# 1984 - More about linguistic tyranny than totalitarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379 "2013-07-01T18:18:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/41 "2013-07-02T14:57:27Z")
Exactly. If words or certain meanings of words are outlawed then existing words will be shanghai-ed to do double duty and if all modifications to words is verboten, gestures or facial movements or something less noticeable would develop. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/42 "2013-07-02T15:07:57Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > But what you’re missing is that the whole point of Newspeak wasn’t just to render political **thought** impossible but rather to render political **discourse** impossible. The idea being that by reducing the vocabulary people’s ability to discuss anything will be likewise reduced. As the people come to know fewer and fewer words they become less able to express any dissident thoughts they may have. > > Essentially it was a way of ensuring that should there be another “revolution” it would be a revolution of one because the one would be unable to meaningfully communicate any idea simply because the words don’t exist. Refer back to the entire Declaration of Independence (UN Charter on Human rights, Gettysburg Address take your pick) being reduced to the single word “Thoughtcrime” I agree that that’s what Orwell is getting at, but I never thought it was terribly realistic. As long as there are words of some sort, they can be repurposed into a political context. I suspect that Newspeak can’t get rid of the verb “have,” so there will always be Haves and Have-nots. It probably still needs the words “dig” and “level,” so there can still be Diggers and Levelers. And Boxers, and Wobblies, and Roundheads, and Greens, and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/43 "2013-07-02T15:10:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Bear in mind that (1) Orwell was part of the intellectual elite, and (2) the intellectual elite are practically the only ones in the world who object even in theory to dumbing things down. (1) Not all of the elite are evil. I didn’t mean to imply that if I did. But not all intellectuals are good, either. Just like any other grouping of humans, you get both good and bad in the group. (2) I am not a member of the intellectual elite. I object to dumbing things down as a matter of standard policy. I doubt I am alone in this. RE post #26: What a shaky house of cards “civilization” seems to me, sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/44 "2013-07-02T15:29:14Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Newspeak consists of three vocabularies, technical words (potassium for instance), joiner words (and, in, etc) and everything else. It is the everything else category that I’m concerned with here. > > The underlying principle of Newspeak is to constrict the “everything else” group as much as possible. What words can be scrapped would be - in 1984 the process isn’t complete yet - and what words couldn’t be scrapped would be stripped of all meaning beyond the most superficial and simplistic. > > One example that Orwell uses in the book is the word _free_. It cannot be scrapped - at present - because the idea of “without cost” is still useful. The other senses of free (political freedom, personal freedom, unencumbered etc) would cease to exist. > > Scrap what words you can and narrow the definition of those you can’t. > > The end result being that the entirety of Declaration of Independence would read, “Thoughtcrime.” > > As for implementation, IngSoc controls all media, all information all publications. As Newspeak develops it will be reflected in all media. As people die off and the process continues fewer and fewer people will know, to use the above example, that “free” used to mean anything other than without cost. Those few that still know of the other definitions wouldn’t matter because they couldn’t make themselves meaningfully understood. > > But what you’re missing is that the whole point of Newspeak wasn’t just to render political **thought** impossible but rather to render political **discourse** impossible. The idea being that by reducing the vocabulary people’s ability to discuss anything will be likewise reduced. As the people come to know fewer and fewer words they become less able to express any dissident thoughts they may have. > > Essentially it was a way of ensuring that should there be another “revolution” it would be a revolution of one because the one would be unable to meaningfully communicate any idea simply because the words don’t exist. Refer back to the entire Declaration of Independence (UN Charter on Human rights, Gettysburg Address take your pick) being reduced to the single word “Thoughtcrime” I always wondered about that. By O’Brien’s account, the whole point of the Oceanian state is to give Inner Party members the sadomasochistic thrill of breaking rebels like Winston. He emphasizes that what he is now going through with Winston will be replayed over and over and over with others, forever. But not if Newspeak makes thoughtcrime impossible. Then all the fun goes out of it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/45 "2013-07-02T15:31:34Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Newspeak is a top to bottom revision of the language - actually you could almost say it is its own language but uses English words as the base. Kinda like [Basic English](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_english) only more so. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/46 "2013-07-02T16:31:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh? It seems odd to me to not recognize that word meanings can change and expand over time (and through normal linguistic evolution and not some conscious effort at deception), and it had been over 60 years since that book was published. It’s odder still to me that you seem to be under the impression I was questioning the validity of Orwell’s neologisms. > > That said, I can honestly say I’ve never seen anyone use “doublethink” to mean “reconsider”, for what it’s worth. I must admit that the notion of words changing and evolving over time had not occurred to me. Ever. Not even once. Because Im dumb and clearly have no understanding of the language that I have been using - with some degree of success - for nearly 4 decades now. Thanks for the insight. Whether you have heard a particular word used in a particular way has pretty much no effect on the fact that I have heard it used that way. Why did you ask for examnples of their misuse if your response amounts to little more than well I havent so neener neener neener. I didnt suggest you were questioning the validity of Orwells neologisms but rather the notion that a man coins news words with specific meanings for a specific purpose but his definition and intent are irrelevant because language evolves and so just use them to mean whatever you like. The dangers of so slippery an approach to language is one of the fundaments of his philosophy (as far as I have been able to discern). ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/47 "2013-07-02T16:32:17Z")
