







































AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        15 
 

SQUEALER’S USE OF EUPHEMISM AND DOUBLESPEAK IN 

GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM 

 

Chinyere Alozie-Onumadu 

Girls’ Secondary School Ikenegbu, Owerri, Nigeria. 

Email: chinyere.alozieonumadu@gmail.com  

 

Abstract 

This paper reviewed the various communicative functions of euphemism and 

the implication of doublespeak. Politeness theory developed by Brown and 

Levison in 1978, Goffman’s theory of face and Steven McCornack’s 

Information Manipulation Theory founded in 1992 were adopted in analyzing 

Squealer’s utterances in Orwell’s Animal Farm. In describing the 

communicative functions of euphemism and implication of doublespeak, the 

descriptive research design and the qualitative method were used to analyze 

nine utterances from Squealer. From the analysis, the researcher found out 

that although euphemism and doublespeak are inter-related, the phenomena 

differ. The study also revealed that doublespeak can be notorious in 

conversation.  

 

Keywords: Euphemism, Doublespeak, Information Manipulation Theory  

 

Introduction 

Euphemism and Doublespeak are closely related. A phrase in doublespeak as 

well as in euphemism is a roundabout way of saying something. Euphemism 

has a great effect on people’s daily communication. It can make a harsh topic 

softer and an embarrassing conversation agreeable while adhering to social 

communicative conventions. In other words, it saves the faces of both sides 

and enable people to communicate successfully. On the other hand, 

doublespeak is an expression that deliberately reverses the meaning of words. 

It may take the form of euphemisms (e.g ‘downsizing’ for ‘layoff’), it 

primarily meant to make ‘the truth’ sound palatable. The phenomena also play 

the part of showing politeness, concealing feelings and deceit 

(www.cliffnotes.com). 

 

Broadly speaking, euphemisms are sweet-sounding or at least inoffensive, 

alternatives for expressions that speakers or writers prefer not to use in 

executing a particular communicative intention on a given occasion whereas 

doublespeak is almost always intended to confuse and deceive people. It is the 

complete opposite of plain and simple truth; It distorts words and phrases in 

order to bury a truth (Allan and Burridge, 35). 

 

Weaver II and Hybels (96) define euphemism as an inoffensive word or 

phrase that is substituted for other words that might be perceived as 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        16 
 

unpleasant. They claim that sometimes government agencies or other 

institutions create euphemisms to cover up the truth. When euphemism is 

created by an institution, they are often referred to as doublespeak. 

Doublespeak is seen in the character of Squealer in Animal Farm (AF) by 

George Orwell. Squealer is highly skilled delivering making speeches to the 

other animals. He is described in the book as a brilliant talker and persuasive 

who confuses the other animals by twisting the truth. This can be seen when 

he teaches the sheep to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!” (AF, 92) 

 

All who use language should be concerned whether statements and facts agree 

and whether language is, in Orwell’s words, ‘largely the defense of the 

indefensible’. Although doublespeak is a form of euphemism, they differ. In 

order to differentiate the two phenomena, in order to cover the research gap, 

this study will therefore throw more light and emphasis on the difference(s) 

between doublespeak and euphemism by answering these research questions: 

a) To what degree is the use of doublespeak/euphemism notorious in 

conversation? 

b) To what extent are doublespeak words used to denote the opposite of 

their actual meaning? 

c) To what extent is the use of euphemism in expressing oneself? 

 

Conceptual Clarification 
 

The Concept of Euphemism 

One communication strategy used by speakers is called ‘euphemism’. 

Euphemism is derived from the Greek phrase ‘euphemismos’ meaning ‘to 

sound good’. Various scholars define euphemism in different ways: 

According to Hudson (261), euphemism is the extension of ordinary words 

and phrases to express unpleasant and embarrassing ideas. Rawson (1) on the 

other hand sees euphemism as ‘a powerful linguistic tools that are embedded 

so deeply in our language that few of us, even those who pride themselves on 

being plainspoken, never get through a day without using them. Mashak et al 

(202) say euphemism is an international concept but it is conveyed according 

to the conventional norms of certain societies. Leech (45) on the other hand, 

defines euphemism as ‘the practice of referring to something offensive or 

delicate in terms that make it sound more pleasant. Sanderson (259) also states 

that euphemism ‘can be used as a way of being vague and unclear or to cover 

up the truth or reality of a situation.’ Lutz (348) claims that euphemism can 

also be a tactful word or phrase which avoids directly mentioning a painful 

reality. 

 

Euphemisms are often used in everyday speech to soften difficult situations. 

Here are a few examples of euphemism: 

a) Dan, we have to let you go. 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        17 
 

To ‘let someone go’ is to sack/fire someone. This is euphemism that 

sounds much better and nicer than the harsh truth of the situation.  

b) She is a curvy woman. 

‘Curvy’ is often used as a euphemism for ‘overweight’ 

 

According to Wang (152), there are two kinds of euphemism: Traditional 

euphemism and stylistic euphemism. Traditional euphemism refers to those 

related with taboo language such as birth, illness, death, sex and so on. If it is 

expressed directly, people may have the feeling of vulgarness, crudeness, 

harshness and rudeness and that is taboo language. On the contrary, if it 

expressed indirectly, people may have the feeling of elegance and politeness 

and that is euphemism. Stylistic euphemism has nothing to do with taboo and 

it is actually flattery and praising. Rawson (3) on the other hand, divided 

euphemisms into two general types: Positive and negative. The positive 

euphemisms inflate and magnify, making the euphemized items more 

important than they really are. The negative euphemisms deflate and diminish. 

It is defensive in nature. The negative euphemisms replace language that 

people prefer to avoid using. Examples include ‘harvesting’ in place of 

‘killing’. 

 

The Effect and Function of Euphemism 

A good knowledge of euphemism can make us keep a good relationship and 

promote effective communication among our humans. Euphemism as one of 

the most useful forms of devices exists in all kinds of languages and plays 

very important and practical roles in various aspects of our lives. It is a 

universal phenomenon used in language by human beings. Keyes (8) says in 

his book Euphemania: Our Love Affair with Euphemism. Little Affairs that 

euphemism has important social functions. It can maintain the use and 

efficiency of the words of taboo. As a part of politeness principles, 

euphemism has found its wide application in various kinds of works including 

George Orwell’s Animal Farm. 

 

There are many euphemisms in Animal Farm. The most emotional one is 

when Boxer grows ill after working so diligently without questioning 

anything. When he literally works himself to sickness, the pigs did not take 

care of him but sent him away to be slaughtered. Three days later it was 

announced that he had died in the hospital at Willingdon, in spite of receiving 

every attention a horse could have. Squealer came to announce the news to the 

others. He had, he said, been present during Boxer’s last hours. ‘It was the 

most affecting sight I have ever seen! said Squealer, lifting his trotter and 

wiping away a tear. I was at his bedside at the very last. And at the end, 

almost too weak to speak, he whispered in my ear that his sole sorrow was to 

have passed on before the windmill was finished. ‘Forward, Comrades! He 

whispered. ‘Forward in the name of the Rebellion, Long live Animal Farm I 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        18 
 

Long Live Comrade Napoleon! Napoleon is always right’ those were his very 

last words, Comrades’. After this, Squealer tried to explain away. ‘Yes, Boxer 

died but he died well in a hospital (AF, 85). However, Boxer’s last words 

were euphemistic because they were to press on with the rebellion. 

Euphemism plays two important functions: 

a) Politeness function: This function respects others, keep them from being 

hurt, avoid presumption and indecent assault in communication and 

make them accept some bad things pleasantly. Euphemisms are used in 

general, to show one’s politeness and respect. 

b) Functions of building and maintaining a good relationship: euphemism 

is a big part of politeness principle and is used extensively in 

commercial correspondence. Vague language, affective words, gentle 

verbs and interrogative and conditional sentences are all manifestation 

of euphemism. Euphemism functions effectively in saving face. 

