Cyberspeak, the language of cybernetics, or its metalanguage to be more precise, consists of words that are both explaining and describing human/animal and machine forms of control and communication, while in newspeak, words were value-laden, which means they had strong positive or negative connotations connected to their use. For example, a 'spy' could only be a foreign agent, while a Russian one was a 'patriot'. First, it will be shown how there are still remnants of cyberspeak in modern science, (...) pinpointing its cybernetic background and shaping our thoughts without us realizing they had any cybernetic origin whatsoever. Second, it will be investigated how newspeak, as its counterpart, can be analyzed from the theory of speech acts. Third, the current war in Ukraine allowed us a brief analysis of newspeak present in Russian public communication today (Putin's speeches), which will again be connected to their performative aspect. (shrink)

What was particularly remarkable about Danchev's radio broadcasts was not simply that he expressed opposition to the Soviet invasion and called for resistance to it, but that he called it an "invasion." In Soviet theology, there is no such event as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan; rather, there is a Russian defense of Afghanistan against bandits operating from Pakistani sanctuaries and supported by the CIA and other warmongers. The Russians claim they were invited in, and in a certain technical sense (...) this is correct. But as the London Economist grandly proclaimed (10/25/80), "An invader is an invader unless invited in by a government with some claim to legitimacy," and the government installed by the USSR> to invite them in can hardly make such a claim, outside the world of Orwellian newspeak. (shrink)

Some books are like parents, grandparents or old friends. They have been with us from our earliest days and one treats them almost with familiarity. They belong to one's youth and the recognition that they have been around for months and years keeps company with surprise. For philosophers such a book is A. J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic, first published over fifty years ago in 1936. There is a sense in which a similar point may be made about some (...) individuals, but discretion and good manners should deter us from succumbing to the philosophical disease of pressing an analogy too far. Suffice it to say that over a period during which most English speaking philosophers were content to work within a context which was significantly influenced by Ayer's clear and cajoling formulation of a twentieth century of empiricism, F. C. Copleston provided one of the few distinctive alternative philosophical perspectives on major metaphysical questions. This essay will reflect upon the influence of Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic some fifty years after its publication, upon the philosophical discussion of religion and theological questions. (shrink)

An exploration of the relationship between thought and language.

The “New Biology” that arose in the Eastern Block during Stalinist times was based on the idea of the heritability of acquired characteristics. In rejecting the paradigm of Mendelian chromosome genetics as well as science-based farming, the New Biology led to a deterioration of scientific life and the free exchange of ideas. In imposing Lysenko’s ideas onto zoology, the New Biology adopted the totalitarian language of Newspeak, which dominated public discourse in communist countries. Newspeak had several defining elements: (...) a limited dictionary, strong valuations, binary oppositions, the magical function of language, militarization, and ritualization of language. In this study, the concept of Newspeak is used to analyze primary sources in Polish zoology in the period between 1948 and 1956. Once the practice of Newspeak began to wane, so did the New Biology that had been founded on this specific ritualistic language. (shrink)

“It was a peculiarly beautiful book. its smooth creamy paper, a little yellowed by age, was of a kind that had not been manufactured for at least forty years past. . . . Even with nothing written in it, it was a compromising possession. The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would (...) be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp.” The Party fears blank paper. On every street corner, you can find newspapers printed With propaganda but blank paper, now that’s nearly impossible to find. For nearly half a century no more notebooks were produced, no blank papers allowed to touch the hands of the masses. This restriction seems odd. Why is blank paper dangerous? What is treacherous about a nice leather-bound book With creamy pages? The very act of Writing on a blank paper is thoughtcrime and Winston knows it. The intriguing question for us is: What’s at stake in the potential of a blank page? There is political potential in a blank page, it could contain a subversive message that could be passed on to others, yet blank paper to Write on is much Weaker than owning a manual printing press hidden in a basement. If Winston Wanted to instigate rebellion against the Party, he Would not handwrite manifestos, he should print them somehow. There’s something else going on with Writing your thoughts in a notebook, and that is related to Newspeak. (shrink)

