First Published:Published in the June 20, July 4, and August 2, 1950 issues ofPravda
Source:Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, by J.V. Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow
Transcription/HTML Markup: M. andCharles Farrell
Online Version: Stalin Reference Archive (marxists.org) 2000
A group of younger comrades have asked me to givemy opinion in the press on problems relating to linguistics, particularlyin reference to Marxism in linguistics. I am not a linguistic expert and,of course, cannot fully satisfy the request of the comrades. As to Marxismin linguistics, as in other social sciences, this is something directlyin my field. I have therefore consented to answer a number of questionsput by the comrades.
QUESTION:Is it true that language is a superstructureon the base?
ANSWER: No, it is not true.
The base is the economic structure of society at the givenstage of its development. The superstructure is the political, legal, religious,artistic, philosophical views of society and the political, legal and otherinstitutions corresponding to them.
Every base has its own corresponding superstructure. Thebase of the feudal system has its superstructure, its political, legaland other views, and the corresponding institutions; the capitalist basehas its own superstructure, so has the socialist base. If the base changesor is eliminated, then, following this, its superstructure changes or iseliminated; if a new base arises, then, following this, a superstructurearises corresponding to it.
In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure.Take, for example, Russian society and the Russian language. In the courseof the past thirty years the old, capitalist base has been eliminated inRussia and a new, socialist base has been built. Correspondingly, the superstructureon the capitalist base has been eliminated and a new superstructure createdcorresponding to the socialist base. The old political, legal and otherinstitutions, consequently, have been supplanted by new, socialist institutions.But in spite of this the Russian language has remained basically what itwas before the October Revolution.
What has changed in the Russian language in this period?To a certain extent the vocabulary of the Russian language has changed,in the sense that it has been replenished with a considerable number ofnew words and expressions, which have arisen in connection with the riseof the new socialist production, the appearance of a new state, a new socialistculture, new social relations and morals, and, lastly, in connection withthe development of technology and science; a number of words and expressionshave changed their meaning, have acquired a new signification; a numberof obsolete words have dropped out of the vocabulary. As to the basic stockof words and the grammatical system of the Russian language, which constitutethe foundation of a language, they, after the elimination of the capitalistbase, far from having been eliminated and supplanted by a new basic wordstock and a new grammatical system of the language, have been preservedin their entirety and have not undergone any serious changes -- they havebeen preserved precisely as the foundation of the modern Russian language.
Further, the superstructure is a product of the base, butthis by no means implies that it merely reflects the base, that it is passive,neutral, indifferent to the fate of its base, to the fate of the classes,to the character of the system. On the contrary, having come into being,it becomes an exceedingly active force, actively assisting its base totake shape and consolidate itself, and doing its utmost to help the newsystem to finish off and eliminate the old base and the old classes.
It cannot be otherwise. The superstructure is created bythe base precisely in order to serve it, to actively help it to take shapeand consolidate itself, to actively fight for the elimination of the old,moribund base together with its old superstructure. The superstructurehas only to renounce this role of auxiliary, it has only to pass from aposition of active defense of its base to one of indifference towards it,to adopt an equal attitude to all classes, and it loses its virtue andceases to be a superstructure.
In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure.Language is not a product of one or another base, old or new, within thegiven society, but of the whole course of the history of the society andof the history of the bases for many centuries. It was created not by someone class, but by the entire society, by all the classes of the society,by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created for the satisfactionof the needs not of one particular class, but of the entire society, ofall the classes of the society. Precisely for this reason it was createdas a single language for the society, common to all members of that society,as the common language of the whole people. Hence the functional role oflanguage, as a means of intercourse between people, consists not in servingone class to the detriment of other classes, but in equally serving theentire society, all the classes of society. This in fact explains why alanguage may equally serve both the old, moribund system and the new, risingsystem; both the old base and the new base; both the exploiters and theexploited.
