PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell and the power of language. 2009.

Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso
em: 4 jul. 2017.

“a specific element of the complex structure of domination imagined in Nineteen

Eighty-Four: the language.” (PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell and the power of language.
2009. Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso em:
4 jul. 2017.)

“the domination of truth. This aim is named by Orwell “reality control”; it is in relation
to it that the language fully acquires its importance in the novel. By controlling
language and information through a complex coercive apparatus, the Party realises a
mind control of its subjects that is “total” in both extension and intensity. In extension,
because the totality of
the subjects is dominated; in intensity, because any individual thought is totally
dominated.” (PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell and the power of language. 2009. Disponível
em: <http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso
em: 4 jul. 2017.)

“Even though thought only exists in individual minds, it is also in constant connection
with the thoughts of the other individuals in the specific human reality, i.e. society. This
relation implies the mutual conditioning of the individual thoughts, that is to say the
intersubjective character of thought [This is also true in a psichological sense, for
human beings are naturally inclined to conformity. This aspect is particularly stressed in
Orwell's Animal Farm.]. But the relation also implies a means that makes the
interactions possible. In Orwell, as in mid-20th century analytic philosophy [This
remark does not imply that this assumption has been abandoned later, or that it never
existed before (only a few years ago, in 2001, Searle said exactly: “Those who control
the language also control the power”). It states that in this period it arose with particular
force and self-consciousness. That's also why we could think that, either Orwell was
particularly sensitive to the general cultural atmosphere of his time, much beyond his
main interests in politics and literature, or he had some notions of contemporary
philosophy, and an excellent understanding of them. Some elements of O'Brien's
argumentations would suggest the second hypothesis.], the mean par excellence is
language, which is not a neutral means that would not alter the thought it
communicates. On the contrary, the individual thought consists in a linguistic
construction. This is the critical point on which a monopolistic power able to impose
changes on language may act. By changing the language, it would also change the
“chessboard” of individual thought, determining all its possible “moves”.”
(PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell and the power of language. 2009. Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso em:
4 jul. 2017.)

“In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the relation of this philosophical assumption with the
existence of a totalitarian regime has two main consequences. The first is about the
richness of thought, i.e. the number of different thoughts, and different shades of the
same concept, possible to the individual. Simplifying the language, for example
eliminating synonyms, contraries and adjectives, therefore results in the
impoverishment of possible thought and, we could say, in a greyer world. But the most
powerful feature of language, vital for a totalitarian will, consists in its constructive, and
therefore destructive, power over thoughts. By controlling the language, the Party can
realise much more than a “greyer world”. By destroying terms, or some modality of
their use, it can destroy the significance of a concept (especially if abstract). Language
control therefore realises a negative “mind control” (that is to say, only a part, but a vital
part nonetheless, of the “reality control” convenient to a “will of total domination”). In
the appendix of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell fully presents this function of Newspeak,
the official (and artificial) language of Oceania:” (PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell and the
power of language. 2009. Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso em:
4 jul. 2017.)

“In the same appendix, Orwell also discussed some technicalities about how this process
was concretely realised. It seems very difficult to judge whether such a language could
really be realised. For instance, modern linguistic models (especially those linked to
Chomsky's 'linguistic revolution') have cast many doubts on the possibility to use an
artificial language in real life. Linguistic faculty seems to have a structure and learning
mechanisms of its own, which cannot be changed without changing the very biologic
structure of the brain [This is naturally a problem for Orwell's ontology, and not for
O'Brien's one, which states the very possibility of changing (even “creating”) human
nature according to the Party's will. But of course the latter is an ideal-nihilistic illusion,
made real by a specific mode of mind domination over the totality of individuals. The
problem can be complicated if we consider that modern neurosciences have known
impressive development. If a totalitarian regime would arise today, this could be very
dangerous. O'Brien's statements could become true in a naturalistic sense. But here
again, the problem is not simple, since totalitarianism, being intrinsically opposite to
empirical thought, is very weak in scientific and technical progress.]. It is also true that
this especially applies to syntax, while Orwell's hypothesis seems to deal more closely
with semantics. In any case, some kind of language alteration has been historically
realised, especially in the Soviet Union.” (PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell and the power of
language. 2009. Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso em:
4 jul. 2017.)

“the specific linguistic features that Orwell identifies as characteristic of English

decadence [In summary, they are: (a) the use of metaphors that are incompatible with
the suggested meaning; (b) the use of prolix and vague phrases instead of single precise
verbs; (c) “pretentious diction”, based on Latin or Greek words; (d) the use of words
without a definite meaning; (e) the use of abstract and vague words instead of vivid
images as examples]. It is nonetheless interesting to note that they deeply differ from
the structure of Newspeak imagined in Nineteen Eighty-Four, to the extent of being
almost opposite. In effect, Newspeak seems to take to the extreme some of Orwell's own
suggestions for the reversing of the language decadence process [G. Orwell, Politics
and the English Language: “A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will
ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will
express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have
an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? (…) I think the following rules will cover
most cases: (i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are
used to seeing in print. (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is
possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (iv) Never use the passive where you can
use the active. (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you
can think of an everyday English equivalent. (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than
say anything barbarous.”]. While in Politics and the English Language contemporary
English is mainly accused of being too vague, prolix and meaningless, Newspeak's chief
characteristics are the extreme poverty of language and the impossibility of abstract
“heretical” concepts, like political and intellectual “freedom” (which surely isn't a very
definite word and idea). Concrete and practical meanings, on the contrary, are well
expressed. We could give various interpretations of this discrepancy [Politics and the
English Language was published in 1946, three years before the publishing of Nineteen
Eighty-Four (finished in 1948 and published in 1949).]: for example, a self-criticism; or
the individuation of two equally dangerous extremes, “good” language being in their
middle. We could even think of it as a true contradiction. But as far as we separate the
concrete linguistic analysis from its philosophical foundation, and focus on the second,
we can leave this question unanswered for now. The abuse of language, however
defined, in Orwell's opinion leads to the same political effect: unquestioning orthodoxy.
In other words, the annihilation of real, autonomous thinking:” (PORCHEDDU, A.
Orwell and the power of language. 2009. Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso em:
4 jul. 2017.)

“if the language is corrupted, thinking will result in unconscious orthodoxy, and if
individual thought pursue orthodoxy, the language will decay. As we have already
noticed, an effect can become a cause, and reinforce the original cause.
In Orwell's words, “it is at this point that the special connection between politics
and the debasement of language becomes clear”15. In fact, Orwell judges the political
speech of his time as the “defence of the indefensible”:
Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and
deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended,
but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which
do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political
language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer
cloudy vagueness. 16
Here, also, the circularity of causes and effects is clear, as is the pre-eminence of
the political aspect. In this conception, Orwell's struggle for a clear language is
consequent to his struggle against political lies: in fact, only if language is purified, can
lies appear as such. Only if lies can appear as such, can truth exist in the mind of the
individuals, and unconscious orthodoxy be avoided. And only if truth is defended in its
relation to the individual minds, and orthodoxy rejected, can the totalitarian nightmare
of Nineteen Eighty-Four be avoided. The point here is that Orwell thinks that the
process of decay of language and of growing conformity can always be reversed, at
least before it results in a totalitarian regime. Even though Orwell's vision of the world
is often thought of as pessimism without hope, the conclusion of Politics and the
English Language may cast some doubt on this idea, while completing our
understanding of the power of language in his conception:” (PORCHEDDU, A. Orwell
and the power of language. 2009. Disponível em:
<http://www.academia.edu/721095/Orwell_and_the_Power_of_Language>. Acesso em:
4 jul. 2017.)