Newspeak
is a language that is being imposed by IngSoc so as to constrain the
range of thought of people in Oceania. It is a simpler version of
English language, it has fewer words (and they are becoming less
every year). Orwell thinks that English language (Oldspeak) is too
vague and redundant, and that there is no point in using some
expressions, as he explained in his essay “Politics
and English language”, here
he also stated that political speech (and in daily life speech as
well) is full of euphemisms so that we express what we really
think in a more “polite” way and not to offend anyone with our
“too brutal” thinking,.“The
great enemy
of
clear language is insincerity”
Following this conception, Orwell thinks that thought can corrupt language, and, in consequence, language can also corrupt thought. Newspeak was supposed to narrow thought since there were no words to express what was in citizens' minds. If there are no words, there is no reality.
According to linguistic determinism, language does shape the way we
think. So, if we do not have the knowledge of how to say what we are
thinking, we cannot communicate it, we cannot create reality, hence,
we stop thinking.
With Newspeak implementation in Oceania, people is being forced in a
subtle way to not to think, therefore they cannot oppose to Big
Brother's regime.
Do you agree with Orwell's vision of
language?
In what ways do you think that language
constrains thought in our society?
References
Orwell, G. (2010). Politics and the English language and other essays. Lulu. com.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarCatalina, as we have said in class, words are the most powerful weapon. It is through words that we can create reality, but we also can destroy it. As you said, newspeak was created as a tool to restrict freedom of thought. Thoughts can be expressed through words, that is why, in the novel, people should have a limited and controlled language, in that sense they are not able to express themselves and they cannot create a new reality.
ResponderEliminarRegarding your questions, I think that Orwell's vision of language regarding limitations of thought applies even in our society.
I believe that language limits thought. A person who has no language at all can think, but his/her thoughts are limited. However, most of the people nowadays do what other people say without asking, thus they act like robots that cannot think by themselves; for instance, when you see an advertisement and it offers the perfect body, it shapes your mind. You start thinking that you are not perfect and it changes your idea of beauty. Thus, you are just following other people's ideas.
Finally, I would like to highlight what Orwell explains in his essay "Politics and the English Language": "...The decadence of our language is probably curable." Language has not been cured yet, but for the good of society I hope it will be done in a near future.
As you and I have discussed, language does affect the way we think and the way we believe we think as well since we are prone to encode our mental representations into words, because that is what is needed for communication to occur between people. Moreover, complex grammatical structures and words with specific meanings promote a vigorous cognitive attempt to understand them.
ResponderEliminarBut, what happens nowadays? The language used is becoming simpler as people don't like to treat deep matters. I remember reading the paper "Losing the art of conversation" by Michael McCarthy and Ronald Carter in which it is stated that nowadays chitchat is taking over to the extent that we are losing the ability to converse at length; and that conversations are becoming shorter.
A concrete example of the simplification of ideas and shorten of language is the virtual social platform Twitter in which you have 140 characters to express your thought and make yourself understood.
I strongly believe that through words is how we construct reality, and what can be part of my reality, not necessarily can be the reality of others. So in that sense I think that by manipulating the stock of words that can be used in order to convey ideas, language become such a strong weapon in order to manipulate people, because you prevent them of thinking, you can narrow their ideas and therefore you can manipulate them.
ResponderEliminar