It is no secret to anyone that the Russian language servedRussian capitalism and Russian bourgeois culture before the October Revolutionjust as well as it now serves the socialist system and socialist cultureof Russian society.
The same must be said of the Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Uzbek,Kazakh, Georgian, Armenian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Moldavian, Tatar,Azerbaijanian, Bashkirian, Turkmenian and other languages of the Sovietnations; they served the old, bourgeois system of these nations just aswell as they serve the new, socialist system.
It cannot be otherwise. Language exists, language has beencreated precisely in order to serve society as a whole, as a means of intercoursebetween people, in order to be common to the members of society and constitutethe single language of society, serving members of society equally, irrespectiveof their class status. A language has only to depart from this positionof being a language common to the whole people, it has only to give preferenceand support to some one social group to the detriment of other social groupsof the society, and it loses its virtue, ceases to be a means of intercoursebetween the people of the society, and becomes the jargon of some socialgroup, degenerates and is doomed to disappear.
In this respect, while it differs in principle from the superstructure,language does not differ from instruments of production, from machines,let us say, which are as indifferent to classes as is language and may,like it, equally serve a capitalist system and a socialist system.
Further, the superstructure is the product of one epoch, the epoch in which the given economic base exists and operates. The superstructure is therefore short-lived; it is eliminated and disappears with the elimination and disappearance of the given base.
Language, on the contrary, is the product of a whole numberof epochs, in the course of which it takes shape, is enriched, developsand is smoothened. A language therefore lives immeasurably longer thanany base or any superstructure. This in fact explains why the rise andelimination not only of one base and its superstructure, but of severalbases and their corresponding superstructures, have not led in historyto the elimination of a given language, to the elimination of its structureand the rise of a new language with a new stock of words and a new grammaticalsystem.
It is more than a hundred years since Pushkin died. In thisperiod the feudal system and the capitalist system were eliminated in Russia,and a third, a socialist system has arisen. Hence two bases, with theirsuperstructures, were eliminated, and a new, socialist base has arisen,with its new superstructure. Yet, if we take the Russian language, forexample, it has not in this long span of time undergone any fundamentalchange, and the modern Russian language differs very little in structurefrom the language of Pushkin.
What has changed in the Russian language in this period?The Russian vocabulary has in this period been greatly replenished; a largenumber of obsolete words have dropped out of the vocabulary; the meaningof a great many words has changed; the grammatical system of the languagehas improved. As to the structure of Pushkin's language, with its grammaticalsystem and its basic stock of words, in all essentials it has remainedas the basis of modern Russian.
And this is quite understandable. Indeed, what necessityis there, after every revolution, for the existing structure of the language,its grammatical system and basic stock of words to be destroyed and supplantedby new ones, as is usually the case with the superstructure? What objectwould there be in calling "water," "earth," "mountain," "forest," "fish,""man," "to walk," "to do," "to produce," "to trade," etc., not water, earth,mountain, etc., but something else? What object would there be in havingthe modification of words in a language and the combination of words insentences follow not the existing grammar, but some entirely differentgrammar? What would the revolution gain from such an upheaval in language?History in general never does anything of any importance without some specialnecessity for it. What, one asks, can be the necessity for such a linguisticrevolution, if it has been demonstrated that the existing language andits structure are fundamentally quite suited to the needs of the new system?The old superstructure can and should be destroyed and replaced by a newone in the course of a few years, in order to give free scope for the developmentof the productive forces of society; but how can an existing language bedestroyed and a new one built in its place in the course of a few yearswithout causing anarchy in social life and without creating the threatof the disintegration of society? Who but a Don Quixote could set himselfsuch a task?
Lastly, one other radical distinction between the superstructureand language. The superstructure is not directly connected with production,with man's productive activity. It is connected with production only indirectly,through the economy, through the base. The superstructure therefore reflectschanges in the level of development of the productive forces not immediatelyand not directly, but only after changes in the base, through the prismof the changes wrought in the base by the changes in production. This meansthat the sphere of action of the superstructure is narrow and restricted.