"It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need (...) is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not." (Syme, in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four) This chapter is about opposites and Newspeak in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. (shrink)

Le terme « langue de bois » est d’une extrême polysémie en français. Il n’en a pas toujours été ainsi : apparu dans les années 1980, le mot est un emprunt au russe, par l’intermédiaire, semble-t-il, du polonais, au moment des événements de Gdansk et du mouvement lancé par le syndicat Solidarność. Comment un terme servant à qualifier la langue d’un régime totalitaire, synonyme de novlangue orwellienne, en est-il venu à couvrir une si grande variété d’emplois, le rendant intraduisible ? (...) L’explication se trouve chez Orwell : dans un article célèbre portant sur la langue de la politique, il soutient que la déformation de la vérité n’est pas l’apanage des régimes totalitaires. Aujourd’hui, l’heure est au « parler vrai » : mais force est de constater que ce n’est là, bien souvent, que le dernier avatar en date de la langue de bois.The term « langue de bois » is highly polysemic in French and has no single translation in English. The term appeared in France in the 1980s as a borrowing from the Russian « yezik douba » meaning « tongue of oak », possibly via Poland at the time of the events in Gdansk and the movement started by the Solidarność trade union. How did a term used to describe the language of a totalitarian state, coined by George Orwell as « newspeak », come to be used in so many different ways? Orwell himself provides the explanation: in a celebrated article on the language of politics, he argues that subverting the truth is not an exclusive mark of totalitarian regimes. Today, we have a form of expression known as « straight talk », which, when it comes out of the mouths of spin doctors, could well be seen as the latest incarnation of newspeak. (shrink)

Appréhendée à partir de son fonctionnement dans les régimes totalitaires, la « langue de bois » a été traitée comme une langue étrange, et étrangère aux sociétés démocratiques. En rapprochant ses procédés des figures de la rhétorique classiquement dessinées, elle perd quelque peu de sa singularité. Elle est liée, en fait, à des potentialités, des tendances, des dispositions de la « langue naturelle » – une permanente propension à métaphoriser, notamment – qu’elle exploite ou accentue, radicalise et pervertit. Les affinités (...) que présente alors la langue de bois avec des pratiques langagières très courantes, tel le « politiquement correct », font voir en elle non plus un dialecte exotique, un parler vernaculaire, mais un mode de communication effectivement véhiculaire.Based on its functions in totalitarian regimes, the type of language George Orwell called « newspeak » has been treated as an oddity, a language foreign to democratic societies. However, when compared with the classic figures of rhetorical speech, its singularity begins to fade. It is related, in fact, to a potential, a tendency or a predisposition of « natural language » to create metaphor – a propensity that « newspeak » exploits, accentuates, radicalises and subverts. But the affinities that appear between this particular type of language and other very common forms, such as the language of « political correctness », suggest that rather than an exotic dialect, it is actually very much a kind of « lingua franca ». (shrink)

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.

The genealogy of lexicography represents an ideal standpoint to reveal how sign-making practices may shape cultural objects. In this paper I discuss the revolution that lexicography undertook during the nineteenth century, showing why this process required the availability of a specific set of concepts, and then how it led up to the emergence of new social techniques, to the coming into being of a new kind of people, and to the introduction of new practices of sign-manipulation. Finally, I confront the (...) historical development of lexicography with the project of the dictionary of Newspeak that Orwell envisioned in 1984. (shrink)

Then is the moral that we all require forgiveness and that forgiveness is always a miracle, taking time but beyond time? This can be said, but how can we establish or deliver the weight or gravity of any such answer? Consider the lament with which Elisabeth Young-Bruehl opens her recent Why Arendt Matters: “What do people make of it when, every time some especially appalling, hard-to-fathom mass crime takes place, ‘the banality of evil’ turns up in their morning newspapers or (...) jumps out of the mouths of TV pundits?”2 Well, do people make anything of it at all? Does reading or hearing “the banality of evil” prompt us to stop and think? Or does its “newspeak” use inoculate against that very possibility?. (shrink)

