Brave New Language
By John Cornell
[email protected]
Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise
In the essay,
"The Principles of Newspeak," George Orwell explains
the background of the emerging new language spoken by the citizens of
the totalitarian society Oceania in his novel 1984. Newspeak as a
fictional language was the "Ingsoc" (English Socialist) government's
attempt to minimize the number of words available to the people by
limiting definitions and combining words into contrived compounds with
"goodthinkful" (politically correct) meanings. Society's shapers
streamlined the inconsistencies of English: the word "wrong" became
"ungood," and something very good was "doublegood" or even
"doubleplusgood." The goal of the Ingsoc Party was to control thought
by controlling speech, to make all communication staccato, automatic
and void of thought.
Our own
government-controlled schools have achieved the same
effect but through different means. English and other western
languages are built from a limited number of basic building blocks, or
letters, representing consonants or vowels that are constructed,
following phonetic rules, into many thousands of words. There is a
balance between economy and range of expression in such a system. A
multitude of ideas is available for communication if the basic rules
are learned. This is the system of phonics that was once taught in
public education.
Schools now
generally avoid the use of phonics when teaching
children to read. Instead, they follow the so-called "whole language"
concept, or the "Look-Say" method. This means of teaching scraps the
focus on the logical construction phonics provides and replaces it by
asking children to learn vocabulary by memorizing the "whole" word.
Thus, the symbol "chair" is a unit unto itself, to be associated with
a piece of furniture used for sitting. No examination is made of the
phonetic components: the hard "ch" sound, the diphthong "ai" or the
consonant "r." The students are not taught to make any connection
between the similarities of the sounds of the components of "chair"
and "cheese," of "chair" and "main" or of "chair" and "bear." This
leaves every child faced with having to learn thousands of symbols,
with no rational system of word-formation available, just to
communicate in everyday life. Additionally, most schools don't teach
the idea of a chair rationally or analytically, meaning through
integration and differentiation: that a chair is a piece of tangible,
personal property within the group known as "furniture," having
similarities and differences when compared to other pieces of
furniture such as a table or a bed. Thus, learning is limited and
rare. (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you understand it,
thank a home schooler.)
Ayn Rand
analyzed this destruction of the learning process in her
essay, "The Comprachicos," from her book The New Left: The
Anti-Industrial Revolution. She asserted that leftist envy has led
to a deliberate disfiguring of the minds of our nation's children
through this bastardization of our educational systems. Instead of
diminishing the number of words available, as in 1984, our society
instead limits access to them -- at least to the younger generations
-- through confusion. Communication is now a chore, as the world of
words is difficult to grasp for those raised in the modern public
education cesspool. Mindless memorization has brought about a
lethargy to learning. Students view concepts as useless abstracts
having no relation to "real life," such as one's impulses. It seems
only the automatic, feed-my-face, instant gratification mind set is
pursued by the members of the X (and Y and the final Z) generation.
So our own government is achieving the same end-state with language as
the Party in 1984: a generation with limited reading, writing and
speaking skills, unlikely to form any opinions but the prescribed
ones.
Some eastern
languages are not built with letters, but by
characters which represent syllables. Chinese has several thousand
characters, versus English, which has two to three dozen. Radically
different languages need different techniques for teaching people to
use them. Whole-language teaching has seemingly more similarity with
some Asian languages and might even be appropriate in such cases; it
does not work well when teaching English.
Governments
have also evolved systems of signs, for highways and
pedestrian information, into international symbols, supposedly for the
ease of everyone. Not only is this confusing for those of us taught
to read the Roman characters of a phonetic system, but the symbols are
often illegible or unclear. Perhaps if we're all properly
preprogrammed within the limits of acceptable behavior and the narrow
definitions of the symbols thrown at us, we'll all know the "correct"
response to any stimulus when it's applied.
Computer
icons can be likewise confusing. Some people find a
word-based menu easier to follow, or buttons with the words clearly
written on them. An operations management class in my undergraduate
business studies asserted that digital numbers and letters are easier
to read and understand than analog dials or symbols. So why use these
"pictures"? "Icon" traditionally means "sacred image." Is this
modern class war? When someone says, "A picture is worth a thousand
words," they don't tell you which one of a thousand possible words
their icon or international symbol refers to. A better saying would
be, "A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a word is worth a
thousand icons."
This system
of limited communication is now dominating our modern
world, in business, education and government -- prompted by our
progressive "leaders." Our education system has been dismantled into
an unintelligible mishmash of images which focuses on random,
concrete-bound associations instead of presenting a logical
progression of abstract concepts linked by definable, manageable
symbols. We're taught that every picture tells a story, and we must
only concentrate on how the story makes us "feel."
How to
respond to all this dumbing-down of language? To put it in
Orwellian terms:
Doubleplusungood.
John Cornell is a finance professional whose personal goal is to
spread rational, Objectivist and libertarian ideas by writing and
publishing libertarian science fiction and literary novels, stories
and articles and occasional pieces of political satire and humor.