I recently read George Orwell's 1984 for the first time on a friend's recommendation. One of the most interesting aspects of the book was Newspeak, the new version of the English language devised by the totalitarian government.
It was so important to Orwell's vision of terrible future that he added an appendix to the book to explain the concepts and purposes of the language. Newspeak was intended to restrict the range of verbal expression and thought - to actually make some things unutterable and therefore unthinkable. This was done by eliminating entire words from the language and eliminating all of the undesirable definitions of the remaining words. The creators of Newspeak worked hard to make sure that the language was a small one with a high degree of precision. If there were no words to express an idea contrary to the government's doctrines, the ideas would fade away or not occur at all. This was one of the government's chief methods of maintaining control.
At first I thought, Orwell given too much power to language, but then I realized that language is something people and organizations throughout time and the world attempt to control. Books have been burned in hopes that their ideas will go up in smoke as well. The political left and right (and all sorts of other types of organizations) attempt to define and redefine words on a constant basis to fit their uses. New words are constantly being added while other ones are being marked as undesirable while still more are having definitions removed or changed entirely.
Then it got me thinking about Newspeak as it relates to recent technology.
Consider computer programming. As a software engineer, I'm constantly trying to control the actions of a computer using a language designed for just that. These languages come with an extremely small amount of words - words that don't correspond to desirable actions have been eliminated. We want the words to be narrowly defined so there won't be any ambiguity and the computer will know exactly what to do.
Consider newer technologies aimed at enabling communication between people. Twitter limits you 140 characters for a single thought. Facebook begs you to give a short status message to tell the world about you at that moment. Texting has changed the face of language by changing the spelling of words and emphasizing short, precise words.
I've begun to be a little nervous that Newspeak is being brought about unwittingly and voluntarily by the creators and consumers of our latest technology.
Orwell's was a pretty bleak (excuse me, double-plus un-good) future. It's been years since I've read that book but I remember finding it interesting as well. Language is power. It's a recurring theme in books about dystopian futures (see Fahrenheit 451) and even as you point out today.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact all oppressive regimes of the future use language to control and enslave the populace, I have decided that English could use some improvement. After being a long term proponent of the so-called Oxford Comma, and having recently read an article about how using a comma in that way can cause ambiguity, I've come to believe English is hopeless. Regardless, the programmer in me says that if I have a number of items in a list, I need a comma between each of the items.
Do I really get the honor of being your first commenter?!? Welcome to the blogging world...
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts on Orwell's book. I'm pretty sure Patrick read it...I'll have to tell him to read your review. I remember having a conversation with someone about the power of language and the ability to convey ideas with the words we are given. In some languages, there are two different words for "sorry" as in, "sorry I tramped on your toe" vs "sorry your dog just died." I can't even imagine how different communication will be by the time our kids are teenagers.
Lynn, you indeed have the dubious distinction of being the first to comment on my blog. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the content as well as the method of human communication will be very different. If for no other reason, than the fact that the latter greatly impacts the former.
Mike, thanks for commenting and even following.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see the article that discusses the Oxford comma causing ambiguity. (Props for teaching me the name also.) I've always been a big proponent of the Oxford comma and have felt that the modern rejection of it was a terrible crime.
Go Oxford comma!....if only I could convince my co-workers of its value! (Can I become a fan of it on Facebook?! Maybe we can use technology to affect language in a positive way...:)
ReplyDeletePS So this is a new blog? The RSS feed I had set up for your old blog didn't catch these so I'll have to set one up for this blog. Have you deleted the old one?
ReplyDeleteAlas the article wasn't particularly erudite... just Wikipedia: Serial Comma
ReplyDeleteMuch like you, I had felt that the seemingly modern trend away from the Oxford comma was an affront to proper grammar and didn't consider any potential reasons why someone might not want to use one. I never gave any thought to the fact that the Oxford comma could create ambiguity. I am inclined, however, to think that in cases where it does create ambiguity are just poorly constructed in general.