 

The Concept of Doublespeak  

Doublespeak is the abuse of public language to influence people’s opinion 

based on partial or incorrect information. According to Gibson and Lutz, the 

term ‘doublespeak’ was coined in 1972 and comes from the fusion of two 

terms that Orwell used in his novel Nineteen-Eight-four newspeak and 

doublethink. The vocabulary of Newspeak is reduced to ambiguous terms 

which make the citizens of Oceania indifferent to the government’s policies, 

powerless against inappropriate activities and unable to think critically. On the 

other hand, doublethink means a type of thinking that can hold 

‘simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be 

contradictory and believing in both of them’ (Orwell, 22). 

 

Lutz (347) says“doublespeak is a very conscious use of language as a weapon 

or tool by those in power to achieve their ends at our expense”. Chopra (1) 

agrees with Lutz by saying doublespeak refers to the use of language that 

purposefully disguises the meaning of words in order to make it more bearable 

to the recipient. He went further to say that the majority of the users of 

doublespeak are the political entities. This can be seen in the role played by 

the pigs especially Squealer in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The researcher 

agrees that doublespeak is an expression deliberately constructed to cover its 

actual meaning and it makes the bad seem good and the negative appear 

positive. Moreover, it is hard to spot and identify at a first glance. 

 

Lutz also gave at least four kinds of doublespeak. The first is the euphemism, 

an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid a harsh, unpleasant or 

distasteful reality. However, when a euphemism is used to mislead or deceive, 

it becomes doublespeak. A second kind of doublespeak is jargon, the 

specialized language of a trade, profession or similar group such as that used 

by doctors, lawyers, engineers, educators etc. jargon can serve an important 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        19 
 

and useful function. Within a group, jargon functions as kind of verbal 

shorthand and allows members of the group to communicate with each other 

clearly, efficiently and quickly. But jargon, like the euphemism can also be 

doublespeak. It can be pretentious, obscure terminology used to give an air of 

authority and prestige to speakers and the subject matter. Jargon as 

doublespeak often makes the simple appear complex. In this sense, it is used 

not to express but impress. 

 

The third kind of doublespeak is gobbledyogook or bureaucratese. Such 

doublespeak is simply a matter of piling on words, of overwhelming the 

audience with words, the bigger the words and the longer the sentences. 

Sometimes gobbledygook may sound impressive but when the quote is later 

examined, it doesn’t even make sense. This is evidence in Squealer’s speech 

to other animals in the farm. 

 

The fourth kind of doublespeak is inflated language that is designed to make 

the ordinary seem extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive; to 

give an air of importance to people, situations or things that would not 

normally be considered important; to make the simple seem complex. 

He furthered says that doublespeak is dangerous because it can affect and 

eventually destroy the function of language, which is communication between 

people and social groups. The corruption of the function of language can be 

serious and have far reaching consequences (Lutz, 348). 

 

Euphemism Versus Doublespeak 

As mentioned before, there is a close relationship between euphemism and 

doublespeak in which the latter is considered as one category of euphemism. 

As a point of similarity between the two phenomena (euphemism and 

doublespeak) both of them use good words to hide bad words. Meanwhile, the 

main point of difference euphemism and doublespeak is that euphemism is 

used in a well-mannered way with good intentions associated with it and with 

deception but when a euphemism is used in a deceitful way in hope of 

misleading people; it becomes doublespeak Rawson (2). Lutz (152) agrees 

with Rawson when he mentioned that when a euphemism is used in a negative 

way, it becomes doublespeak.  

 

In fact, doublespeak is the complete opposite of plain and simple truth. It 

distorts words and phrases in order to bury a truth whereas euphemism 

attempts to make certain situations seem more palatable. 

