\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\hyphenation{English grammar}
\addtolength{\topmargin}{-.5in}
\addtolength{\textheight}{.5in}
\newcommand{\sspace}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}\small\normalsize}
\newcommand{\dspace}{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}\small\normalsize}
\newcommand{\bquote}{\begin{quote}\sspace}
\newcommand{\equote}{\end{quote}\vspace*{-.15in}}
\newcommand{\noi}{\noindent}
\begin{document}

\begin{titlepage}
\vspace*{1in}
\begin{center}
{\LARGE Language  and Thought:
\medskip\medskip \\ 
``Politics and the English Language''}
\bigskip\bigskip \\
{\large 24.900 Paper 2
\medskip\medskip \\
Juliet C. Bourne 
\medskip\medskip \\
November 21, 1990}
\end{center}
\end{titlepage}

\newpage
\dspace

\bquote
{\em ``The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of
expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees
of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.  It was
intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and
Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging
from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at
least so far as thought is dependent on words.''} (George Orwell, {\em
The Principles of Newspeak}, Appendix to {\em 1984})
\equote

In his most famous novel, {\em 1984}, George Orwell tells of a
frightening future in which language is used to control not only the
actions of people but also their very thoughts. Before writing {\em
1984}, Orwell wrote an essay called ``Politics and the English
Language.'' In his essay, he describes how the English language
deteriorates as a result of unclear thinking and how ``the sloveliness
of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.''
Unclear thinking results in vague writing, and a language which allows
such vagueness also allows such unclear thinking. Orwell also discusses
how politics and political language take advantage of the vagueness
allowed by the English language to avoid telling a brutal truth which
would harm the image of a political party:

\bquote
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.
\equote

\noi Also, Orwell states that political ``orthodoxy'' demands, in some
sense, a ``lifeless, imitative style'' of repeating the same phrases
like a machine. Political conformity, according to Orwell, depends on
such a ``reduced state of consciousness.''

Orwell's main point is that the English language allows people not to
think about what they are saying. ``Ready-made phrases'' are available
to save people from having to choose the words to express their
thoughts. Dying or worn-out metaphors, ``verbs'' which are really
phrases, passive verbs instead of active verbs, inflated or pretentious
words, and words that either no meaning or a very vague meaning all are
sources of these ready-made phrases.  These ready-made phrases can
``construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you,
to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important
service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.''  To
avoid the temptation to use these ready-made phrases instead of thinking
for oneself, Orwell suggests that:

\bquote
It is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's
meaning as clear as one can through pictures or sensations. Afterward
one can choose -- not simply {\em accept} -- the phrases that will best
cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide which impression
one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of
the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases,
needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally.
\equote

For the most part, I agree with Orwell's assessment that language can
affect the way people think, and vice versa. However, I cannot say that
I agree with the degree that Orwell attributes to the interdependence
between language and thought. It is not clear to me that all thought, or
even most of thought, depends on language. There are people, such as
people who did not acquire a language during the critical period, who do
not have a full language as we know it. Yet they are certainly capable
of thought. So thought must not depend solely on language. The argument
for language not fully depending on thought is less clear. Language is
an invention of humans, and thus language from the start has been
dependent on thought. Orwell's point is that unclear thought affects
language. In his opinion, language ``becomes ugly and inaccurate because
our thoughts are foolish.'' The ready-made phrases spoken of before
become a common part of the language. The more vaguely people think,
the more vaguely they speak or write. Thus, thought affects the language
people use, but not the whole language in general. I agree with Orwell's
statement that this process of unclear thought producing vague language
(and vice versa) is reversible. If thought affected the language in
general and not just the commonly-used portion of the language, then the
process would not be reversible. However, given enough time to decay or
change, a language could change permanently as the unused parts of the
language are forgotten.