Aleksandras Shtromas (1931-1999), a British-American scholar, became an eminent figure in his native Lithuania, yet Westem social scientists have yet to discover this human rights activist, Soviet dissident, and political thinker. Shtromas had no doubts about the inexorable collapse of the Soviet Union, resting his analysis on the assumption that communism was unable to provide any viable social and moral order. The vast majority of the Soviet intelligentsia had become skilled at the ideological cat-and-mouse games, wrestling wth Soviet Newspeak (...) and censorship, and employing an Aesopian language in order to survive and remain as decent as possible in a world of brainwashing and lies. A gifted prophet of post-communism, Shtromas was the only political scientist in the world who took the disintegration of the Soviet Union as early as the late 1970s as an ongoing process. This essay links Shtromas' legacy to the great East European dissenters. (shrink)

En 1954, à Budapest, Iván Fónagy et Katalin Soltész publiaient A mozgalmi nyelvről . En 2006, un an après le décès de Fónagy, paraissait son Dynamique et changement. Ce grand linguiste et sa collègue d’alors, dès 1954, avaient non seulement décrit les caractéristiques de la langue de bois des écrits et manifestations officielles, mais aussi montré comment elle viciait la communication au sein de la société de façon plus large. Ils en décrivaient des causes, en particulier l’inculture de nombre de (...) dirigeants et l’usage si facile d’une langue appauvrie. Mais déjà en 1954 ils montraient dans un style d’une rare qualité comment ce phénomène dépassait le communisme hongrois. Cinquante ans plus tard, Fónagy revient sur la force d’attraction de certains types d’énoncés qui marque toujours notre communication sociale. Voici donc une pensée originale qui désenclave la réflexion sur la langue de bois, ou « langue de hêtre » en hongrois.In 1954, in Budapest, the linguist Iván Fónagy and his colleague Katalin Soltész published « A mozgalmi nyelvről » . Fónagy’s « Languages within Language » was published in 2006, a year after his death. In 1954, Fónagy and Soltész had not only described the characteristics of the language used in official writings and events, but also how it was debasing communication within society at large. A particular reason they described was the lack of culture of a large part of the political leadership and the fact that using an impoverished form of language was so easy. But they had already shown in 1954, with impeccable style, that this phenomenon was not the sole preserve of Hungarian communism. Fifty years later, Fónagy returned to the power of attraction of certain types of discourse that are still a feature of social communication. A work of original thinking that significantly broadens perspectives on the « newspeak », which the Hungarians call the « tongue of beech ». (shrink)

The irregulars are defiantly quirky. Thousands of verbs monotonously take the -ed suffix for their past tense forms, but ring mutates to rang, not ringed, catch becomes caught, hit doesn't do anything, and go is replaced by an entirely different word, went (a usurping of the old past tense of to wend, which itself once followed the pattern we see in send-sent and bend-bent). No wonder irregular verbs are banned in "rationally designed" languages like Esperanto and Orwell's Newspeak -- (...) and why recently a woman in search of a nonconformist soul-mate wrote a personal ad that began, "Are you an irregular verb?". (shrink)

The aim of the article is to investigate some of the possible sources of inspiration for Orwell’s concept of the artificial language called Newspeak, which, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is shown as an effective tool of enslavement and thought control in the hands of a totalitarian state. The author discusses, in this context, the putative links between Newspeak and really existing artificial languages, first of all Esperanto, and also between Orwell’s notion of “doublethink”, which is an important (...) feature of the totalitarian mentality, and Czesław Miłosz’s notion of “ketman”, developed in his book The Captive Mind. But the main emphasis is on the connection between Orwell’s book and the slightly earlier novel by C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength. It is well known that Orwell knew Lewis’s book and expressed his mixed feelings about it. There are many specific, though far from obvious, similarities between the two books, but what seems to have been particularly inspiring for Orwell was Lewis’s vision of a thoroughly degenerate language that is used for political manipulation rather than for communication. (shrink)

A witty exploration of government newspeak, exaggerated advertising claims, misleading propaganda and other misnomers and how to combat them.

