. Our deeper understanding of the human psyche and cognitive science has been accompanied by the development of focus groups that act as scientific word labs from which political strategists can draw the most manipulative language. 50 US Conservatives alone have invested more than two billion dollars over fifty years into think‐tanks that research language and framing. 51 Also, the principal means of public communication has been transformed. The inequality is widening between those who have enough resources and access to the media of mass communication to reshape ideas about the world and those who are left as a powerless audience. 52 Furthermore, increasingly short time slots are given to convey events to an audience with low levels of political participation, which in turn reduces political language to a series of short sound‐bites and framed images. 53 The distinct nature of contemporary discourse has given rise to a far more manipulative form of language used to frame reality. Orwell’s concern for the corruption of language is justified, and so too is concern for the now contested notion of truth itself. Contemporary political discourse is constantly manipulated and attempts must be Gemes, above n 37, 48; Lemann, above n 32. Watson, above n 3, 132. 49Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Post‐modern politics’ ABC Background Briefing, 19 March 2006. 50 Joseph Szimhart, Review (2007) Orwell Didn’t Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics <http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/what%20orwell.htm> at 20 April 2008; Lemann, above n 32. 51 Lakoff, above n 22, 26. 52 Edelman, above n 1, 82. 53 Lemann, above n 32. 47
48
64
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
made to revive language and meaning in debate. The clear and precise language Orwell argued for is needed in any society where power is shared. Effective communication, the relationship of trust between the governors and the governed, and the ability to recognise dishonesty and incompetence are all reliant on expressive language. 54 Due to the ambiguous nature of such a cause, any effort to revive language from the corrupted state described by Orwell and outlined above will not inspire widespread support. Instead, as Orwell recognized, the fate of political discourse lies with the assertion of plain and meaningful language. Orwell points out that this is not an attempt to establish a ‘standard English’, strictly enforce the rules of grammar, or systematically replace Latin words with their Saxon equivalents. 55 Instead, language must be revived by guarding against the use of ready‐
made phrases and making a conscious effort to use a word or phrase that best suits the intended meaning. Orwell establishes these aspirations as a set of rules, however Watson goes so far as to advocate for loud expressions of mockery, sorrow and anger to be directed at public figures when they corrupt language. 56 Moving beyond Orwell’s primary concerns, the ambiguous nature of truth and the concept of framing also relate to the corruption of language and politics. The act of framing itself is unavoidable and cannot be referred to as corruption. However, the deployment of frames designed to deliberately manipulate political discourse verges on corruption. The problem lies in drawing the line between persuasive rhetoric and pre‐meditated spin. Lakoff attempts to distinguish between the two. He claims that his own framing and reframing of issues communicates how politicians feel by providing them with the correct metaphors and images to express what they really believe, and enlightens the public on truths not already exposed. 57 Lakoff then argues that manipulative framing involves spin and propaganda, where the frames being used are known to be false, misleading or fear‐
inducing. However, the line between the two is arbitrary. To take the Watson, above n 3, 178. Orwell, above n 7. 56 Orwell, above n 7; Watson, above n 3, 182. 57 Lakoff, above n 22, 100. 54
55
The Corruption of Language | Ben Grono
65
example of ‘tax relief’, language would not necessarily be made better by using a more objective term like tax decrease. To many people the notion of tax as an affliction already constitutes a meaningful reality, so they have no need for any language ‘revival’. This being the case, the best way to guard against deception is for people to be conscious of the images and frames that they use themselves and to be able to realise when others are framing an issue for them. Contemporary political discourse is constantly at risk of manipulation, and whether the threat is vague and imprecise Orwellian language or the contested nature of truth and the framing of reality, efforts to revive language can and must be made. Orwell’s ideas about language are still relevant to contemporary political discourse. However, wider philosophical arguments about truth and recent developments in framing have eclipsed much of Orwell’s work in significance. The very idea of reviving language to express the ‘truth’ is not possible in a world where people understand reality through varying reference structures. However, Orwell’s work is still relevant to these wider concerns and cannot be forgotten. No matter how the sphere of politics is transformed, Orwell’s warnings about the power of corrupted language to manipulate and deceive others will always be worth heeding. 66