Take the real-life example of the Chinese government’s censorship of Weibo. There’s a list of forbidden words (that is updated often) that will make tweets disappear. It’s designed to prevent political speech the government doesn’t like. Except the speech still happens, because the speakers simply substitute another word for the forbidden one. Any living language will generate the words its speakers need. If one can’t use “free” to mean “without coercion” then something else will gain that connotation. Maybe “unsliced”? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/48 "2013-07-02T16:43:24Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > I didnt suggest you were questioning the validity of Orwells neologisms but rather the notion that a man coins news words with specific meanings for a specific purpose but his definition and intent are irrelevant because language evolves and so just use them to mean whatever you like. The dangers of so slippery an approach to language is one of the fundaments of his philosophy (as far as I have been able to discern). You should read Frindle. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/49 "2013-07-02T17:32:27Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > I must admit that the notion of words changing and evolving over time had not occurred to me. Ever. Not even once. Because Im dumb and clearly have no understanding of the language that I have been using - with some degree of success - for nearly 4 decades now. Thanks for the insight. Sorry, you don’t get to bizarrely misread my comments and then pretend I’m the one being condescending. > [@](#): > > Whether you have heard a particular word used in a particular way has pretty much no effect on the fact that I have heard it used that way. Why did you ask for examnples of their misuse if your response amounts to little more than well I havent so neener neener neener. Well, I did ask for a cite, which is hardly unusual around here, hoping for some web-based article or editorial or blog or whatever that uses “thoughtcrime” or “doublethink” in a manner showing an utter ignorance of Orwell’s message. Of course, I don’t know what _conversational_ circles you run in. Maybe every single one of your friends and acquaintances thinks “duckspeak” is just a fancy word for “quack”. > [@](#): > > I didnt suggest you were questioning the validity of Orwells neologisms but rather the notion that a man coins news words with specific meanings for a specific purpose but his definition and intent are irrelevant because language evolves and so just use them to mean whatever you like. The dangers of so slippery an approach to language is one of the fundaments of his philosophy (as far as I have been able to discern). You’re reading _way_ too much into my comment. I simply added a qualifer recognizing the possibility that some of Orwell’s phrases might have taken on secondary meanings in the 65 years since _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ was published. I’m actually being open to the idea of what you suggest - that Orwell’s words are being misused by people who have little or no idea what the original meaning was - I just don’t know of any examples offhand. If you know of some that I can read, I invite you to provide links. If not, well… neener, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/50 "2013-07-02T18:00:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sorry, you don’t get to bizarrely misread my comments and then pretend I’m the one being condescending. Sure I do, in fact I did. Not the “bizarrely misreading bit” but certainly guilty of justified condescension. Glad to have cleared that up for you. > [@](#): > > Well, I did ask for a cite, which is hardly unusual around here, hoping for some web-based article or editorial or blog or whatever that uses “thoughtcrime” or “doublethink” in a manner showing an utter ignorance of Orwell’s message. Sorry, I obviously wasn’t quite clear enough when I said I do not have a cite but I have heard them misused in the way that I described. But I guess I was wrong since you have never heard it must be a hallucination on my part. Thanks for sorting me out. Is there anything else that I’ve never heard or seen because you haven’t? If you think of any others please let me know. > [@](#): > > Of course, I don’t know what _conversational_ circles you run in. Maybe every single one of your friends and acquaintances thinks “duckspeak” is just a fancy word for “quack”. You don’t know my friends, and you certainly wouldn’t condescend to speak to one of them. > [@](#): > > You’re reading _way_ too much into my comment. I simply added a qualifer recognizing the possibility that some of Orwell’s phrases might have taken on secondary meanings in the 65 years since _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ was published. Add whatever qualifier you like. You are still wrong. An unqualified wrong in point of fact. > [@](#): > > I’m actually being open to the idea of what you suggest - that Orwell’s words are being misused by people who have little or no idea what the original meaning was - I just don’t know of any examples offhand. If you know of some that I can read, I invite you to provide links. If not, well… neener, I guess. I’d invite you to get a clue. I can’t say that I’ve found you enlightening but at least you’re irritating so you have that going for you. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/51 "2013-07-02T18:12:24Z")
Yeah… this is getting too immature for me. ---
**Author:** ![Philliam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/philliam/32/3011_2.png) [@Philliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philliam)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/52 "2013-07-02T18:16:06Z")
We don’t have go farther than our TV or AM radio to get more ‘prolefeed’ than you can shake a stick at. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/53 "2013-07-02T18:18:31Z")
