The above quote from ‘1984’ originally referred to the diminishing vocabulary of ‘Newspeak’, the politically correct language in Orwell’s famous dystopia.

Applied to ‘Santa Speak’, it means no more “Ho Ho Ho!”.

Last Christmas aspiring Santas in Adelaide, Australia were told the “Ho” should be replaced by “Ha”; “Ho” being too close to the American slang for prostitute and therefore offensive to women.

Ha Ha Ha indeed, a fine example of political correctness gone mad.

Or is it? After all, isn’t language a filter through which we see reality? If reality is indeed defined by language, then cutting out dubious language might actually have a benign effect on society. Or is this a couple of bridges too far?

Orwell puts it as follows: "It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words." - George Orwell, 1984.

In Orwell’s totalitarian state the limited vocabulary of Newspeak helps to keep things simple. Thoughts are formulated in words. Hence, the absence of an inciting register causes rebellious ideas to evaporate. Orwell paints a bleak picture of a social model trapped in its own claustrophobic language: No synonyms or antonyms, just words bereft of emotional expression and society as a reflection thereof.

How does our present day ‘newspeak’ compare to Orwell’s fictitious model? Does politically correct language really produce a more politically correct society? Do egalitarian ideas sprout from a more egalitarian lexicon following 1984’s example?

The answer is no. In most cases language seems to follow the lead of political and social changes. The fact that racism is no longer socially acceptable produced the change in word use from nigger over negro and coloured to African American. In the same way the emancipation movement predated the “neutering” of our masculine lexicon by many years: “chairman” becomes “chairperson” “mankind” becomes “humankind”, etc… So society changes and language follows suit.

The continuing necessity for p.c. language, however, indicates that the ideal of equality has not yet been reached. After all, why would we need linguistic cosmetics if we could look our supposedly egalitarian society straight in the face? The answer is that stereotypes and prejudice die hard. According to p.c. advocates defusing the linguistic triggers helps these social stigmata on their way out. Others disagree, claiming that politically correct language is nothing but a cover up which maims the English language in the process.

To finish off, let’s have a quick look at an even more manipulative use of p.c. language that is connected to neither race nor sex (“gender” in new speak).

Why, for example, have good old “swamps” been replaced by “wetlands”? When did “rain forests” start growing where the “jungle” used to be? The answer is simple: A government that wants to spend money on conservation needs to get rid of negative connotations involving parasites and disease. The end of the day the preservation of wetlands is a nobler cause than saving a mosquito infested swamp..