 

Squealer’s Role in George Orwell’s Animal Farm 

Squealer is seen as the official mouthpiece of dictator Napoleon. He is known 

by the other animals as a ‘brilliant talker’. His reputation is that of one who 

‘could turn black into white’ (AF, 6). He possesses the innate ability to turn 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        20 
 

the other animals’ arguments around with wordplay that have them agreeing 

with issues that just moments ago had them enraged. This is seen most notably 

with the mystery of the missing milk. The animals in the farm had assumed 

that the extra milk will be shared equally (AF, 14) but Squealer convinced 

them that the milk will be used to supplement the pigs. He explains to the 

other animals by overly complicating his language thereby taking advantage 

of the poorly-educated animals that have difficulty following complex 

argumentative strategies. Squealer aligns himself with the other animals by 

pretending to be more interested in their well-being than his own. He 

effectively gains their total agreement by subtly suggesting that if the pigs 

aren’t well fed that they will be unable to protect the other animals, possible 

this will lead to the return of the hated Mr. Jones. On hearing this, the animals 

agree to reserve all extra milk and apples for the pigs’ sole consumption, an 

opposite opinion to the one they had prior to listening to Squealer’s 

doublespeak. 

 

Squealer’s talent lies in his ability to manipulate language to suit the particular 

demands of his audience and the situation. When he wants to hide his 

intentions or the truth, he uses overly complex words and ideas to intimidate 

the other animals and make them feel intellectually unequipped to join in the 

discussion. One example of this is Squealer’s claim that Napoleon has been 

behind the decision to build a windmill all along. Squealer is also guilty of 

oversimplifying language when it suits his purposes. He manipulates the 

sheep by teaching them the phrase ‘four legs good, two legs better’ (AF, 51) 

so that the sheep might try it out at the appropriate moment to silence any 

voice that might arise from the other animals when they see the pigs walking 

upright in direct contradiction to the original maxim of Animalism “Four legs 

good, two legs bad’ (AF, 12). 

 

Through the character of Squealer, Orwell demonstrates the danger of 

doublespeak in manipulating the other animals to the point where they are no 

longer able to recognize the truth. 

 

Theoretical Framework 

The study is guided by politeness theory, the concept of face and Information 

Manipulation Theory (IMT).Politeness theory and the concept of face were 

developed by Brown and Levinson in 1978, building on Goffman’s theory of 

identity and facework. The linguists’ major goal was to find out why people 

do not tend to use simple and direct language in a conversation but rather 

complex and sometimes indirect phrases especially if a hearer has to be 

motivated to do a particular act. For instance, Squealer often used euphemism 

to convince the animals of the merits to ridiculous policies – ‘Once again all 

rations were reduced, except those of the pigs and the dogs. For the time 

being, certainly it had been found necessary to make a readjustment of 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        21 
 

rations’ (AF, 77). Squealer often used words such as ‘reduction’ for 

‘adjustment’ was an attempt to suppress the complaints of other animals about 

hunger. It works because reduction means ‘cutting’ the food supply while 

readjustment implies changing the current amount of food. 

 

There are two types of face – negative and positive faces. As Brown and 

Levinson state, a distinction has to be made between negative and positive 

faces, which are both treated as perpetual wants. Positive face wants are 

defined in two ways: On one hand, they refer to a person’s desire to be 

accepted and approved of in a certain group and on the other hand to the 

appreciation of the self-image by others. This also means that a speaker’s 

goals in a conversation have to be accepted by or even desirable to other 

speakers in order to fulfill the positive face wants (cf.Thomas 169). This is 

evident in the roles played by Mollie and Boxer in Animal Farm. Negative 

face, on the other hand, highlights a person’s independence and possibility to 

act on one’s own (cf. Verschueren 45). This is also evident in the characters of 

all the animals in Manor Farm owned by Mr. Jones who rebelled to get their 

freedom. The roles played by Napoleon and other pigs are also seen as 

negative face. 

 

Another relevant theory the researcher used for this study is Steven 

McCornack’s Information Manipulation Theory (IMT) founded in 1992. IMT 

is a theory of deceptive discourse design. The theory suggests that deceptive 

messages function deceptively because they covertly violate the principles 

that govern conversational exchanges. Given that conversational discussants 

possess assumptions regarding the quantity, quality, manner and relevance of 

information that should be presented, it is possible for speakers to exploit any 

or all of these assumptions by manipulating the information that they possess 

so as to mislead listeners. 

 

In the novel Animal Farm written by George Orwell, the pigs especially 

Squealer used their eloquent ability in language to manipulate other animals. 