If even just some thought is dependent on language, and the language
allows vagueness, then in some way the language is responsible for
allowing the cycle of unclear thought and vague language to continue.
Language which did not allow vagueness would force people have clear
thoughts in order to communicate. This can be considered to be a valid
notion of language. The study of language reveals that people ``forget''
certain phonological, morphological, and syntactical properties which
they initially had the ability to understand. For example, infants are
initially able to distinguish between a large number of speech sounds.
However, if the language they are exposed to does not distinguish
between some of these sounds, the children will ``lose'' the
ability to distinguish the sounds. The same is true for the ability to
produce certain speech sounds. When a person tries to learn another
language, if the language distinguishes between two speech sounds which
the person's native language does not, the person will most likely have
difficulty speaking or understanding the spoken language.  The same
``loss'' of ability occurs with morphological and syntactical
properties. The Universal Grammar, the fundamental principles common to
all human languages which are in some way ``hard-wired'' into the human
brain, allows an infant to ``acquire'' his native language. This
acquisition actually narrows down the possible morphological and
syntactical properties to those in the language to which the infant is
exposed. Thus, people with a native language which does not have or
allow infixes in words will have difficulty comprehending the notion of
languages which do allow infixes. The concept of infixes will probably
never seem natural to them. However, for those people whose native
language does allow infixes, infixes are normal. The same holds for
syntactical properties, such as fixed or variable ordering of words.
Thus, if we ``forget'' phonological, morphological, and syntactical
properties when they are not used in our native language, and we have
difficulty ``relearning'' them, then the same can be said for the
property or properties of language which allow or disallow vagueness of
expression. When the language that we are exposed to as children allows
us to be very vague and allows us not to think about exactly what it is
we are saying, and that is the typical usage of the language, we are
likely to think unclearly and express ourselves in vague terms.

Orwell based his novel {\em 1984} on this concept that language is able
to shape thought at least to some extent.  As an appendix to {\em 1984},
he wrote ``The Principles of Newspeak.'' Newspeak was the
government-sponsored language which was gradually (and forcefully) being
adopted in {\em 1984}. Newspeak represents the extreme use of
language, and how it affects thought, for political control. The purpose
of Newspeak was to narrow the range of language available in order to
narrow the range of thought of its speakers. Thus, Newspeak depended on
the relationship between language and thought. It tried to achieve its
purpose by inventing new words and eliminating the meaning or even the
entire existence of other words.  Orwell stated in ``The Principles of
Newspeak'':

\bquote
[Newspeak's] vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often
very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could
properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also
the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done
partly by the invention of new words and by stripping such words as
remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary
meanings whatever.
\equote

\noi This reduction of the number of words available could by itself
significantly reduce the range of thought of the speakers of Newspeak.
If there were no word for the concept of justice, could people even
imagine such a concept of justice? Newspeak depends a negative answer to
this question, since its premise is to eliminate words that have
``unorthodox'' meanings. Once this core of words is established, by the
principles of Newspeak, the rest of the language can be formed. Words
form every part of speech, just by adding certain suffixes. Since no new
words were introduced, the narrow range of language, and therefore
thought, is preserved. This fact is probably most important for the core
of words surrounding political thought, or the B vocabulary, in Newspeak.

Both the language surrounding everyday life and the language surrounding
technical fields involve for the most part very concrete concepts or
actions. However, the language surrounding politics, as it has been
stated before, is by necessity vague and general. Thus, Newspeak was the
most concerned with having the political core of words eliminate the
widest range of thought possible. In ``The Principles of Newspeak''
Orwell describes the B vocabulary:

\bquote
The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately
constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not
only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to
impose a desirable  mental attitude upon the person using them. 
\equote

\noi Relating the premise of the B vocabulary, and Newspeak in general,
back to the argument given in ``Politics and the English Language'',
there are two features of the languages involved which are very similar.
First, ready-made phrases or words eliminate the need for thought about
what is being said, and also are very vague in meaning. In the case of
the B vocabulary, these consist of the grouping of all ``good'' or
orthodox political views under a single word {\em goodthink} and all
``bad'' or unorthodox views under the single word {\em crimethink}. In
both cases, the meanings and concepts of the individual views or words
covered by {\em goodthink} or {\em crimethink} are lost. Thus, when
speaking of political concepts, the speaker's thoughts are necessarily
vague since the only words available to him to express political views
are vague ones. This is similar to Orwell's argument that the language
itself is responsible for vague and unclear thinking. The second
similarity is the ease of use of ready-made phrases and words. Just as
ready-made phrases rush in to choose our words for us because it is
easier not to have to think of the words for ourselves, the ease of
uttering words in Newspeak puts little stress on the speaker to actually
think about what he is saying. Again, speech, especially political
speech following a party line, becomes a mechanical act, divorced as
much as possible from thought. For political conformity, this
``duckspeaking'' is very important. From ``The Principles of Newspeak'':

