In the two courses we have had on Literature we
have discussed how important language is for most, if not all, of the authors
we have studied.
Certainly, language creates reality and is the
means by which we can express our feelings, emotions, opinions and most
important of all: our ideas. We need language to communicate with others and to
make ourselves understood by these others. Therefore, the more words we have,
the more accurately our ideas will be conveyed. That is why we need a vast
range of vocabulary and every single word carries a meaning that can be weaker,
stronger, ruder, more polite or even sweeter than other that is considered to
be “synonym”.
Now, if you have a limited vocabulary, you will
be sort of handicapped since you neither will be able to make yourself
understood, nor will be able to understand what others are saying. To my mind,
that is what The Inner Party intends to do by creating the Newspeak Vocabulary.
A suitable definition of Newspeak would be that it was a way to
provide a medium of expression for the devotees of Ingsoc. And as is stated in
The Apprendix of 1984 by Orwell:
“Its vocabulary was so
constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning
that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other
meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This
was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating
undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox
meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a
single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but
it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or
‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of
‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual
freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity
nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words,
reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that
could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to
extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose
was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum”
We can infer, then, that once the
Ingsoc has accomplished its goal, there was no other reality than the one it
would impose and all possible rejections would be erased since anyone could possibly
think nor express what and how they were feeling about the situation and the
context in where they were living.
It seems really interesting to me,
especially because nowadays in our Chilean Society… a sort of “Newspeak” Is
appearing and increasing in an unstoppable way. I would seriously doubt who is
really making and creating the Chilean Newspeak (television, politicians or
central powers, you decide) but I am sure it is happening. We do not need to go
further and start listening to our friends, relatives and people around us and
then start thinking of how many meanings “piola”, “suave”, “mina” and some
other “rude words” have.
Are we actually conveying our ideas
properly? Are we creating the reality that we do want to create or the one that
others are imposing us to do?
“Facts, at any rate, could not be kept hidden. They could be tracked down by inquiry, they could be squeezed out of you by torture. But if the object was not to stay alive but to stay human, what difference did it ultimately make? They could not alter your feelings, for that matter you could not alter them yourself, even if you wanted to. They could lay bare in the utmost detail everything that you had done or said or thought; but the inner heart, whose workings were mysterious even to yourself, remained impregnable.” (Orwell)
Sources:
http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewSpeak
As covered in class and as you pointed out, language creates reality. It is an important feature of post-modern times. I can't leave aside the fact that the Inner Party's idea of installing the Newspeak was fabulous. I mean, how could the proles talk about anything similar to revolution if those words were erased? Certainly, if intelligent and daring people were to find a solution, they might have implemented a system of code words, for example.
ResponderEliminarI also agree with you in your last statements. I believe that some words are over-used. People do not stop and think about the weigh the words they use actually carry. For example, the other day I was watching a documentary and for the first time in months I used the word "maravilloso". Is it that I don't get to amaze so often or is it simply because fewer things than we think deserve that adjective?