Smith and Orwell on Language and Coordination

 

From Adam Smith's "Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages":

The assignation of particular names to denote particular objects, that is, the institution of nouns substantive, would probably, be one of the first steps towards the formation of language. Two savages who had never been taught to speak, but who had been bred up remote from the societies of men, would naturally begin to form that language by which they would endeavour to make their mutual wants intelligible to each other, by uttering certain sounds, whenever they mean to denote certain objects.

 

Language is obviously very important for the mutual coordination of human activities. Especially within an abstract extended order, there are very few focal points which can be expressed without the use of complex languages with grammars, and subtleties taking lifetimes to master. The intense level of cooperation within modern societies would be impossible if it weren’t for the coordination facilitated by shared linguistic associations of focal points. George Orwell’s outcry against the abuse of language in “Politics and the English Language” thus takes an ever more critical resonance when we read it in terms of the conditions for preserving mutual coordination in society.

 

If a group of people were ever to meet at a nearby location, they would have to be able to agree on where that location is, and would have to therefore be able to communicate between themselves that they intend to meet there. For that to happen, they would have to share a language with shared associations between words, and places so that when Sally says that she intends to go to Northside Social, Sue knows she means that specific coffee shop in Arlington. Without those shared associations in language, they will not be able to coordinate their activities since they lack the capability to communicate where they intend to be. The breakdown of the ease of mutual coordination that language made possible between two people with the loss of shared associations in language would have even more horrific effects on the overall orderliness of society’s extended order. 

 

Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” deals with the dire topic of the loss of clear association of words with their intended objects within the world. As he writes in the article: “A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” The corruption of the English language, whether that is in the repetition of phrases to the point of them becoming meaningless or the regular use of euphemisms, reduces the association between words and things in the world. Such linguistic deterioration thereby reduces people’s capability of mutual coordination, whether in finding their way to a destination or in political dialogue.