\bquote
Like various words in the B vocabulary, {\em duckspeak} was ambivalent
in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were
orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the {\em Times}
referred to one of the orators of the Party as a {\em doubleplusgood
duckspeaker} it was paying a warm and valued compliment.
\equote

Overall, Newspeak is a very good, if fictional, example of the
application of Orwell's theories of the interaction of language and
thought. Newspeak not only uses the theory that vague language allows,
or even requires, vague thought, but it also uses the theory that people
``lose'' the ability to comprehend concepts that are not a part of their
native language. Thus, Newspeak could eliminate certain concepts
altogether by eliminating the words and phrases which express those
concepts from the language. Gradually, when children grew up with
New\-speak as their native language, they would ``no more know that {\em
equal} had once had the secondary meaning of `politically equal,' or
that {\em free} had once meant `intellectually free.' '' The use of vague
words such as {\em crimethink} blanketing many concrete concepts would
force vague thought such that ``there would be many crimes and errors
which it would be beyond [the] power to commit because they were
nameless and therefore unimaginable.''

The whole notion that vague language allows vague thought and vice versa
can be applied to the various political speeches and writings of today.
Such an analysis should show the extent to which American English has
deteriorated and the extent to which our thought has become vague and
unclear. Sometimes even examining an essay or editorial which addresses
some political issue reveals the style of language which Orwell
criticizes. Take for example a recent editorial in the weekly magazine
{\em U.S. News and World Report}. It addresses the leadership problems
that President Bush is having. Overall the editorial is fairly clear,
however it does contain many vague phrases and even vague sentences
which leaves the reader wondering what exactly the writer is implying or
saying. For example, the writer states that Bush ``needs to substitute
decisiveness for vacillation, boldness for timidity and the steady-hand
leadership that voters expected from him two years ago.'' All of the
terms used, {\em decisiveness, vacillation, boldness, timidity,
steady-hand leadership}, are at least to some extent vague terms. What
is it that the writer means by {\em steady-hand leadership}?
Although it is not hard to understand the sentence, there is still some
vagueness. 

The writer also uses several almost clich\'ed phrases such as: ``a piece
of buck-passing for the Reagan years of wishful thinking'', ``the
eclipse of Communism,'' ``fizzle instead of follow-through,'' ``tacit
green light,'' and ``infuse a fighting spirit into.''  These phrases
either sound worn-out and over-used or they are vague and do not express
a clear meaning. This editorial also has its share of ``pretentious
diction''. For instance, the writer says that Bush ``has done nothing to
rechannel energies from a geopolitical struggle with the Soviet Union to
a geoeconomic challenge from Japan and Germany.'' In addition to the
vagueness, terms such as {\em rechannel energies, geopolitical
struggle,} and {\em geoeconomic challenge} make the writer seem much
more important and knowledgeable than he might really be. Those terms
are ``buzzwords'' which have very little real meaning. The sentence,
``He must develop the rhetorical dimension needed to link traditional
values with tomorrow's needs,'' displays nearly all of the features
which Orwell criticizes: vagueness, pretentious diction, and the use of
over-used phrases. This style of writing seems to be common when it
comes to writing about politics and political issues, most likely
because the notions surrounding politics are either very abstract or
tend to divide politicians on one side or another. With abstract
notions, it is easier to speak vaguely about them, rather than take the
effort to make them less abstract. Issues in which there are clear
political sides, each side tries to obscure the questionable points of
their stand, while at the same time trying to dismiss the strong points
of the other side. This effort requires vague language, and eventually
vague thought, to hide the details of the issues.

The connection between language and thought is a fascinating and
somewhat mysterious one. It is hard to say exactly the extent of the
dependence of language on thought and vice versa. With a language such
as English which allows vague expressions of thought, speakers need not
search for a clear way to express a thought. Broad and general phrases
and words are available to avoid the need for expressing oneself
clearly. When such vagueness is permitted, is it inevitable that
people's thoughts will become less clear? If a government were to
systematically and deliberately alter or create a language for the sole
purpose of controlling the thoughts of its citizens, would that
government be successful? The frightening answer to these questions
seems to be ``yes.'' Observing how languages can change to reflect the
increasingly vague thoughts of humans shows that thought can affect
language.  Observing how humans lose or forget linguistic abilities if
those abilities are not required for their language shows that a
scenario such as {\em 1984} and Newspeak is possible. Observing one's
own self, one's thoughts and one's language, can reveal that we all are,
to some extent, are vulnerable to thought control through language.

\end{document}
