Language and Thought

[Eitan]

While reading the part about syme editing Newspeak into its final form the connection between language and thought was brought up. It is, I believe a major theme throughout this novel. I was wondering how vocabulary is used by the Party to shape the thoughts of the populace, particularly the Proles. By eliminating all synonims and antonyms, when in the book it is stated that "After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other words? A word contains its opposite in itself." By eliminating major swaths of vocabulary can the Party eliminate those subtle shades of meaning that those words represent, the difference between the words "nice, wonderful, good, great, and fine?"

I belive that the vocabulary which the party allows the populace to use does, in fact, affect their thoughts and their understanding. When we think, at least when I think, we think in words and sentances. Thoughts like "This pizza is scrumptious" and "That potato looks grotesque" are some examples of typical thoughts. However if we replace these sentances with newspeak they lose a lot of their power, "Pizza plusgood" and "Potato unplusgood." They simply do not convey the same message. While mathematically the sentances contain roughly the same meaning, the subtelties are completely lost. By altering the way that the people can think, the party alters the way the people do think.

[Loren]

I agree with you Eitan. Newspeak is just another way to control the people. The ability for people to express their thoughts is taken away because the language is so limited. It is ironic that Syme had such a great and intricate in Newsspeak, while the purpose of newspeak is to limit complex understanding. For innovative thought may lead to undermine the party, and that is a risk not worth taking for the party.

[Alon]

I agree with Eitan. As Syme says himself, the purpose of Newspeak is to erase any verbal and written means of political rebellion. No one can start an insurrection for liberty and freedom if those words do not exist. Any political right worth fighting for has been destroyed by the replacement of English with Newspeak.

[Arielle]

I agree with all of the above comments. By curbing the population's vocabulary, the Party is limiting society's thoughts. I also think this is a huge representation of how the Party can control individuality, as well. With everyone using the same words with six options on how to describe in furthur detail, the flavor of the people begins to wither. WIthout being able to express our emotions at our fullest, we are just no different than the person next to us.

[Grace]

I'm with you three on this one for sure. Like we discussed in class, it's nearly impossible to discern truth from fiction unless it is somehow communicated through language, in either writing or speech. By limiting the vocabulary of the population to simple, "efficient" words, it is much harder for them to express themselves in full--which leads to further control over Oceania for the Party.

[Ada]

I also agree with the idea that the Party can curb rebellion through limiting speech. It is scary how much control the Party has over a person's mind and actions through things like just limiting the vocabulary a person is able to use. This elimination of "superfluous" words goes back to the discussion we had in class about the paperweight. The beauty of language is in the nuances of all the different words that seem to convey the same thing. The Party is taking away the beauty of language, just as it takes away the beauty in the natural world, by limiting people's abilities to buy things like a nice-looking paperweight. I think that also by eliminating this appreciation for beauty, the Party is trying to take the humanity out of its people. Thus, they become like robots who are easier to control.