PDA

View Full Version : language and 1984



Simon Alvey
06-07-2004, 01:00 AM
I would like to start by saying that you are, in my opinion, totally correct that the main message from 1984 is the problem of the destruction of the English Language, narrowing thought and emotion to a single phrase, to make rebellion impossible, text message langauge is an informal Newspeak which is narrowing people's range of langauge. <br><br>However teenagers are good people and although they may do some things that are sometimes regrettable they are, to be utterly cliched, our future and many of them are astute and politicised people who understand the world we live, so please don't put us all into a box. <br><br>My main problem with text message langauge is when it is used out of context, in adverts or newspaper headline, because it came about to solve a problem (that text messages only allow 150 characters per message and so you had to be brief) but outside of this situation they are annoying, depressing and dangerous.

Kirstyn
01-22-2005, 11:56 PM
Well, I think the change in the language of society is due to natural change. Every language is changing constantly. I'm sure you're not able to read the English texts of the 1200's, so why should this be any different?

Unregistered
02-11-2005, 04:19 PM
The gradual simplification of language and removal of words that allow people to frame abstract thoughts and emotions and express nuances of meaning, is certainly a powerful step in controlling the masses. Besides such practise reducing the means to create and imagine would, simultaneously, slowly leach-out the richness and wisdom that our history and culture has imbued into the language. This sterilising effect would contribute towards the loss of heritage and thus the identity of individuals and in effect, "reset" things, leaving a blank sheet on which Big Brother can write.<br><br>It would also lead to the death of ambiguity, paradoxical thinking and choke the process of lateral thinking. This would help maintain the status quo, a timeless machine locked into an eternal cycle of mental impotence.

Ralphael
03-11-2005, 05:33 PM
I thoroughly agree. The worst part of it is that teachers LIKE having children that don't use "big words" When I was in Seventh grade, I was chastised by my idiot teacher for using a wide vocabulary. She even said, when a student complained of my speech, that "Oh, Ralph just likes to use big words". In truth, there are no big words, my friends, only small minds.

Karen
03-17-2005, 11:41 AM
Absolutely. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak. Limiting the usage of words and defining the new words rigidly will eventually lead to a generation of children who speaks Newspeak only. Without the flares and extravagant descriptions of the old language, the ability to express oneís feelings is erased. Orwell expresses this new form of language which is absolutely absurd in our lives right now. Not only does Newspeak limit the usage of certain words, it limits the thoughts of the individual.

04sengerlach
03-17-2005, 05:37 PM
I donít think that words really can be reduced as far as the communication isnít reduced. You only use the words in a sense of communication. That means they are pure subject. People can think whatever they want, but only if they want to tell others they have to use words. And if there are no words they describe or invent some worlds (so as the average adolescent). I think the problem is, that what syme describes here is his own vision, an example for an ideology were there should be none, because the only aim of the party was to have the power, as oíbrien points out to Winston in part 3. that is another example for people donít giving up hoping and loving other things than big brother.<br>Greetings,<br>Sengerlach.<br>

Unregistered
03-21-2005, 06:47 PM
You hide behind intellectual snobbery. Winston Smith is beaten, as would you be in any simlar circumstance.

Doug
05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Reflect on the degradation of language in 1984; here is Orwells greatest warning to the free world.<br>Unless words have specific, precise identifiable and common meanings how is it possible to conceive of ideas such as freedom, oppression, resistance and the like. If it is no longer possible to formulate abstract ideas and communicate them then action and creativity are no longer posible and control is absolute and complete.<br>"Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on: 'Don't you see 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 in which 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. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline,reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak, , he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ' Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?"<br>Look at the vocabulary of the average adolescent, the script of the avarage movie or the corruption of language by commentators and newsreader on the idiot box; we are half way there already and don't even see it.<br>Buy a dictionary and good books and read, read, read, and you will be able to say with C.S.Lewis," The scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and microphones of his own age"<br>