Manipulative speech is used to try to control others for selfish ends.In chapter 

five, after Napoleon has his dogs chase Snowball off the farm, he decrees 

there will be no more Sunday debate over farm policy. A committee of pigs 

will make the necessary decisions. When some of the animals protest this 

policy, Squealer makes a manipulative speech in which he depicts Napoleon’s 

blatant power grab as a burdensome sacrifice the leader makes for the good of 

the other animals. Squealer also uses fear against the animals, warning them 

that any misstep could bring Farmer Jones back. He states, ‘One false step, 

and our enemies would be upon us. Surely comrades, you do not want Jones 

back’. (AF, 38) 

 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        22 
 

In chapter six, Napoleon announces that Animal Farm will start doing 

business with neighbouring farms. As this is a complete violation of the 

founding principles of Animalism, the animals are again disturbed. As usual, 

Squealer is brought out and raises manipulative questions to confuse them, he 

asked: ‘Are you certain that this is not something that you have dreamed, 

comrades? Have you any record of such a resolution? Is it written down 

anywhere?’(AF, 44). 

 

However, this study used qualitative and descriptive methods. Nine utterances 

from Squealer were drawn from George Orwell’s Animal Farm to find out 

among other things how euphemism/doublespeak is notorious in conversation. 

Given the limited time frame and space for this study, the researcher used only 

one novel for the analysis. The data for the research were collected from the 

literary text and the documented sources were books written by renowned 

linguists. The utterances were analysed based on the importance of 

euphemism and the dangers of doublespeak. 

 

Having looked at the various views of linguists on the phenomena euphemism 

and doublespeak, this section analyses the Squealer’s utterances drawn from 

the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell. The data were used to answer the 

research questions that guided the study. 

 

Ex. 1 ‘Comrades, do you know who is responsible for this? Do you know the 

enemy who hascome in the night and overthrown our windmill? 

SNOWBALL! 

Boxer claimed that they saw Snowball bleeding during the battle. Squealer is 

quick to cast doubt on their version of events. 

 

Ex. 2 ‘The plot was for Snowball, at the critical moment, to give the signal for 

flight and leave the field to the enemy. And he very nearly succeeded – I will 

even say, comrades, he would have succeeded if it had not been for our heroic 

leader, Comrade Napoleon’ (55). 

For Squealer, language is no longer linked to truth; it no longer has any 

purchase on reality. He constructs a parallel universe with a language all of its 

own, a language that exaggerates, distorts and ultimately destroys what is 

truly real. When the windmill collapses due to a storm, Squealer immediately 

blames it on the long-gone true hero of the Animalist Revolution – 

SNOWBALL. 

 

Ex.3  ‘Comrades!’ he cried, ‘you do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are 

doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike 

milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things 

is to preserve our health. Milk and apples…we pigs are brain workers. The 

whole management and organization of this farm depend on us…Do you 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        23 
 

know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come 

back! Yes, Jones would come back…Surely there is no one among you who 

wants to see Jones come back? (AF 24) 

 

Squealer’s physical ‘skipping from side to side’ during such explanations 

parallels his ‘skipping’ words. Also, Squealer makes the animals feel guilty 

yet again when he says, ‘it is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat 

those apples. He backs this up with evidence; ‘Many of us actually dislike 

milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things 

is to preserve our health’.  

 

Ex.4 ‘You have heard, then, Comrade,’ he said, ‘that we pigs now sleep in 

the beds of the farmhouse? And why not? You did not suppose, surely, that 

there was ever a ruling against beds. A bed merely means a place to sleep in. 

A pile of straw in a stall is a bed, properly regarded. The rule was against 

sheets, which are a human invention. We have removed the sheets from the 

farmhouse beds, and sleep between blankets. And very comfortable beds they 

are too! But not more comfortable than we need, I can tell you, comrades, 

with all the brainwork we have to do nowadays, you would not rob us of our 

repose, would you, Comrades? …Surely none of you wishes to see Jones 

back? (AF 47) 

 

When the pigs moved into the farmhouse, Squealer makes the first substantial 

change in the commandment: he adds with sheets to the injunction against 

sleeping in a bed. Squealer uses two techniques here: first, he outright lies and 

pretends that the addition was always there. By making the alternative seem 

seditions, he convinces the others that the commandments were not changed, 

but that they just ‘don’t remember’ the addition. Second, he argues semantics, 

acting as if the original commandment still applies. 

 

The data in Extracts 1-4 answer the research question 1 

a)To what degree is the use of doublespeak/euphemism notorious in 

conversation? 

 

Ex.5: It is no longer needed, ‘comrades… Beast of England was the song of 

the Rebellion. But the Rebellion is now completed. The execution of the 

traitors this afternoon was the final  act. The enemy both external and 

internal has been defeated. In ‘Beast of England,’ we expressed our longing 

for a better society in days to come. But that society has now been established. 

Clearly this song has no longer any purpose’ (AF 60-61). 

After witnessing the execution of other animals by Napoleon, Clover and the 

other animal sitting around her sang the “Beast of England’ three times. 

Shortly after singing the song sorrowfully, Squealer approached them and 

announced that by a special decree of Comrade Napoleon, ‘Beast of England” 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        24 
 

had been abolished, the animals were taken aback and Muriel asked why. 

Squealer explains that the Rebellion has now ended with the slaughter of the 

unfaithful and that, being a song of the Rebellion, ‘Beast of England’ has no 

further purpose. The animals are now to sing Mimimus’s anthem which 

begins with the lyrics: 

  Animal Farm, Animal Farm, 

  Never through me shall thou come to harm! (AF 61) 

 

Ex.6: In his speeches, Squealer would talk with the tears rolling down his 

cheeks of Napoleon’s  wisdom, the goodness of his heart and the deep love he 

bore to all animals everywhere,  even and especially the unhappy animals 

that still lived in ignorance and slavery on other  farms (AF 63). 

In chapter 8, Napoleon is given numerous prestigious titles such as Father of 

All Animals, Terror of Mankind and Protector of Sheepfold, Ducklings’ 

Friend and the like. Squealer even shed tears as he publicly praises Comrade 

Napoleon for his wisdom and benevolence. Ironically, Napoleon is 

responsible for the terrible living conditions on the farm and continually 

reduces food rations, leaving the majority of the animals malnourished and 

starving. 

 

Ex.7 Boxer:    What is that gun firing for? 

 Squealer: To celebrate our victory! 

 Boxer:    What victory? 

 Squealer: What victory, comrade? Have we not driven the enemy off 

 our soil, the   sacred  soil of Animal Farm? 

 Boxer:     But they have destroyed the windmill. And we had worked  

 on it for two years! 

 

Squealer: What matter? E will build another windmill. We will build six 

windmills if we feel like it. You do not (appreciate, comrade, the mighty thing 

that we have done. The enemy was in occupation of this very ground that we 

stand upon.   And now thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napoleon we have 

won every inch of it back again!  

Boxer:     Then we have won back what we had before. 

Squealer:  That is our victory (AF 72). 

 

The destruction of the windmill marks Animal Farm’s final, irrevocable turn 

for the worse. As the windmill earlier symbolized the hopes of Snowball and a 

future of leisure, its explosion at the hands of Frederick symbolizes the 

absolute impossibility of Snowball’s dreams. The battle of the Windmill is 

bloody and less effective than the Battle of Cowshed. A cow, three sheep and 

two geese were killed and nearly everyone was wounded. Squealer’s logic in 

proving that the battle was a victory is an incredible display of political 

doublespeak. Boxer cannot conceive how Squealer can all the battle victory, 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        25 
 

until the pig explains, ‘the enemy was in occupation of this very ground that 

we stand upon. And now thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napoleon we 

have won every inch of it back again!’ 

The data in extracts 5-7 answer the research question 2 

b)To what extent are doublespeak words used to denote the opposite of their 

actual meaning?  

 

Ex.8 ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL 

 BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE 

 EQUAL THAN OTHERS (AF 92) 

 

This contradictory phrase is a euphemism for saying that all animals, which 

are not pigs, are less privilege than the pigs, of the ruling class. Old Major’s 

original idea was to create an egalitarian society ruled by animals, where 

every animal was equal and voted von policies that affected the farm. 

