Ramona-Paula Filimon, IIB 20th century British Literature

Group 6, Chinese-English lect. Eliana Ionoaia, PhD

Language in George Orwells 1984

The Partys control of language in Orwells 1984 marks not only an obnoxious
hatred for language, but also a means through which human mind, communication and
rational thinking can be restrained, or even completely abolished. The fictional totalitarian
regime exerts its power upon the citizens of Oceania not only when it comes to personal
privacy or belongings, but more noticeably when it comes to the freedom of thinking. In
1984, language is assigned several purposes. First of all, this essay will be looking at Orwells
conception of language as depicted in one of his essays. Secondly, we will deal with the new
language that Orwell sets up for this novel and its principles, as well as language as an
oppressive device. Finally, the issue of language as a means to narrow human thinking will be
touched upon.
Orwell begins his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language with a rather
alarming view towards the English language and what it represents to his contemporary
society:
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language
is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do
anything about it. (127)

From the very beginning he puts forward the idea that the English language is decadent and
flawed, and its flaws have to do with imperfect politics. "Modern English ... is full of bad
habits...If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a
necessary first step toward political regeneration." (Politics,128) Basically, Orwell seems
to view language as an object, something separate from ourselves (Chapman, 57).
In his essay, Orwell discusses the corruption of language: But if thought corrupts
language, language can also corrupt thought (Politics, 137). However, Chapman
dismisses this idea, pointing out that throughout the entire essay Orwell uses words such as
decay, corrupt, but he never truly defines what he understands by corruption. To support
this statement, he argues that the idea of
language corruption presumes some standard from which the language has
degenerated, and such a view naively overlooks the history of language. After all,

1
Ramona-Paula Filimon, IIB 20th century British Literature

Group 6, Chinese-English lect. Eliana Ionoaia, PhD

language has changed continuously, so where do we find the standard? (Chapman,

57)

Overlooking the history of language, we would assume that Shakespeares English is corrupt
in comparison with that of Chaucers, Chapman says, and that Chaucers English is corrupt in
comparison with Modern English, but this assumption is far from the actual truth.
In Orwells novel, we are facing a new totalitarian regime, a new ideology and a new
language. It is in relation to it (Newspeak) that the language fully acquires its importance in
the novel. (Ranieri, 93)
The new language that Orwell introduces in 1984 was meant not only to provide a
medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,
but to make all other modes of thought impossible. (Orwell, 299) The latter purpose of
Newspeak finds its materialisation in simplifying the vocabulary of the new language as
much as to eliminate all possible unorthodox meanings of words, as well as making it
impossible for speakers to express ideas that do not obey the ideology of the Party.
However, attempting to implement a new language and a new set of rules,
grammatical principles and even new vocabulary in an already established society, is, in fact,
impossible. Although in the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as
his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing [] it was expected that
Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak [] by about the year 2050. (Orwell,
299)
The creation of Newspeak consist of reducing unnecessary words of the currently
used Oldspeak and simplifying its grammar. Words belonging to different parts of speech can
be used interchangeably, with no formal distinction whatsoever; thus, a concept such as
doublethink can be used both as a noun and a verb. Other parts of speech, such as adjectives
and adverbs, can be formed by attaching suffixes (-ful and wise, respectively); affixation is
used even to negate words or to strengthen their meaning (ungood used to convey the
meaning of bad, and goodwise to express well).
A superfluous interpretation of creating such a new language would be that of
providing people a simpler means of communication. A similar, real-life issue that reminds
one of the case of Newspeak in 1984 is the reformation of the Chinese writing system in
1950s Communist China. This (along with the failed attempt at unifying all Chinese dialects

2
Ramona-Paula Filimon, IIB 20th century British Literature

Group 6, Chinese-English lect. Eliana Ionoaia, PhD

into one) was meant to increase literacy throughout Mainland China and ensure a better
understanding between all ethnic groups. The new writing system was adopted and it is still
used today in most regions of China (with the exception of Hong Kong, Taiwan and some
others), researchers argue that this change in writing causes a loss of meaning and that the
reformation was only meant to bring benefits to the Party and not to the people. However, in
the case of Newspeak in 1984 one can argue that its main purpose was not that of coming in
handy to the people, but it is rather the essential mechanism of brainwashing, eliminating any
kind of individual freedom or rational thinking. The way in which the Party makes use of
language to impose its ideology will be dealt with in the next part of the essay.
In Politics..., Orwell claims that language is a natural growth and not an
instrument which we shape for our own purposes (127), but he does the exact opposite in
crafting the form for Newspeak. This is obviously not Orwell contradicting his own beliefs,
but rather as a way of discrediting the Partys attempts at controlling human minds by
modifying language.
Man is essentially linguistic, [] he sees and apprehends reality through language,
[] he presences his world and himself in language. (Blakemore, 349) Throughout
history, language has been one of the devices that a totalitarian regime uses in order to
impose its ideology. Let us think about the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party
through posters that illustrated leader Mao Zedong in an almighty demeanour, along with
rather lengthy red-lettered sentences to spread the Partys ideology. Or let us think about
Hitlers speeches, which made use not only of commanding language, but also impeccable
rhetoric. They are all instances of how language is used as an oppressive device by
totalitarian regimes. This is exactly what happens with 1984, where

[] by controlling language and information through a complex coercive apparatus,

the Party realizes a mind control of its subjects that is total in both extension and
intensity. In extension, because the totality of the subjects is dominated; in intensity,
because any individual thought is totally dominated. (Ranieri, 93)

Thus, no one is immune to the Partys power; it controls every single human mind and turns it
in favour of its principles. Even Winston, who was a firm believer that he was free of any
brainwashing performed by the Party, is not actually free at all.