Comment combattre la langue de bois ? Ce devrait être la première préoccupation des commentateurs politiques, chargés de commenter, d’analyser et d’éditorialiser. Mais, comme celle des hommes politiques, la langue de bois des commentateurs a pour objectif principal de ne pas tout dire. Elle est faite pour leur permettre de s’adresser au plus grand nombre, sans choquer, souvent même en délivrant à l’auditeur ou au lecteur une pensée dans laquelle il peut se reconnaître. Il existe aussi une autre sorte de (...) langue de bois, plus problématique dans les métiers de commentateurs : une langue de bois réflexe, faite de formules creuses, de poncifs et de métaphores . Par ailleurs, l’une des tendances les plus spectaculaires de ces dernières années est l’avènement de ce que l’on peut appeler le « parler cash », façon de rejeter la langue de bois. Une parole cash devient un acte politique en lui-même, un acte creux, et les journalistes en sont coresponsables puisque travaillant à jet continu avec Internet et les chaînes tout-info. En revanche, le numérique permet de conserver et de classer ce qui se dit. La mémoire politique s’est démocratisée et Internet met à la disposition de chacun l’ensemble des propos des hommes politiques. Cette évolution du rapport entre le discours et son commentaire est bienvenue après des décennies de consanguinité entre les politiques et les commentateurs.How do you fight doublespeak? This ought to be the main concern of every political commentator, whose job is to comment on, analyse and editorialise what politicians say. But, like politicians, commentators use a language whose main purpose is to not say everything. It is made for them to address the widest possible audience, without giving offence and often by offering listeners or readers thoughts they can recognise as their own. This sort of language also exists in another more problematical form among commentators, as a kind of reflexive newspeak made up of clichés, commonplaces and metaphors involving warfare, sports or cookery. One of the more spectacular trends in the last few years is the advent of what the French call « parler cash », meaning « rude straight talk », as an antidote to doublespeak. « Talking rude and straight » then becomes a political – and hollow – act in itself, for which journalists are equally responsible since they are constantly working live with the Internet and 24-hour news channels. On the other hand, everything that is said can now be stored and classified on digital media. The archives of politics are becoming available to all and anyone can use the Internet to access anything a politician has ever said. This is a welcome development for the relationship between discourse and commentary, after decades of blood relationships between politicians and political commentators. (shrink)

1. THRENODY Is it any longer possible to talk seriously about justice and rights? Are these words corrupted and debased beyond redemption? There is no need to multiply examples of how anything that any pressure group has the chutzpah to lay claim to forthwith becomes a right, nemine contradicente. Nor is this Newspeak restricted to the vulgar. The President of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association has granted permission to misuse words like rights and justice if you (...) do so in the service of desirable political ends. Our most universally acclaimed theoretician of justice has shown at length that justice is a will perpetual and constant to forcibly take goods from those who have earned them and give them to those who have not; and the leading light of Anglo-American jurisprudence has constructed a “straightforward” argument proving that a citizen's right to equal protection of the laws is fully satisfied if only the bureaucrat denying him or her a public benefit on racial grounds shows “respect and concern” while processing the forms. (shrink)

1. THRENODYIs it any longer possible to talk seriously about justice and rights? Are these words corrupted and debased beyond redemption? There is no need to multiply examples of how anything that any pressure group has the chutzpah to lay claim to forthwith becomes a right,nemine contradicente. Nor is this Newspeak restricted to the vulgar. The President of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association has granted permission to misuse words likerightsandjusticeif you do so in the service of (...) desirable political ends. Our most universally acclaimed theoretician of justice has shown at length that justice is a will perpetual and constant to forcibly take goods from those who have earned them and give them to those who have not; and the leading light of Anglo-American jurisprudence has constructed a “straightforward” argument proving that a citizen's right to equal protection of the laws is fully satisfied if only the bureaucrat denying him or her a public benefit on racial grounds shows “respect and concern” while processing the forms. (shrink)