However, Napoleon immediately usurped power and began to rule the farm as 

a ruthless tyrant while simultaneously creating an aristocracy of pigs, who 

enjoyed special privileges and made every significant political decision. 

Squealer manages to alter each commandment to corroborate with Napoleon’s 

political agenda as the pigs become more and more powerful while they 

continue to oppress the other animals. The phrase more equal implies that 

some animals, namely pigs, have more privileges than other animals. The 

other animals are essentially considered second-class citizens while the upper-

class pigs enjoy luxurious lives.  Logically, the phrase more equal does 

not make sense but successfully conceals the true nature of the commandment. 

Squealer’s ability to manipulate language and confuse the animals into 

passively accepting their fate is embodied in the last remaining commandment 

(www.enotes.com). 

 

The data in extracts 8 answers the research question 3 

c) To what extent is the use of euphemism in expressing oneself? 

The findings from the analysis were discussed in accordance with the research 

questions. For research question 1, the analysis showed that doublespeak 

exaggerates, distorts and destroys what is truly real. Based on research 

question 2, the researcher found out that doublespeak can be ironical. 

Squealer’s utterances in extracts 5-7 denote the opposite of their actual 

meaning. 

 

Finally, the research shows that although euphemism and doublespeak are 

inter-related the phenomena differ. This is evidence in extract 8. Research 

question 3 shows that euphemism makes a harsh comment/situation softer and 

agreeable while doublespeak deliberately reverses the meaning of words. 

 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        26 
 

Conclusion 

Euphemism and doublespeak as phenomena of language, is observed 

everywhere in all human societies and it is used in all human interactions 

especially in politics (for doublespeak). It is predictable that euphemism will 

gain more publicity and respectability unlike doublespeak. As a matter of fact, 

euphemism is penetrating every corner of the world through the main 

channels as music, books, media houses etc. Should we say same for 

doublespeak?  

 

The important of euphemism can only show itself when they are used in 

communication. Since euphemism is so important in this world, more research 

should be done to find out other functions of this phenomenon other than its 

communicative function. Also, researcher should find out if doublespeak as its 

positive effect on communication. 

 

Works Cited 

Allan, Keith and Burridge, Kate. Euphemism & dysphemism: Language used 

 as Shield and  Weapon. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. 

 Print 

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. Politness: Some Universals in  

 Language Usage.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 

Print 

Channell, Joanna. Vague Language.Shangha: Foreign Language Education 

 Press, 2000.pp 220.  

Gibson, Walker and Lutz D. William. Doublespeak: A Brief History, 

 Definition & Bibliography,  with a List of Award Winners. United 

 States: National Council of Teachers of English,  1992. Print  

Goffman, Erving. “On Facework: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social 

 Interaction. Psychiatry”,  18, 213- 

231.http.www.enotes.com/homework-help/chapters-25997. Accessed 

28 May, 2020. 

Hudson, Richard Anthony. Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: UP, 1996. 

 Print  

Keyes, Ralph. Euphemania: Our Love Affair with Euphemisms. NewYork: 

 Little, Brown and  Company, 2010. Print 

Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983. Print 

Lutz, William. Doublespeak. New York: Harper and Row Publications, 1989. 

 Print  

…. The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone’s Saying 

Anymore.  NewYork:  Harper Perennial, 1996. Print 

McCornack, Steven A. “Information Manipulation Theory”. Communication 

 Monographs, 59, 1-16. 1992. Print  

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Harlow: Longman Group Limited, 1989. Print 

Rawson, Hugh. A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk.NewYork:  



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020 

 

Alozie-Onumadu        27 
 

 Crown Publishers, 1981. Print  

Wang, Xin. “Cooperative Principle In English Euphemism”. English  

 Language Teaching. (3) 1,11-14.  Print   

Weaver II, L. Richard and Hybels, Saundra.Communicating Effectively 11th 

 ed. London:  McGraw-Hill, 2015. Print 


