Use Of Language In Animal Farm, By George Orwell

Language as a form of communication is a very powerful tool, that in the right hands can bring about overwhelming results. In Animal Farm by George Orwell, the pigs’ use of inaccessible and manipulative language plays a pivotal role in allowing them to rule over other animals on the farm. Moreover, the gullibility of the other animals due to their lack of language comprehension, facilitates the pigs’ ability to remain in power. In this essay, I argue that the pigs’ use of language as a means of misinformation, manipulation, and propaganda eventually leads to their rise and reign and the overall enslavement of the other animals.
The rise of the pigs can ultimately be seen in how they use language to misinform the other animals, who, without

“Comrade”, used to refer to the other animals on the farm, convinces them that they are on the same level as the pigs. However, this word is only used to control the animals to do the pigs’ work. For example, after the sabotage of the windmill, Napoleon refers to the animals as comrades, and instructs them to help out as much as they can, expressing statements such as “no more delays, comrades” (48) and “forward comrades” (48). The hypocritical use of comrade manipulates the animals into completing the actions requested by the pigs. The animals believe all are equal, and each does their share, when in reality, the pigs use them as

These commandments are meant to represent an “unaltered law” (15), but after the pigs began to rise in power, their superiority in language allowed them to change it to their benefit. At the height of his reign, Napoleon established his position of power by changing the commandment “all animals are equal” (15) to “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” (90). At its core, this change is an abuse of language in order to manipulate other animals’ thoughts. Initially, the commandment states that everyone is equal which allows the other animals to feel acknowledged, but then it contradicts itself by saying a hypothetical “some” are more equal than others. Although not explicitly stated, it implies that the pigs identify as the “some which are more equal than others” (90). This implication leads to the notion that the pigs who are in the ‘some’ category are to be considered a different class compared to the animals in the ‘all’ category, and as such the pigs’ position as more equal provides them more power over the lesser