Yes, it would be interesting to see some scans of the book, although
somebody who has actually taken a college-level health class would be
better positioned than I am to compare the book to modern ones.
Your points about vocabulary and reading comprehension are interesting
and I have to thank you for inspiring me to read the whole of Orwell's
"Politics and the English Language". I'll quote some passages at
length here, because it seems to me that similar advice is responsible
for a large part of the changes you talk about. (Of course,
pedagogical philosophies also played a role.) I don't want to place
the blame entirely, or even largely, on Orwell, but he exemplifies a
movement toward deliberate simplification of language.
Here are two of Orwell's complaints.
"Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking
out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each
sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry.
Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make
contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have
the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take
effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The
keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single
word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase,
made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb
such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive
voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun
constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead
of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of
the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an
appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple
conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with
respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of,
in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences
are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to
be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be
expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration,
brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth.
"Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as
noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary,
promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate,
are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific
impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic,
historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable,
veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international
politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on
an archaic color, its characteristic words being: realm, throne,
chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner,
jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac,
ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo,
gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture
and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and
etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases
now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially
scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always
haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon
ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict,
extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of
others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers.* The
jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty
bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.)
consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French;
but the normal way of coining a new word is to use Latin or Greek root
with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation.
It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize,
impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to
think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result,
in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.
"*An interesting illustration of this is the way in which English
flower names were in use till very recently are being ousted by Greek
ones, Snapdragon becoming antirrhinum, forget-me-not becoming
myosotis, etc. It is hard to see any practical reason for this change
of fashion: it is probably due to an instinctive turning away from the
more homely word and a vague feeling that the Greek word is
scientific."
------
And here are Orwell's prescriptions:
"(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you
are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if
you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."
Rules 2-5 lead to precisely the kind of oversimplification of language
that you worry about. I do not know what should be done about it or
even if it really is a problem. (The case can be made that your
reading comprehension skills should match the material you are
actually likely to encounter, not more challenging material that few
people write any more.) Still, it would be interesting to find out
what our colleagues in English departments think of the situation.
Jane