The goal of the article is to offer a style-focussed description of samizdat press articles from the late-1970s, which were the textual manifestation of the independent discourse at that time. The author analysed representative microstyles and conducted a functional interpretation of identified stylistic devices and phenomena, considering how they were related to the official model of public communication. The discussed texts were stylistically diverse, which was a byproduct which came from structural and genre adaptations, and mainly play on language. On (...) the one hand, one can note an expansion of the array of stylistic devices and, on the other, an inclusion into that array of the elements of newspeak in those contexts which indicated its manipulative nature. (shrink)

Orwell, as he himself remarked, came from a lower, professional-service fraction of the English and imperial ruling class that was ‘simultaneously dominator and dominated’ (Raymond Williams), so that a combination of state and monopoly power became his abiding nightmare. His horizon was, as of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, a revolutionary socialism committed to freedom and equality, opposed both to Labourite social democracy and to Stalinist pseudo-communism. In this article, I concentrate on Nineteen Eighty-Four, drawing on narratology (its agential (...) system, spacetime descriptions, and composition – ‘the Winston story’, the ‘Goldstein excerpts’, and the Appendix on Newspeak) and history. I conclude that Nineteen Eighty-Four has an interesting, but limited, ‘Tory anarchist’ stance and horizon: in revolt against the rulers, but not believing that the revolt can succeed (in direct polemic with the Communist Manifesto). In Orwell’s view there are ‘three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle and the Low’, but the mindless and passive Low reduce this to the Middle against the High, or intellect and impotence versus cynical power. ‘No economics’ entails here ‘no class struggle’, and a fair amount of misogyny. Orwell’s textural skill was penetrating, but his thematics very limited. Still, he was one of the first to notice the long-duration slide of politics toward fascism, even if he drew a mistaken consequence from it, as evident in his early conflation of Stalinism and Nazism into an untenable ‘totalitarianism’. Nineteen Eighty-Four remains a concerned, appealing, and in some ways useful text, albeit one that ultimately lacks wisdom. (shrink)

The language of dys-topia, both oral and written, is forced to be an upturned language, a kako-logos, even a no-language when is landing in Orwell’s Oceana : as well as the utopia, in the sense of eu-topia, capsizes in dys-topia the dystopia language capsizes in dys-language. Precisely, the Newspeak of Orwell, built by manipulating the language and by shorting drastically the dictionary, aims to prevent the subjects from communicating with each other and even from thinking in order to make (...) the Big Brother regime even more totalitarian. Similarly, to forbid any kind of literature allows the industrial producing system leaded by the Governor Mustafà Mond of Huxley and by the Government faceless of Bradbury to rule autocratically over a mass society harmonized, tidied, stabilized, and alienated through the use of latest technology for inducing it obsessively and deceitfully towards a growing consumerism. (shrink)

Cet article montre l’influence des fonds structurels européens sur la langue polonaise. On assiste aujourd’hui à l’émergence d’une nouvelle langue euro-polonaise, version polonaise de l’euro-langue, à moins que ce ne soit l’euro-version du polonais. Cette langue a toutes les apparences du polonais, mais elle est si imprégnée de termes bureaucratiques que l’on est en droit de se demander s’il s’agit toujours de la même langue. Par quel mécanisme ce problème d’ordre linguistique est-il apparu ? Pourquoi l’euro-polonais est-il si inutilement compliqué (...) ? Pourquoi éprouve-t-on autant de difficultés à comprendre les textes de l’UE, et singulièrement les appels d’offre ? Telles sont les questions auxquelles répond l’article, qui plaide pour une plus grande lisibilité des textes, sans laquelle il n’est pas de réelle démocratie.This article shows how the EU’s structural funds have influenced the Polish language. What is emerging today is a new language called Euro-Polish, the Polish version of Eurospeak – or possibly the Euro-version of Polish. It certainly looks like Polish, but it is so saturated with bureaucratic terms that one may well wonder whether it is really the same language. How did this problem – a linguistic one – arise? Why is Euro-Polish so pointlessly complicated? Why are EU texts so difficult to understand, and particularly its calls for tenders? This article answers these questions, and pleads in favour of the plain language, without which true democracy cannot exist. (shrink)