George Orwell wrote The Politics of the English Language in 1946. He wrote about the decline of the language, and his message is still relevant 60 years later. Orwell commented on uses of language that obscure, rather than clarify meaning. His thesis was that foolish thinking leads to sloppy language which, in turn, encourages foolish thinking. This is easily recognized as a vicious circle that would end in terminal idiocy for all speakers of English. But Orwell explained that this condition is caused by habits of mind that are presumably reversible, and so we can be spared from what would otherwise be an inevitable fall into a pit of ignorance if we learn to chose our words wisely. Orwell devoted the remainder of the essay to discussing his pet language peeves, and offered some advice for writers.

Guidelines for Writers
As a writer and reader of English on the internet in 2006, I found Orwell’s commentary useful. Writing gives me the opportunity to revise what I have to say before anyone else hears it, but that doesn’t guarantee that I won’t make an ass of myself on occasion. Any of us can be blinded by our own cleverness and push the publish button before we’ve thought carefully about the wisdom of producing what may be nothing more than evidence of our own conceit. And unlike oral speech which is ephemeral, our written words live on in perpetuity giving us endless opportunities for regret and embarrassment. The riskiness of writing pushes me to hone my ability to express myself honestly and clearly. Rather than belabor all of Orwell’s best points with my own colorless commentary, I encourage anyone interested in the uses and abuses of language to read his essay. For the resistant, I’ll share his few rules for salvaging written English from vacuity:

  • Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

  • Never use a long word where a short one will do.

  • If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

  • Never use the passive where you can use the active.

  • Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

  • Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.


Readability
I remembered Orwell’s essay when I found the Readability Test from Juicy Studio [link via Nani], at Se Hace Camino Al Andar. The first thing you test, of course, is your own blog. The next thing to test is other people’s work because it’s hard to resist making comparisons.

The Readability Test is based on a formula. Actually, there are three different algorithms that are applied to any piece of writing linked to the search field, and they don’t all work the same because readability is a function of factors that aren’t easily measured. The readability tool looks at a piece of text and computes the average syllables per word, the percent of words with over 3 syllables, and the number of words in a sentence.

It does other things, too, but it can’t analyze any of the semantic features of the sampled text. It is therefore limited in what it can tell us about readability for particular readers. But from a structural standpoint it might have something to say about readability for readers in general. Avoiding long words, you might note, is at the top of Orwell’s list of rules.

I began running little tests on different web pages to see how they compared. The “reading ease” results for a specific Borderland entry fell into the acceptable range of 66.31. We’re told that scores for that index should ideally be 60-70, with 70 being easier to read. I don’t know what it means if that number is above 70. I tested my students’ website and got results that told me it was Very Easy to read.

The tests became a research project. I wondered if the readability of speeches by political figures had anything to say about their constituencies. My thinking was that plain-spoken candidates would be more electable than the academic types (ie. Bush v. Kerry). I tested modern speeches and classic literature to try to gauge the results of the speeches against what are presumably familiar texts. The following is a table of the results I gathered.

readability chart

Unscientific Conclusions
As you can see, Bush’s State of the Union speech, undoubtedly drafted by a corps of speechwriters, had a relatively low readability level. It would serve marvelously for the job of sounding presidential without saying anything concrete. A Bush press conference, though, fell into the 70+ range at 75.99. If you look at the Fog index, the press conference was comparable to the readability of something between TV Guide and Readers Digest. The Bush press conference was bracketed in my results by Moby Dick and The King James version of Genesis, both more complex than Yertle the Turtle. Kerry’s War Speech, you’ll notice, was a nearly-impossible-to-read 48.69. It does appear that more formal speech is less readable, and when the President is spontaneous, he has an edge over politicians who don’t know how to simplify their messages. Who doesn’t understand TV Guide?

The lesson: to get elected you may have to talk more like Dr. Seuss than Senator Kerry.

Remember, the Readability Test doesn’t measure whether something makes sense.

In conclusion, I’d like to simply say, “Take it easy,” and “Have a good day.” ;)

links to sources:
Kerry’s Statement on Iraq before the War
State of the Union 2006
Reagan’s Berlin Wall Speech
Bush’s 9/11 Attack on America Speech
Clinton’s Lewinsky Apology
Clinton at 2000 Democratic Party Convention
George Orwell >> Politics and the English Language
Borderland >> Diffusion
Moby Dick
Bush Press Conference
Genesis:King James Bible
Yertle the Turtle