Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Photo: Christian Times Republican debates are reliably passionate, and candidates can be counted on to dispense heated words with one another. And sometimes, those heated words aren’t particularly mature – if you need any convincing of this, just look at Trump’s defense of his, um, hands at the last debate. But for language nerds like us, one moment that stood out in the Republican shenanigans happened a couple of weeks ago, and oddly enough, in Spanish.
The drama began about mid—way through a weekend debate, the 10th of the party's seemingly endless procession of debates that, thankfully, seem to be narrowing down. After a good hour or so of bickering, Republican senator Ted Cruz decided to, well, continue bickering – though this time about a favorite issue of his that nonetheless had yet to come up in this particular debate: immigration. Cruz accused his rival Marco Rubio, a fellow second generation Cuban-American (though Cruz would perhaps best be described as Cuban-Canadian-American) of being just a bit too lenient on immigrants. He pointed out that Rubio had gone on Telemundo a few weeks earlier and gave an interview in which he called for amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States. And to top it off, Rubio gave the interview not in English but in the very un-American language of (gasp!) Spanish. Rubio, despite his penchant for canned responses which earned him the nickname “Marco Roboto”, had a quick response for Cruz: “I don't know how [Cruz] knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish.” Cruz upped the ante, opting to actually respond in Spanish: “I’ll answer you in Spanish right now if you want!” It was perhaps one of the strangest moments of a particularly shouty night for the GOP field. And it also pokes holes in one of my pet theories: that a greater knowledge of languages leads to greater tolerance. After all, the GOP field is actually pretty strong in the language skills department. Both Rubio and Cruz speak Spanish – at least well enough to insult each other en Español. And Jeb Bush, still hanging in the race, speaks fluent Spanish thanks to his Mexican wife. Meanwhile, none of the remaining Democratic candidates speak any other language. Still, it’s hard to imagine that the sizeable Latino population of the US is genuinely convinced by the surface-level nods to their culture. Cruz, Rubio, and Bush may all speak Spanish, but they won’t win over Latinos if they have the wrong message. No matter what language it’s in. Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" Works For Pretty Much Every Other Language Too1/29/2016
George Orwell. Photo via signature-reads.com "If you've been following us on the blog here at Pantera Language Studio, you've probably noticed we're political junkies. Don't ask us why - politics can be a disappointing and often maddening process that no one seems to like. But perhaps our fascination with politics can be tied to our love of languages. After all, politicians everywhere in the world, whether in the east, west, left, or right, are all masters of using their own native languages (and sometimes others as well) to shape public opinion to suit their ends. No one understood this better than George Orwell, widely regarded as one of the greatest political thinkers of the 20th century, who died exactly 56 years ago last week. Political speech is a recurring theme of his, which he depicts with chilling precision in his dystopian novel, 1984. But his most direct attempt at tackling just what can be so frustrating about the way politicians speak can be found in his celebrated essay, "Politics and the English Language". Though the essay is long, it manages to cover a lot of ground - its technical nature has gained it recognition by both political scholars and style guide enthusiasts alike. Orwell begins by examining five sentences at random, picking apart unnecessary elements of these sentences. He gives advice to writers and speakers, some of which is specific to the English language (i.e. don't use too many Greek or Latin-based words as they often come off as needlessly complicated), and other advice that might apply to speakers of other languages as well. So far, nothing very political. But about midway through, Orwell launches into the political domain, coming out swinging with a bold statement: "In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing." Orwell criticizes the general vagueness he perceives in political writing, but above all, the intentional vagueness in describing atrocities and negative events. He points to the British occupation in India, where he offers this searing critique: "Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable 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: Interestingly, he recognizes that his observations may apply to other languages as well. "I should expect to find - this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify - that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship," he notes. Finally, he closes with six main rules to abide by, for anyone willing to try to make political writing a bit more bearable: "(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Now that the horrors of Orwell's era - British colonialism, World War II, and the Cold War - have largely passed, today's politicians mercifully have a few less evil deeds to sweep under the rug. Nevertheless, the political turns of phrase Orwell decries in his essay are still alive and well, and not just in English. Take the recent escape and capture of brutal drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman in Mexico. In the Mexican newspaper La Jornada, columnist Gustavo Esteva skillfully deconstructs the language used by Mexican politicians, who already have a reputation for misspeaking (for an English machine translation of the article, click here). Esteva writes: "It's true that the way the government is destroying our language only serves to discredit it further. The recent example of 'El Chapo' is a perfect example of this process. Social networks and political cartoonists were quick to mock the rhetorical excesses of authorities. 'It has been recognized that many still have doubts, and this helps,' says the Archbishop of Oaxaca, 'since this means there has been a loss of credibility. There is much talk of 'slip ups' to refer to events that in truth are incompetent work, rip-offs, and trickery by authorities. A highly respected Government official took it upon himself to say: 'There is no criminal outside the reach of the government of Mexico'... when everyone in the country knows that criminals like Ulises Ruiz or the Acteal killers roam the streets freely, and that 97 percent of crimes go unpunished. And in this era of complete government incompetence, he added 'The governability of this country is guaranteed.' Habitually discrete ambassadors, who listen to these and other ridiculous statements, break out in applause, sing the national anthem, cheer on the Mexican authorities and swear that this will completely change the outlook for the government and the country. Sic. That's what they say. The capture of a criminal, which was supposedly the outcome of 'an intense and careful process of intelligence and criminal investigation' - even though it actually appears to have happened thanks to whistle-blowing by an unnamed woman - has changed the outlook for the entire country!" Looking at this text, there's surprisingly little that gets lost in translation. English speaking readers might not know much about the Archbishop of Oaxaca or the Acteal killers, but if they've been paying attention to politics anywhere, they're sure to recognize the exorbitant claims and grandstanding by the country's politicians.
But though Orwell's perceptive essay may apply in many languages, maybe even all languages, Politics in the English language is still living up to the principles he laid out back in the 1940s. Next week, voting begins in the Iowa caucuses in the US presidential election, and there has been no shortage of spin, showmanship, and promises made by the candidates that will in all likelihood turn out to be false. This is bad news for people in the country, or any other country whose politicians routinely deceive for their own gain, who are expecting their politicians to deliver. But at least it gives plenty of good material for a new generation of political writers, writing in English or any other language, to pick over. Let's hope they keep Orwell's observations in mind. |
The Pantera Language Studio BlogUpdates on our language services, and any and/or all of our thoughts on funny, weird, or wild language related stories. Come join the fun! Archives
December 2016
Categories
All
|