Orwells Language

Two days ago I went ho hear a lecture discussing linguistics in Science Fiction.
There is a theory by some guy named Worf (not a relative of Worf) who claims that language imposes behavior. 1984 was given as an example of a society with a very poor language, where they don't have any way to express discontent with the government-and even if they could no one would understand, in this case there is no chance for a change because their language won't let them.
What do you think about this scenario?

I think just like anything else words are invented out of needs as well... When people feel the anger, unhappiness or discontent, they will come up with the words to define those and express them. I think to believe that humanbeings feel and express certain things only because there are words to describe them would be very, VERY naive... In the case of 1984, I would expect that words of discontent had disappeared from the language because they were discouraged and punished severely. Evolution of language in a way... Natural selection of words... Those which are not needed or caused pain to the user were less used and forgotten in time...

*bows out humbly*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenDog

...1984 was given as an example of a society with a very poor language, where they don't have any way to express discontent with the government-and even if they could no one would understand, in this case there is no chance for a change because their language won't let them.
What do you think about this scenario?

---

It's not really coz the language that doesn't allow them. It's the goverment that set up such linguistic system to control the society to the maximum limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

It's not really coz the language that doesn't allow them. It's the goverment that set up such linguistic system to control the society to the maximum limit.

---

I agree with you, subterranean, as the interpretation seems the most fitting. Parts of 1984's restrictions on citizens' faculties reminds me of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. called Harrison Bergeron; if any of you have the time to read it, I highly recommend it.

Language is a communication system. We have developed it in order to express ourselves. Not just to others, but to ourselves as well. We use it to identify and develop what we feel. People can easily talk themselves into an emotional state that they might not have had if they had remained mentally and physically silent. In that sense it is not naive to think that language can determine emotive states. To say that there could be cases where it is the only determining factor is too strong a claim. But then that would apply to any statement regarding emotional states. Emotions are complex and probably cannot be entirely reduced to single factors of origin.

Foreign languages often reveal different types and styles of thought and feeling. These differences seem to me to be very much wrapped up in linguistics. Edward de Bono once had the idea that we could communicate in numbers only. We would have a dictionary which applied meaning to each number arrangement, and then we would just babble numbers to each other. I wonder, if such an idea succeeded, would we feel differently? I think we would. However, this is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Many scientists have different styles of thought and feeling to artists or writers for example. But who is to say that their discipline has fashioned their way of feeling/thinking, rather than their feeling/thinking determining which discipline they take up?

I doubt whether irrational, chaotic or automatic behaviour is imposed by language. But, I think I broadly agree that language can impose, and can certainly influence, behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

People can easily talk themselves into an emotional state that they might not have had if they had remained mentally and physically silent. In that sense it is not naive to think that language can determine emotive states.

Foreign languages often reveal different types and styles of thought and feeling. These differences seem to me to be very much wrapped up in linguistics.

I doubt whether irrational, chaotic or automatic behaviour is imposed by language. But, I think I broadly agree that language can impose, and can certainly influence, behaviour.

---

It is possible for people to talk themselves into emotional states but what if this state is a brand new to them? They would, surely, come up with a new word to describe that. It is like young children learning to express their emotions;initially, they would be upset/angry/happy but show these feelings only through actions. As their vocabulary develops, they begin to use expressions like :"I am cross!"/"It is not fair!"/"Thank you!" They didn't use these expressions not because they didn't feel these things before but because they didn't know the right words to express themselves. So, it is more likely that we feel without necessarily knowing the label of certain emotions...

As for foreign languages... I speak three languages fairly good and one of the things which strikes me most is the absence of certain words in their vocabularies. Those words were not invented simply because the native speakers did not feel the need for them. And in modern times, when the need arises, they mostly copy it from another language which already has that word.

I would agree with your last statement... that language can impose behaviour but I disagree that we feel the way we do because there is a word defining that in our vocabulary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I doubt whether irrational, chaotic or automatic behaviour is imposed by language. But, I think I broadly agree that language can impose, and can certainly influence, behaviour.

---

I strongly agree that language can influence behavior, but I think cognition comes before language, and behavior can also have its influence on cognition, as surroundings can manipulate the mood of a perceiver. And truly behavior needs no proof to show that it existed before language, for the most primitive beings most likely acted together (body language?) before carrying on a conversation, let alone forming a rhetorical reading/writing/communication system.

This might interest you all as it shows how a language develops:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/maga...n-language.html

mono>primitive tribes example is a good one :)

***bump***

For information. The person referred to in the very first post in this thread is the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). He argued in a series of articles that in effect we are 'prisoners of our lanugage'. (Here 'our language' doesn't necessarily refer only to English, French, etc but could include things like 'Newspeak' in 1984 or 'Basic English'. This interest was reflected in such statements as 'The limits of my thought are the limits of my language' (Wittgenstein, I think).

Such notions were enornously popular in the period from c. 1920 till perhaps the late 1950s, but have become increasingly controversial since about 1960 and I think the majority of linguists have rejected the notion since the 1970s. The main reasons are #1 that in practice people (or a fair number of them) do have the ability to make the language serve them - and not the other way round. #2 If we really were prisoners of our language(s) then adequate translation wouldn't be possible. #3 How does one separate culture (in the senses of 'way of life' and 'way(s) of thinking' from the language(s) used in a society?

It's also worth bearing in mind that when Whorf was writing people used to refer to things like 'the genius of the English language' and the like, suggesting - perhaps not intentionally - that languages had a life of their own.

Tonight is quoting night. I am sorry. But the answer to your question is to be found in 1984. Here it goes:
"goodthinkful" in Newspeak means "naturally orthodox, incapable of thinking a bad thought".'
"...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..."
(part II, chapter 5, conversation between winston and syme)
Cheers,
nns