3
Ramona-Paula Filimon, IIB 20th century British Literature

Group 6, Chinese-English lect. Eliana Ionoaia, PhD

In the Partys decision of destroying any possible unorthodox meanings of words

and eliminating freedom of thought, Blakemore notices that

the partys linguistic ideology is paradoxically anti-linguistic. It uses language to

mask a hatred of language; it destroys history and heritage; it prepares new
dictionaries so man cannot express himself through language (349).

Therefore, we notice several ways in which language is used as an oppressive device:

alteration of history, invention of dictionaries, propaganda by means of slogans. Even
technology is a way for the Party to control the human mind.

The issue of alteration of history is touched upon throughout the entire novel.
Winston is a worker in Records Department at the Ministry of Truth, a department that
handles the records of the Party, and therefore, handles the writing (or rewriting, in this case)
of history. Through him, we witness a clear destruction of what history actually means. As
the Party attempts to abolish the linguistic past incarnated in books, magazines, and texts,
the consciousness of Oceanias inhabitants is linguistically controlled. (Blakemore, 349) No
matter with which state Oceania was at war with at a given moment, the workers of this
department were required to solely meet the demands of the Party in writing the pieces that
will last over the years known as historical records. However, that was not the case, because
every time Oceania changed war opponents, existing records were destroyed and their place
was taken by new ones, which were meant to show the people a fake reality. Therefore, one
could not dispute the accuracy of such records because, first of all, one could not find proof
that a given event truly did (or did not) take place and, second of all, the minds of the
population were already washed out, so hardly anyone would be aware of the things that the
Party did in order to maintain its power.

By far the most used slogan of the Party is the three-sentence War is peace/
Freedom is slavery/ Ignorance is strength and it best example of what the Party wanted to
impose as doublethinking. The state of Oceania was at constant war with either Eastasia or
Eurasia, but the fact that they were at war was not to be seen in the regular citizens life, in
the sense that he could still live a peaceful life as long as he obeyed the principles of the
Party. Freedom is slavery was meant to discourage whoever had the slightest ambition of
seeking freedom, while Ignorance is strength was meant to impose the ordinary citizen the

4
Ramona-Paula Filimon, IIB 20th century British Literature

Group 6, Chinese-English lect. Eliana Ionoaia, PhD

do as you are told and dont question anything ideology; it was required of the ordinary
citizen to do as the Party says, without questioning its actions or requirements and without
using rational thinking.

In 1984, language is not necessarily just modified, but rather destroyed. Syme, who
works on the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak dictionary, acknowledges that

the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought (?) In the end we shall
make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words to express it.
Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its
meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
(Orwell, 52)

This destruction of words and eliminating any possible other meaning of words has obvious
consequences on the issue of literature. With no possibility to use words to express multiple
meanings, not only will literature written in Newspeak be different, but it will also have a
totally contradictory interpretation from what it had before and it could also become extinct.
Moreover, even the Partys slogans will be altered; under no circumstances will a slogan such
as Freedom is slavery exist, taking into account that the concept of freedom will not exist
anymore. In his Politics, Orwell summarises what could be interpreted as the aim of the
linguistic ideology of the Party: "If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst
follies of orthodoxy." (139)

Orwells criticism toward totalitarian regimes of his time takes shape in 1984 into
the creation of a new language. Its constantly reducing vocabulary which will ultimately lead
to destroying language itself is the Partys attempt to keep its people under complete
surveillance by means of linguistic ideology.

Bibliography:

Orwell, George. 1984. New York, N.Y.: Published by Signet Classic, 1977. Print.

Orwell, George. 1968. Politics and the English Language. In The Collected
essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angos, vol. 4, ed.
1, 127-40. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.

5
Ramona-Paula Filimon, IIB 20th century British Literature

Group 6, Chinese-English lect. Eliana Ionoaia, PhD

Blakemore, Steven. Language and Ideology in Orwell's 1984. Social Theory and
Practice, vol. 10, no. 3, 1984, pp. 349356., www.jstor.org/stable/23556571.
Chapman, Don (1989) "Orwell's Language and Thought in "Politics and the English
Language" and 1984," Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 15: Iss. 1,
Article 7. < http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol15/iss1/7 > 14 Apr. 2017.
Ranieri, R. (2016). Language and power George Orwells 1984 and Cormac
mccarthys The Road as sources for a critical study on ecclesial discursivity and
hermeneutic. Disputatio philosophica : International journal on philosophy and religion,
1(1), 95-102. <http://hrcak.srce.hr/173538>. 14 Apr. 2017.