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
Bibliography
11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 11th MEU Battles Anti‐Iraqi Forces in An Najaf (2004) GlobalSecurity.org <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/08/mil‐040812‐
mcn03.htm> at 19 April 2008. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ‘Post‐modern Politics’ ABC Background Briefing, 19 March 2006. Asia‐Pacific Economic Coorperation, Sydney APEC Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development (2007). Atkins, Ros, Has Terrorism Become a Meaningless Wword? (2007) BBC News – World <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2007/04/has_terrorism_become
_a_meaning.html> at 21 Apr 2008. Australianpolitics.com, John Howard’s Policy Speech (Oct 28 2001) australianpolitics.com – News <http://australianpolitics.com/news/2001/01‐10‐
28.shtml> at April 14 2008. Bai, Matt, ‘The Framing Wars’, The New York Times (New York), 17 July 2005. Edelman, Murray, The Politics of Misinformation (2001). Edelman, Murray, ‘The Political Language of the Helping Professions’, in Michael J. Shapiro (ed), Language and Politics (1984). Fear, Josh, ‘Under the Radar: Dog‐whistle Politics in Australia’ (Discussion paper 96, The Australia Institute, 2007) 1‐17. Furedi, Frank, Politics of Fear (2005). Ash, Timothy Garton, Orwell for Our Time (5 May 2001) The Guardian <http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0
,6000,486093,00.html> at 15 April 2008. Gemes, Ken, ‘Nietzsche’s Critique of the Truth’ (1992) 52(1) Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47‐65. International Herald Tribune, Return of the Patriot Act (2005) International Herald Tribune <http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/18/opinion/edpatriot.php> at 20 April 2008. Ingle, Stephen, ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Literature: George Orwell and the Truth’ (2007) 9(4) British Journal of Politics and International Relations 730‐746. Jenkyns, Richard, ‘Mother Tongue’, Prospect 106, 16 January 2005. The Corruption of Language | Ben Grono
67
Kaufmann, Walter, The Portable Nietzsche (1982) 33‐47. Kellner, Douglas, From 1984 to One‐dimensional Man: Critical Reflections on Orwell and Marcuse (2006) Douglas Kellner <http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/from1984toonedimensional.p
df> at 15 April 2008. Kellner, Douglas, An Orwellian Nightmare: Critical Reflections on the Bush Administration (2006) Douglas Kellner <http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/orwelliannightmare.pdf > at 15 April 2008. Krugman, Paul, ‘Competitiveness – A Dangerous Obsession’ (1994) 73(2) Foreign Affairs 28‐44. Lakoff, George, Don’t Think of an Elephant! (2004). Lakoffm, George, and Ferguson, Sam, Crucial Issues Not Addressed in the Immigration Debate: Why Deep Framing Matters (2006) The Rockridge Institute <http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/imm‐response/view> at 23 April 2008. Lakoffm, George, and Ferguson, Sam, Framing Versus Spin: Rockridge as Opposed to Luntz (2006) Chelsea Green Publishing <http://www.chelseagreen.com/about/politicsandpractice/news/2006/june9b> at 18 April 2008. Lemann, Nicholas, ‘The Word Lab’ The New Yorker (New York), 16 October 2000, 100‐117. McGrail, Stephen, ‘Beware those Corporate Weasel Words’, The Age (Melbourne), 23 February 2008. Orwell, George, Politics and the English Language, first published in Horizon in 1946 (2003) www.george‐orwell.org <http://www.george‐
orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html> at 2 April 2008. Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty‐Four (1949). Paul, Ron, What’s the Meaning of Freedom? Don’t ask a Politician (2005) Antiwar.com <http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4737> at 19 April 2008. Pocock, J G A, ‘Verbalizing a Political Act: Toward a Politics of Speechʹ, in Michael J. Shapiro (ed), Language and Politics (1984). Rothbard, Murray, Conceived in Liberty, Volume IV‐‐The Revolutionary War 1775‐
1784 (1979) 266‐267. 68
Cross sections | Volume IV 2008
Szimhart, Joseph, Review (2007) Orwell Didn’t Know: Propaganda and the New Face of American Politics <http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/what%20orwell.htm> at 20 April 2008. Tibbetts, A M, ‘What Did Orwell Think About the English Language?’ (1978) 29(2) College Composition and Communication 162. United Nationa Framework Convention on Climate Change, Essential Background: Kyoto Protocol (2008) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php> at 10 April 2008. Watson, Don, Death Sentence: the Decay of Public Language (2003). Watson, Don, Watson’s Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Clichés, Cant and Management Jargon (2004). Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Tractatus Logico‐Philosophicus (1922) 21.