Since nearly the beginning of spoken language, there have been abbreviations of words, ways to make the spoken language simpler and shorter. This has become more advanced over time, but it is clear that American English, at least, is not to the point of 1984’s Newspeak. Despite the more limited vocabulary that the 2016 world has, English has eliminated few words with such basic and primal meanings and uses as “good” or “bad.” However, Newspeak has gone considerably further, to the point where they have cut out “useless” words like “bad” and replaced them with structurally simpler variations like “ungood.”
An underlying question with the format and development of Newspeak relates to these eliminated and “outdated” words. If one no longer has …show more content…
It is no longer necessary to say “that’s funny,” because such a phrase has been replaced with “LOL.” Words are abbreviated, combined and created with such frequency that English dictionaries add words annually, just to keep up. There are countless aliases, common words used to defer meaning of a “taboo” word; there are words that mean a hundred different things, just because the proper word is too hard to identify. But even with these additions, our vocabulary continues to shrink, and more and more words seem outdated and …show more content…
English is a difficult language to learn, given the infinite exceptions to flimsy rules that have been created and the often illogical structures. (This doesn’t even begin to cover English’s ridiculous spelling!) Newspeak has changed these structures to be vastly simpler, replacing “a thought” with “a think,” “great” with “plusgood,” and so on and so forth. While the English structure has become second nature to native speakers, Newspeak’s basic structure is undoubtedly appealing.
The goal of Newspeak is not as simple as English’s abbreviations—while English attempts primarily to simplify the language, Newspeak, and its creators have more sinister goals. They aim to limit the vocabulary so severely that the people become mouthpieces for the Party, bound by their carefully crafted and controlled vernacular. If the Party can control language, then they can (arguably) control thought, and that makes them the most dangerous version of an already powerful
An underlying question with the format and development of Newspeak relates to these eliminated and “outdated” words. If one no longer has …show more content…
It is no longer necessary to say “that’s funny,” because such a phrase has been replaced with “LOL.” Words are abbreviated, combined and created with such frequency that English dictionaries add words annually, just to keep up. There are countless aliases, common words used to defer meaning of a “taboo” word; there are words that mean a hundred different things, just because the proper word is too hard to identify. But even with these additions, our vocabulary continues to shrink, and more and more words seem outdated and …show more content…
English is a difficult language to learn, given the infinite exceptions to flimsy rules that have been created and the often illogical structures. (This doesn’t even begin to cover English’s ridiculous spelling!) Newspeak has changed these structures to be vastly simpler, replacing “a thought” with “a think,” “great” with “plusgood,” and so on and so forth. While the English structure has become second nature to native speakers, Newspeak’s basic structure is undoubtedly appealing.
The goal of Newspeak is not as simple as English’s abbreviations—while English attempts primarily to simplify the language, Newspeak, and its creators have more sinister goals. They aim to limit the vocabulary so severely that the people become mouthpieces for the Party, bound by their carefully crafted and controlled vernacular. If the Party can control language, then they can (arguably) control thought, and that makes them the most dangerous version of an already powerful