Langage and Rebellion

 At the end of the book, we are introduced to the ongoing process of implementing Newspeak as the one true language used, finishing around 2050. In the process, Newspeak is somewhat explained, in all its complexities and the definitions for the vocabularies starting with different letters.

the point of Newspeak is to eliminate any possible idea of rebellion, through the removal of negative words in general. Moreover, the complex nature of Newspeak, heavily "censored", makes it difficult for people to translate English texts, and possibly understand a world before newspeak. 

While I see how that could work in this theoretical sense for newer generations under the party, I am confused by the idea of English speakers simply forgetting a language. Moreover, language is ever-changing with time and people, I can't imagine a language itself preventing forms of communication or thought, simply because of the existence of slang and the creation of new words. This makes me wonder how the Party would enact such a drastic change, and how much control they truly have over people's minds. To erase the memory of English, and the idea of rebellion completely is one thing, but it doesn't make sense why one would even need Newspeak if the party could simply remove the threats from the mind.

All in all, this confuses me and I want to know what you think. Can a language ever truly be devoid of negative words/the idea of rebellion? Could the Party make Newspeak work? And finally, how do you think current English speakers in the world would be re-educated/ dealt with??









Comments

  1. I've always thought Newspeak was one of the weaker parts of this book. Granted, language is 100% learned -- no one has ever been born knowing a language -- so it can change how people think, but language is also always evolving.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Room 101

white supremacy and proles

Bankole and Lauren