Language, on the contrary, is connected with man's productiveactivity directly, and not only with man's productive activity, but withall his other activity in all his spheres of work, from production to thebase, and from the base to the superstructure. For this reason languagereflects changes in production immediately and directly, without waitingfor changes in the base. For this reason the sphere of action of language,which embraces all fields of man's activity, is far broader and more comprehensivethan the sphere of action of the superstructure. More, it is practicallyunlimited.
It is this that primarily explains why language, or ratherits vocabulary, is in a state of almost constant change. The continuousdevelopment of industry and agriculture, of trade and transport, of technologyand science, demands that language should replenish its vocabulary withnew words and expressions needed for their functioning. And language, directlyreflecting these needs, does replenish its vocabulary with new words, andperfects its grammatical system.
Hence:
a) A Marxist cannot regard language as a superstructureon the base;b) To confuse language and superstructure is to commita serious error.
QUESTION:Is it true that language always was and isclass language, that there is no such thing as language which is the singleand common language of a society, a non-class language common to the wholepeople.
ANSWER: No, it is not true.
It is not difficult to understand that in a society whichhas no classes there can be no such thing as a class language. There wereno classes in the primitive communal clan system, and consequently therecould be no class language -- the language was then the single and commonlanguage of the whole community. The objection that the concept class shouldbe taken as covering every human community, including the primitive communalcommunity, is not an objection but a playing with words that is not worthrefuting.
As to the subsequent development from clan languages to triballanguages, from tribal languages to the languages of nationalities, andfrom the languages of nationalities to national languages -- everywhereand at all stages of development, language, as a means of intercourse betweenthe people of a society, was the common and single language of that society,serving its members equally, irrespective of their social status.
I am not referring here to the empires of the slave and mediaevalperiods, the empires of Cyrus or Alexander the Great, let us say, or ofCaesar or Charles the Great, which had no economic foundations of theirown and were transient and unstable military and administrative associations.Not only did these empires not have, they could not have had a single languagecommon to the whole empire and understood by all the members of the empire.They were conglomerations of tribes and nationalities, each of which livedits own life and had its own language. Consequently, it is not these orsimilar empires I have in mind, but the tribes and nationalities composingthem, which had their own economic foundations and their own languages,evolved in the distant past. History tells us that the languages of thesetribes and nationalities were not class languages, but languages commonto the whole of a tribe or nationality, and understood by all its people.
Side by side with this, there were, of course, dialects,local vernaculars, but they were dominated by and subordinated to the singleand common language of the tribe or nationality.
Later, with the appearance of capitalism, the eliminationof feudal division and the formation of national markets, nationalitiesdeveloped into nations, and the languages of nationalities into nationallanguages. History shows that national languages are not class, but commonlanguages, common to all the members of each nation and constituting thesingle language of that nation.
It has been said above that language, as a means of intercoursebetween the people of a society, serves all classes of society equally,and in this respect displays what may be called an indifference to classes.But people, the various social groups, the classes, are far from beingindifferent to language. They strive to utilize the language in their owninterests, to impose their own special lingo, their own special terms,their own special expressions upon it. The upper strata of the propertiedclasses, who have divorced themselves from and detest the people -- thearistocratic nobility, the upper strata of the bourgeoisie -- particularlydistinguish themselves in this respect. "Class" dialects, jargons, high-society"languages" are created. These dialects and jargons are often incorrectlyreferred to in literature as languages -- the "aristocratic language" orthe "bourgeois language" in contradistinction to the "proletarian language"or the "peasant language." For this reason, strange as it may seem, someof our comrades have come to the conclusion that national language is afiction, and that only class languages exist in reality.
There is nothing, I think, more erroneous than this conclusion.Can These dialects and jargons be regarded as languages? