Intro
This satire follows the adventures of Lemuel Gulliver: an explorer who documents the languages and culture of such strange, faraway lands as Lilliput, Brobdingnag, and Laputa (which, as you can probably tell, are made-up names). As a linguist, Gulliver spends a lot of time examining local dialects; however, he also observes the difficulties and deception that can come about through language (all that and gets to chill with tiny folk, giant folk, sorcerer folk, and horse folk).
So what about the language stuff? Well, jargon gets used in lots of different areas in real-life: we’ve all heard of “psychobabble” and “technobabble,” and, of course, academia has its own brand of fancy babble. If you’ve ever tried to get a grip on some of this stuff then you’ll know that it can be really annoyingly long-winded. And to that part, at least, the Brobdingnagians have come up with the genius solution—they tackle lawyer-speak by limiting the number of words that can be used when writing a law to 20, precisely so as to avoid jargon and confusion. Foolproof, huh?
The desire for language that’s clear and truthful shows up in lots of the strange and multi-lingual lands Gulliver encounters. It’s summed up by Gulliver’s favorites, the horsey Houyhnhnms, who have no written language and, what’s more, don’t even have word for lying: they believe that the whole purpose of communication is to be honest and truthful, meaning that there should be no need for a word that signifies deceit. Forget the “little white lie”: it’s 100% truth for these guys (remember that movie Liar, Liar? Same thing here).
The book therefore expresses loads of suspicions about the written word, which is kind of paradoxical given that Gulliver’s Travels is itself a written text. Still, this is a satire we’re dealing with, and satire is often pretty heavy on irony.
One example of satire is Gulliver’s account of meeting three professors at the grand academy of Lagado. These professors have come up with an inventive idea for renovating language:
Quote
We next went to the school of languages, where three professors sat in consultation upon improving that of their own country.
The first project was, to shorten discourse, by cutting polysyllables into one, and leaving out verbs and participles, because, in reality, all things imaginable are but norms.
The other project was, a scheme for entirely abolishing all words whatsoever; and this was urged as a great advantage in point of health, as well as brevity. For it is plain, that every word we speak is, in some degree, a diminution of our lungs by corrosion, and, consequently, contributes to the shortening of our lives. An expedient was therefore offered, “that since words are only names for things, it would be more convenient for all men to carry about them such things as were necessary to express a particular business they are to discourse on.” And this invention would certainly have taken place, to the great ease as well as health of the subject, if the women, in conjunction with the vulgar and illiterate, had not threatened to raise a rebellion unless they might be allowed the liberty to speak with their tongues, after the manner of their forefathers; such constant irreconcilable enemies to science are the common people. However, many of the most learned and wise adhere to the new scheme of expressing themselves by things; which has only this inconvenience attending it, that if a man’s business be very great, and of various kinds, he must be obliged, in proportion, to carry a greater bundle of things upon his back, unless he can afford one or two strong servants to attend him. I have often beheld two of those sages almost sinking under the weight of their packs, like pedlars among us, who, when they met in the street, would lay down their loads, open their sacks, and hold conversation for an hour together; then put up their implements, help each other to resume their burdens, and take their leave.
But for short conversations, a man may carry implements in his pockets, and under his arms, enough to supply him; and in his house, he cannot be at a loss. Therefore the room where company meet who practise this art, is full of all things, ready at hand, requisite to furnish matter for this kind of artificial converse.
Another great advantage proposed by this invention was, that it would serve as a universal language, to be understood in all civilised nations, whose goods and utensils are generally of the same kind, or nearly resembling, so that their uses might easily be comprehended. And thus ambassadors would be qualified to treat with foreign princes, or ministers of state, to whose tongues they were utter strangers.
Analysis
In this well-known passage, Gulliver learns that the professors’ aim is to do away with language and replace it with a system in which people express themselves via things (kind of like show-and-tell but without the tell). Where could that go wrong? Well, the one little drawback is that this can involve lugging around heavy baggage—but, hey, that’s where servants come in.
Besides, supporters of this scheme argue that it will have benefits for health and for will be a useful time-saver. The professors’ initial proposal had been to simplify language, but they’ve since decided that there’s no point in doing things by halves—why not just get rid of words altogether? Talk about the silent treatment (or wait, don’t talk…).
Okay, so this scenario is clearly ridiculous. But even so, it’s an interesting concept to chew on. For one thing, it suggests that the word is a direct substitute for the thing. Hey, sounds kind of like signifier and signified to us. So of course, as semioticians have argued, this direct link isn’t the case.
The professors, however, subscribe to the notion of the sign as mimetic; that is, a mirror of reality. However, if we think about ideological usages of language and the arbitrary nature of the sign, the idea that the word and the thing are interchangeable seems way too simple.
Not only this, but it doesn’t leave any room for the imagination: communicating in plain terms can be necessary and helpful (none of us want to listen to non-stop waffle), but abandoning words in favor of things is a whole other ballpark and takes away from the expressive potential of language.
The big problem with this concept is that it treats language as totally descriptive, failing to recognize that communication is more complex than this. The professors argue that their new model could serve as a universal language, but, again, this depends on a shared link between thing and concept (if you point to a dog most Americans will think “awww,” and people from some other cultures will think “nommm”).
This idea of a one-to-one link goes way back, with many 17th-century writers having argued that language should be pure (is that even possible?) and literal rather than fancy and metaphorical. However, Swift casts a satirical eye on this: those opposing the professors’ regime may be “women, in conjunction with the vulgar and illiterate” (charming) but the “learned and wise” would most likely get booted off The Apprentice if they came up with this idea in real life. Next island, please!