He’s not saying that you must not have heard what you did, but simply that he has not and cannot, therefore, join you in believing people misuse Orwell’s newspeak. This is what we call being evidenced-based. I don’t understand the rest of your comments. Are you saying that Bryan Ekers is incontrovertibly wrong in leaving open the possibility that in colloquial speech, some words from 1984 have morphed in meaning? You realize that would require you to list every instance of one of those words being used and a single instance of a word being used in a new or different way would prove you wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/54 "2013-07-02T18:32:20Z")
Acually, I can think of an example, likely familiar to many of the readers here, of a newspeak word being used incorrectly. It was an episode of _M_A_S_H\* ([“The Late Captain Pierce”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Captain_Pierce)) in which Hawkeye has, though a bureaucratic error, been declared dead. An administrative officer, Captain Pratt, described the entensive and Kafka-esque paperwork necessary to “un-kill” Hawkeye, and at one point says something along the lines of: “You are what George Orwell described in _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as an ‘unperson’.” When I first saw this episode (it first aired in 1975, if I didn’t see it then it must have been soon after), I had no idea who George Orwell was or that “1984” was a novel and not a reference to the actual year, which would have been at least 30 years after the events of the episode itself, set in 1950 or so, adding to my confusion. Anyway, an “unperson” as Orwell described is someone who _never_ existed, i.e. all official records of their existence deleted. Hawkeye is merely (on paper) dead, his former existence is still on the books. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/55 "2013-07-04T01:36:25Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Sure I do, in fact I did. Not the “bizarrely misreading bit” but certainly guilty of justified condescension. Glad to have cleared that up for you. > > Sorry, I obviously wasn’t quite clear enough when I said I do not have a cite but I have heard them misused in the way that I described. But I guess I was wrong since you have never heard it must be a hallucination on my part. Thanks for sorting me out. Is there anything else that I’ve never heard or seen because you haven’t? If you think of any others please let me know. > > You don’t know my friends, and you certainly wouldn’t condescend to speak to one of them. > > Add whatever qualifier you like. You are still wrong. An unqualified wrong in point of > fact. > > I’d invite you to get a clue. > > I can’t say that I’ve found you enlightening but at least you’re irritating so you have that going for you. **Bryan** I haven’t read anything since my above quoted post. I did that intentionally because I got frustrated and needlessly and stupidly pissy. My last post was over-the-top asshole for Café Society and I was out of line. I’m sorry. Zeke ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/56 "2013-07-04T01:41:07Z")
Accepted. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/57 "2013-07-04T02:49:06Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Take the real-life example of the Chinese government’s censorship of Weibo. There’s a list of forbidden words (that is updated often) that will make tweets disappear. It’s designed to prevent political speech the government doesn’t like. Except the speech still happens, because the speakers simply substitute another word for the forbidden one. > > Any living language will generate the words its speakers need. If one can’t use “free” to mean “without coercion” then something else will gain that connotation. Maybe “unsliced”? I dunno about the PRC, but in Oceania, innovative word-substitution/code in Newspeak works only until the Thought Police realize it’s happening (which might well be long before it actually **does** happen, if you take my meaning) and then it becomes (or always was) a handy thoughtcrime-detection tool, because if they did not invent the code themselves they can soon and easily crack it, and stay ahead of the curve. (Newspeak’s sharply truncated vocabulary makes this easier still.) ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/58 "2013-07-05T15:19:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I dunno about the PRC, but in Oceania, innovative word-substitution/code in Newspeak works only until the Thought Police realize it’s happening (which might well be long before it actually **does** happen, if you take my meaning) and then it becomes (or always was) a handy thoughtcrime-detection tool, because if they did not invent the code themselves they can soon and easily crack it, and stay ahead of the curve. (Newspeak’s sharply truncated vocabulary makes this easier still.) That might work for a while, but eventually coded speech would become indistinguishable from utilitarian speech. Does “I’m going to the store for some bread” mean the obvious or does it mean I’m meeting with my subversive collaborators? Of course that brings to mind the [Ascian language](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascian_language) in Gene Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun. In that totalitarian state, nevermind words, only approved sentences are permitted to be spoken. (Amazing that there’s actually a Wikipedia entry on it.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/59 "2013-07-05T16:20:07Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Of course that brings to mind the [Ascian language](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascian_language) in Gene Wolfe’s Book of the New Sun. In that totalitarian state, nevermind words, only approved sentences are permitted to be spoken. (Amazing that there’s actually a Wikipedia entry on it.) Something akin to that is mentioned in _1984_, preprinted letters that contained long lists of phrases, the “writer” to strike out the ones that didn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379/60 "2013-07-05T16:44:38Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > That might work for a while, but eventually coded speech would become indistinguishable from utilitarian speech. That’s the beauty of it! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1984-more-about-linguistic-tyranny-than-totalitarianism/662379.md?page=4)