Elliot McGowan
Elliot McGowan Elliot McGowan 2538173 British Literature 1900-present LET_L_ELBAELK205_2013_110
How is language used as an instrument of political and social control in George Orwell’s novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm? Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm collectively exhibit one of the most powerful political warnings in recent literature. Orwell intended to elucidate the dangers of totalitarianism and by allegorically highlighting the inhumanity of past (and contemporary) governing bodies he attempted to expose the methods employed by totalitarian regimes and thereby prohibit further instances of absolute political authority. One of the central themes that Orwell illustrates is the manipulation of language and its vital position in the progression of totalitarianism. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm depict different environments and extremes of this political system but they both deploy the same message - they demonstrate the potential danger of the English language, its capacity for manipulation and its utilisation as an instrument of political and social control. By evaluating both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm it is possible to see not only the transformation and evolution of a totalitarian regime but one at its most overwhelming and menacing potential, and thereby analyse the role that language plays in both. One of the principle dangers of language presented in these narratives is its accessibility to be capitalised on by the more intelligent and, therefore, manipulate the less intelligent. In Animal Farm, for example, the pigs immediately assume control because of their superior intellect. Snowball is described as ‘quicker in speech and more inventive’ 1 and Squealer as ‘a brilliant talker,’2 who, ‘when arguing some difficult point, had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive.’3 This is also demonstrated in the introduction of the cart horses Boxer and Clover who ‘had great difficulty in thinking anything
1
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. (Harcourt Books Ltd: Florida, 2003) 11. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 11. 3 Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 11. 2
1
Elliot McGowan
out for themselves, but having once accepted the pigs as their teachers, they absorbed everything that they were told, and passed it on to the other animals by simple arguments.’4 The pigs intellect immediately places them in an authoritative standing, though they may appear to act for the benefit of animal equality at first, they are instantaneously promoted to a level of leadership following the death of old Major and the consequences of the rebellion. What then progresses is the corruption within the governing pigs, they act for personal gain and not for the well-being of the farm. After the pigs are discovered to be keeping milk and apples for themselves Squealer, using rhetorical linguistic devices, explains to the other animals that; ‘it is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back!’5 This is the first signs of Squealer’s persuasive capabilities and his use of language as an instrument of social control. The pigs distort the meaning of old Major’s words and convince the other animals to conform to their ideas by using their superior intellect. What resumes throughout the novella is a constant reconstruction of reality by the pigs. They alter the seven commandments and constantly convince the rest of animal farm what they want them to believe. What is also evident here is persuasive language combined with fear, the pigs are presented with two options – to believe the lies of the pigs or to believe that Mr. Jones will return at which the animals all opt for the former and promote it thereon. This theme is also prominent in Nineteen Eight-Four in which the populace choose to believe whatever the party tells them instead of experience the fearful results that they are otherwise threatened with.
Squealer not only alters the seven commandments but, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, also completely disguises the truth of the current circumstances and the population’s well-being. A. M. Tibbetts explains this “ideological cliché.” He states how ‘Squealer always speaks of a “readjustment” of rations rather than a “reduction.” Through ideological manipulation of language by the pigs, the reality of the animal world can be changed.’6 This procedure is almost identically represented in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Big Brother claims that the standard of living has
4
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 12. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 23. 6 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? (College Composition and Communication, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1978) 165. 5
2
Elliot McGowan
‘risen by no less than 20 per cent’7 when all around the standard of living can be seen to have sustained a great decrease, and, furthermore, Winston deliberates how ‘it appeared there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week.’8 Orwell emphasises the potency of language and history’s absolute dependency on it. Language is used as an instrument of social control; in this case, to completely readjust and construct any reality it wants. Knowledge of the past comes from language and when a totalitarian regime possesses a certain amount of control over the media and its subjects it can mask the truth and shape a reality of whatever sort that the governing body desires.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, however, this process is experienced to new extremes. Winston Smith’s job is one of ‘continuous alteration’9 at the Ministry of Truth. The extent and extremity of this reconstruction of history is summarised by Winston:
This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record.10 By completely manipulating history there was nothing to build on; no basis for a unification and rebellion, no previous ideas or beliefs other than those of the Party, no accounts of revolution or glorified historical events that people might seek inspiration from today, there lacked even
7
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. (Penguin Books Ltd: London, 1970) 50. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 50. 9 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 35. 10 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 35. 8
3
Elliot McGowan
motivations for an improved well-being. As Tibbetts expresses; ‘the citizens of Oceania could not discuss, for instance, the idea of civil rights because they had nothing to discuss it with.’ 11 There existed Goldstein but he does not exemplify an alternative life, his purpose is that of a scapegoat, a mechanism that provides the people with the possibility of venting their emotions and expressing themselves, he may even, as Julia suggests12, not exist as anything other than an invention of the Party. Orwell presents a physiological system that is so effective a method of social control that the Party operates with a complete lack of subtlety. This is first seen in the dishonesty of the rations and well-being of the population but then also in the constant change between enemies of Big Brother. Winston then informs us, however, that the party slogan reads ‘who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’13 It is this that is such a shocking aspect of the manipulation of language as an instrument for social control, and an aspect, that Winston himself expresses is worse than death ‘if the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened – that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?’14
However, the most effective and frightening notion of language’s dangerous potential is the adaptation of the English language into the official language of Oceania known as ‘’Newspeak.’’ The first introduction to Newspeak is the shortened names for the ministries. They represent everything that Orwell intends in his warnings against the power of language. These are the Ministries of Love, Peace, Truth and Plenty. All of which, as we find out, and Orwell explains in his Appendix - ‘meant the exact opposite of what they were supposed to mean.’15 However, in his Appendix, Orwell also highlights an ulterior motive: in the ‘early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and phrases had been one of the characteristic features of political language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian organisations.’16 Orwell explains that
11
A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 125. 13 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 31. 14 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 31. 15 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 247. 16 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 247. 12
4
Elliot McGowan
the shortening of phrases such as ‘Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Inprecorr, Agitprop,’17 suggests a ‘tightly-knit organisation and a well-defined body of doctrine.’18 For example, Communist International does not have the same effect as Comintern and likewise Ministry of Peace is given more potency when referred to as Minipax.19
The purposes, ambitions and full potentials of Newspeak, however, are revealed through the language-obsessed character Syme, who informs Winston proudly that Newspeak ‘is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year.’20 The purpose of Newspeak is to remove the range and eloquence of the English language, restricting any room for passion and beauty and as Tibbett’s emphasises; ‘the grammatical irregularities that help to give English its colour, force and distinction were ironed flat.’21 In both Nineteen-Eighty Four and Animal Farm the word ‘’Comrade’’ is used instead of ‘’friend’’ in an attempt to further restrict any emotional bonds or loyalty, in the same way that sexual relations are only a means of reproduction and not an expression of emotion. Language is used here as a psychological social control. What Orwell makes truly frightening, is that Syme himself asks Winston the question ‘don’t you see that the whole aim of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible.’22 Syme is passionate and in favour of the destruction of the English language and appears to realise that this also means the destruction of human will and imagination. He goes on to state that ‘every year there are fewer and fewer words and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.’23 Syme acknowledges that with the reduction of words comes the reduction of consciousness and individuality but embraces it. This process of ‘’verbicide’’24 is, as Tibbetts explains, effective because ‘if you don’t have the word available for an idea, you have trouble thinking of it.’ 25 This 17
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 247. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 248. 19 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 248. 20 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 45. 21 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. 22 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 45. 23 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 45. 24 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. 25 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. 18
5
Elliot McGowan
role that Newspeak plays as an effective instrument of social control is further outlined in Orwell’s appendix.
The purpose of Newspeak…was 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 as far as thought is dependent on words.26 This method of linguistic and, therefore, psychological manipulation represents a very effective system for a totalitarian regime. Rather than physically control a populace, face physical and public oppression and consequently forcing them, out of fear, to accept a party’s propaganda, Orwell illustrates how with the use of language a society can be controlled and manipulated to accept propaganda as its reality. People thereby recycle the propaganda that is fed to them, feel hateful towards the Party’s enemies (be it Eurasia or Eastasia) and become no more than the bleating sheep that sing ‘’Beasts of England.’’ The results are an almost entire removal of humanity and individuality. As John Wait illustrates; Orwell does not include physical violence and oppression in Nineteen Eighty-Four because he ‘is not interested in extinction weapons because, fundamentally, they do not frighten him as much as spiritual ones; the death of his body is a misfortune for a man, but it is not as bad as the death of his spirit.’27 This ‘death of his spirit’ is likewise, unanimous with Winston’s belief that the use of language in this sense, to control and manipulate a society, it’s individuals and its history is, ‘surely more terrifying than mere torture and death?’28
These two novels present different extremes of political corruption but they evince the message that language is potentially a potent instrument for political and social control. When manipulated by a totalitarian regime, such as Orwell experienced in the moulds of Stalinist Russia and Hitler’s Germany, language can be used to reshape the reality of its subjects, mask and 26
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 241. Wain, John. Essays on Literature and Ideas. (Macmillan Publishers Ltd: London 1963) 185. 28 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 31. 27
6
Elliot McGowan
conceal the truth and, in some cases, restrict the individuality and humanity of mankind. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm present, as Tibbetts evinces, ‘Orwell’s strongest and most memorable metaphors for the relation between despotism and language’29, and, whilst they ‘use different literary techniques, they form a consistent argument concerning the English language.’30
Bibliography 29 30
A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 165. A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 166.
7
Elliot McGowan
A.M, Tibbetts. “What Did Orwell Think About The English Language?” (College Composition and Communication, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1978) Orwell, George. “Animal Farm’’ (Harcourt Books Ltd: Florida, 2003) Orwell, George. “Nineteen Eighty-Four’’ (Penguin Books Ltd: London, 1970) Rodden, John. "The Rope That Connects Me Directly with You": John Wain and the Movement Writers' Orwell (A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol. 20, No.1, Spring, 1988) Wain, John. “Essays on Literature and Ideas’’ (Macmillan Publishers Ltd: London 1963)
8
How is language used as an instrument of political and social control in George Orwell’s novels Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm? Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm collectively exhibit one of the most powerful political warnings in recent literature. Orwell intended to elucidate the dangers of totalitarianism and by allegorically highlighting the inhumanity of past (and contemporary) governing bodies he attempted to expose the methods employed by totalitarian regimes and thereby prohibit further instances of absolute political authority. One of the central themes that Orwell illustrates is the manipulation of language and its vital position in the progression of totalitarianism. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm depict different environments and extremes of this political system but they both deploy the same message - they demonstrate the potential danger of the English language, its capacity for manipulation and its utilisation as an instrument of political and social control. By evaluating both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm it is possible to see not only the transformation and evolution of a totalitarian regime but one at its most overwhelming and menacing potential, and thereby analyse the role that language plays in both. One of the principle dangers of language presented in these narratives is its accessibility to be capitalised on by the more intelligent and, therefore, manipulate the less intelligent. In Animal Farm, for example, the pigs immediately assume control because of their superior intellect. Snowball is described as ‘quicker in speech and more inventive’ 1 and Squealer as ‘a brilliant talker,’2 who, ‘when arguing some difficult point, had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive.’3 This is also demonstrated in the introduction of the cart horses Boxer and Clover who ‘had great difficulty in thinking anything
1
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. (Harcourt Books Ltd: Florida, 2003) 11. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 11. 3 Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 11. 2
1
Elliot McGowan
out for themselves, but having once accepted the pigs as their teachers, they absorbed everything that they were told, and passed it on to the other animals by simple arguments.’4 The pigs intellect immediately places them in an authoritative standing, though they may appear to act for the benefit of animal equality at first, they are instantaneously promoted to a level of leadership following the death of old Major and the consequences of the rebellion. What then progresses is the corruption within the governing pigs, they act for personal gain and not for the well-being of the farm. After the pigs are discovered to be keeping milk and apples for themselves Squealer, using rhetorical linguistic devices, explains to the other animals that; ‘it is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back!’5 This is the first signs of Squealer’s persuasive capabilities and his use of language as an instrument of social control. The pigs distort the meaning of old Major’s words and convince the other animals to conform to their ideas by using their superior intellect. What resumes throughout the novella is a constant reconstruction of reality by the pigs. They alter the seven commandments and constantly convince the rest of animal farm what they want them to believe. What is also evident here is persuasive language combined with fear, the pigs are presented with two options – to believe the lies of the pigs or to believe that Mr. Jones will return at which the animals all opt for the former and promote it thereon. This theme is also prominent in Nineteen Eight-Four in which the populace choose to believe whatever the party tells them instead of experience the fearful results that they are otherwise threatened with.
Squealer not only alters the seven commandments but, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, also completely disguises the truth of the current circumstances and the population’s well-being. A. M. Tibbetts explains this “ideological cliché.” He states how ‘Squealer always speaks of a “readjustment” of rations rather than a “reduction.” Through ideological manipulation of language by the pigs, the reality of the animal world can be changed.’6 This procedure is almost identically represented in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Big Brother claims that the standard of living has
4
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 12. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 23. 6 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? (College Composition and Communication, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1978) 165. 5
2
Elliot McGowan
‘risen by no less than 20 per cent’7 when all around the standard of living can be seen to have sustained a great decrease, and, furthermore, Winston deliberates how ‘it appeared there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week.’8 Orwell emphasises the potency of language and history’s absolute dependency on it. Language is used as an instrument of social control; in this case, to completely readjust and construct any reality it wants. Knowledge of the past comes from language and when a totalitarian regime possesses a certain amount of control over the media and its subjects it can mask the truth and shape a reality of whatever sort that the governing body desires.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, however, this process is experienced to new extremes. Winston Smith’s job is one of ‘continuous alteration’9 at the Ministry of Truth. The extent and extremity of this reconstruction of history is summarised by Winston:
This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record.10 By completely manipulating history there was nothing to build on; no basis for a unification and rebellion, no previous ideas or beliefs other than those of the Party, no accounts of revolution or glorified historical events that people might seek inspiration from today, there lacked even
7
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. (Penguin Books Ltd: London, 1970) 50. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 50. 9 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 35. 10 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 35. 8
3
Elliot McGowan
motivations for an improved well-being. As Tibbetts expresses; ‘the citizens of Oceania could not discuss, for instance, the idea of civil rights because they had nothing to discuss it with.’ 11 There existed Goldstein but he does not exemplify an alternative life, his purpose is that of a scapegoat, a mechanism that provides the people with the possibility of venting their emotions and expressing themselves, he may even, as Julia suggests12, not exist as anything other than an invention of the Party. Orwell presents a physiological system that is so effective a method of social control that the Party operates with a complete lack of subtlety. This is first seen in the dishonesty of the rations and well-being of the population but then also in the constant change between enemies of Big Brother. Winston then informs us, however, that the party slogan reads ‘who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’13 It is this that is such a shocking aspect of the manipulation of language as an instrument for social control, and an aspect, that Winston himself expresses is worse than death ‘if the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened – that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?’14
However, the most effective and frightening notion of language’s dangerous potential is the adaptation of the English language into the official language of Oceania known as ‘’Newspeak.’’ The first introduction to Newspeak is the shortened names for the ministries. They represent everything that Orwell intends in his warnings against the power of language. These are the Ministries of Love, Peace, Truth and Plenty. All of which, as we find out, and Orwell explains in his Appendix - ‘meant the exact opposite of what they were supposed to mean.’15 However, in his Appendix, Orwell also highlights an ulterior motive: in the ‘early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and phrases had been one of the characteristic features of political language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian organisations.’16 Orwell explains that
11
A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 125. 13 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 31. 14 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 31. 15 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 247. 16 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 247. 12
4
Elliot McGowan
the shortening of phrases such as ‘Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Inprecorr, Agitprop,’17 suggests a ‘tightly-knit organisation and a well-defined body of doctrine.’18 For example, Communist International does not have the same effect as Comintern and likewise Ministry of Peace is given more potency when referred to as Minipax.19
The purposes, ambitions and full potentials of Newspeak, however, are revealed through the language-obsessed character Syme, who informs Winston proudly that Newspeak ‘is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year.’20 The purpose of Newspeak is to remove the range and eloquence of the English language, restricting any room for passion and beauty and as Tibbett’s emphasises; ‘the grammatical irregularities that help to give English its colour, force and distinction were ironed flat.’21 In both Nineteen-Eighty Four and Animal Farm the word ‘’Comrade’’ is used instead of ‘’friend’’ in an attempt to further restrict any emotional bonds or loyalty, in the same way that sexual relations are only a means of reproduction and not an expression of emotion. Language is used here as a psychological social control. What Orwell makes truly frightening, is that Syme himself asks Winston the question ‘don’t you see that the whole aim of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible.’22 Syme is passionate and in favour of the destruction of the English language and appears to realise that this also means the destruction of human will and imagination. He goes on to state that ‘every year there are fewer and fewer words and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.’23 Syme acknowledges that with the reduction of words comes the reduction of consciousness and individuality but embraces it. This process of ‘’verbicide’’24 is, as Tibbetts explains, effective because ‘if you don’t have the word available for an idea, you have trouble thinking of it.’ 25 This 17
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 247. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 248. 19 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 248. 20 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 45. 21 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. 22 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 45. 23 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 45. 24 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. 25 A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 164. 18
5
Elliot McGowan
role that Newspeak plays as an effective instrument of social control is further outlined in Orwell’s appendix.
The purpose of Newspeak…was 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 as far as thought is dependent on words.26 This method of linguistic and, therefore, psychological manipulation represents a very effective system for a totalitarian regime. Rather than physically control a populace, face physical and public oppression and consequently forcing them, out of fear, to accept a party’s propaganda, Orwell illustrates how with the use of language a society can be controlled and manipulated to accept propaganda as its reality. People thereby recycle the propaganda that is fed to them, feel hateful towards the Party’s enemies (be it Eurasia or Eastasia) and become no more than the bleating sheep that sing ‘’Beasts of England.’’ The results are an almost entire removal of humanity and individuality. As John Wait illustrates; Orwell does not include physical violence and oppression in Nineteen Eighty-Four because he ‘is not interested in extinction weapons because, fundamentally, they do not frighten him as much as spiritual ones; the death of his body is a misfortune for a man, but it is not as bad as the death of his spirit.’27 This ‘death of his spirit’ is likewise, unanimous with Winston’s belief that the use of language in this sense, to control and manipulate a society, it’s individuals and its history is, ‘surely more terrifying than mere torture and death?’28
These two novels present different extremes of political corruption but they evince the message that language is potentially a potent instrument for political and social control. When manipulated by a totalitarian regime, such as Orwell experienced in the moulds of Stalinist Russia and Hitler’s Germany, language can be used to reshape the reality of its subjects, mask and 26
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Appendix. 241. Wain, John. Essays on Literature and Ideas. (Macmillan Publishers Ltd: London 1963) 185. 28 Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 31. 27
6
Elliot McGowan
conceal the truth and, in some cases, restrict the individuality and humanity of mankind. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm present, as Tibbetts evinces, ‘Orwell’s strongest and most memorable metaphors for the relation between despotism and language’29, and, whilst they ‘use different literary techniques, they form a consistent argument concerning the English language.’30
Bibliography 29 30
A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 165. A.M, Tibbetts. What Did Orwell Think About The English Language? 166.
7
Elliot McGowan
A.M, Tibbetts. “What Did Orwell Think About The English Language?” (College Composition and Communication, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1978) Orwell, George. “Animal Farm’’ (Harcourt Books Ltd: Florida, 2003) Orwell, George. “Nineteen Eighty-Four’’ (Penguin Books Ltd: London, 1970) Rodden, John. "The Rope That Connects Me Directly with You": John Wain and the Movement Writers' Orwell (A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol. 20, No.1, Spring, 1988) Wain, John. “Essays on Literature and Ideas’’ (Macmillan Publishers Ltd: London 1963)
8
