Will Newspeak work in curbing unwanted views?

Will Newspeak work in curbing unwanted views?

Newspeak, as a restriction of language so as to prevent any outward expression of an alternative viewpoint contrary to that of Ingsoc, may only work in curbing unwanted views if the following hold true: 1) Thought is independent of language; 2) It is only possible to create alternative meanings from connotations rather than denotations, and 3) Newspeak is effectively the sole means of communication and expression in Oceania.

1) Thought is independent of language

As explained by the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the way the world is perceived is limited by one's own language. I personally feel that the apparent untranslatability, or at least difficulty in translation, of certain words, such as "saudade" or "mamihlapinatapai" (here's hoping that's the correct spelling), demonstrates that one's expression of thoughts is restricted by one's language, at least in part. With there being no direct English equivalent, even when focusing only on denotation, we can see the limitations language can pose on our expression. While some people can use "mamihlapinatapai" to easily describe a situation, native English speakers have to resort to the rather convoluted "a look shared by two people with each wishing that the other will initiate something that both desire but which neither one wants to start" (Source: en.wikipedia.org).

However, does limitation of expression necessarily result in limitation of thought? With regard to this, I personally beg to differ. Although a speaker of English may not be able to adequately describe "saudade", he is still able to feel the intense longing for something that he had previously loved but is now unable to do so for one reason or another which has created a empty void within him, or whatever else saudade may denote or connote. There is a reason for proverbs such as "非笔墨所能形容" (something which cannot be described with pen or ink), and this is, I feel, that outward expression is not, and may never be, able to showcase our innermost and strongest feelings and thoughts. As such, we can thus see that although language may restrict expression, expression most certainly does not restrict thought and feeling.

Secondly, language in its spoken and written form has constantly changed over time, be it the branching out into different dialects or languages, or even within a particular language itself. The word "toilet", for example, originally meaning "a dressing table", "the cleansing of a body area as part of a surgical or medical procedure", "dress or attire", or "the act or process of dressing or grooming oneself", has gradually fitted into its present definition so snugly that the phrase "I toilet myself" will most certainly trigger a bout of incomprehension, not to mention sniggers. With an alternative definition as "a room in which one defecates and urinates", how willing would one be to proudly proclaim, "I toilet myself"? And so "toilet" shed its original definitions in favour of the new, with the thoughts of humans influencing the new meaning. This shows that language is by no means innate to humans, and has gone through significant development and refining, shaped by the thoughts of humans, as in the case of "toilet". Now, think about cavemen. I'm pretty sure they didn't have a word for "defecation", nor any other means to express a desire to relieve themselves. Did that mean, since they could not express this desire, that they never had the desire to do so? As far as I know, defecation is a natural process that takes place irregardless of whatever passes through the digestive system, be it chicken, leaves, or woolly mammoth. Thus, I feel that, just as defecation is independent of food eaten, thought is indeed independent of language.

2) It is only possible to create alternative meanings from connotations rather than denotations

In restricting vocabulary, Newspeak certainly has restricted the number of denotations which can be derived from words, however, it neglects to, or may be simply unable to, restrict the connotations which may derive from these words. For example, while the word "brat" originally and still denotes the same meaning as the word "child", it has come to acquire a negative connotation. This can be further emphasised through the usage of numerous rhetorical devices such as metaphors and simile, whereby different objects or actions are juxtaposed with each other, bringing about a comparison between the characteristics, or more importantly, the connotations of the two objects or actions represented by the words.

Connotations are largely determined only after a significant progression of time, whereby man has gradually come to associate certain attitudes or characteristics with the object or action represented by a particular word. Throughout constant observations of nature, man has, for example, come to see monkeys as "cheeky" or "imitative", hence "monkey see monkey do", or "silly", hence "monkey business". The word "monkey" when used to describe a person, usually does not compare the physical traits of the monkey with that of the target, but rather the playfulness and cheekiness man has come to associate the monkey with over time. Of course, the word "monkey" originally only denoted a reference to the animal, and thus, we can see that, in the long run, any language is bound to acquire connotations of words through human observation, be it English or Newspeak, and I feel that Newspeak will therefore not work in curbing unwanted views in the long run.

3) Newspeak is effectively the sole means of communication and expression in Oceania

Newspeak's efficacy hinges primarily on the assumption that Ingsoc is able to eradicate all other forms of communication in Oceania. However, verbal and written communication are not the only means of interaction between human beings, body language being a very important part of this as well. Body language is an innate means of communication which humans often, if not always, inadvertently lapse into, and is still not fully comprehended by scientists even today. Before a written or verbal language was developed, more human beings had to communicate via more primitive means, and gesticulating was by no means ineffective. Even today, people easily understand hand gestures such as an open palm to signify "stop", raised hands to signify "surrender" or "absence of aggresive intentions", or even the raising of a particular finger to signify "anger". Other than these intentional expressions through body language, the bodies of human beings can also betray their innermost thoughts, such as affection for someone being (usually unintentionally) expressed through mirroring of gestures or the tilting of the head. Scientists are still conducting research into the possible implications of even the subtlest of gestures such as the scratching of the nose or head in different situations, which serves to show that even now, body language eludes complete understanding, and remains a realm of communication untainted by the restrictions of Newspeak. Some scientists even estimate nonverbal communication to account for up to 80% of all interaction and understanding between parties, and the restriction of verbal and written language through Newspeak is not even able to curb language entirely, let alone thought.

Apart from body language, there are also a number of chemical changes in our body when a certain emotion is felt, which are innate to human beings regardless of any suppression of outward expressions. Hormones such as epinephrine released into our blood stream are an example of the human body's natural fight-or-flight response system, inherent in every human being, and these chemical changes lead to several observable changes in the body as well, such as increased heart rate or hair standing on end. Even without words to express oneself when one, for example, feels anger at a particular action of Ingsoc, inadvertent chemical reactions in the body, coupled with intentional and unintentional body language, human beings are not limited in expression by Newspeak, and therefore certainly not limited in thought.

In conclusion, I feel that Newspeak will not work in curbing unwanted views. =D