At the beginning of the novel, before the reader is told the boys’ names, Golding uses labels as a characterization tool, such as “the fair boy,” and “the fat boy.” At first, we’re bothered by these labels; it doesn’t seem right for the boys to be without names. But then we realize that “the fat boy” is not very different from “Piggy,” and that even names like “Ralph” and “Jack” are just descriptions (Ralph means “counsel,” by the way – nifty, isn’t it?). In other words, what seems “primitive” to us is really just a slightly skewed version of what we do in “civilized society.” Oh, also, Simon is a name from the Bible to reflect his spirituality.
Golding makes a point of telling us what everyone looks like, even the minor characters, and the expectation seems to be that we will draw conclusions from those descriptions. Ralph is attractive (and therefore a natural leader); Piggy is overweight (therefore an outcast) and wears glasses (an intellectual); Jack is “tall, thin, and bony […] ugly without silliness” (possibly an embittered usurper); and Roger is “a slight, furtive boy” (shifty and lacking depth).
In order to make the characters in Lord of the Flies seem like believable children (they range in age from six to twelve), Golding includes phrases that children, particularly British children, would actually use. We’re talking about things like “you can jolly well go up the mountain,” “you shut up!” “wacco,” and “sucks to you!” Even Piggy, the intellectual of the group, makes grammatical errors such as “them fruit.” We see that even Piggy, despite his brains is really just a child.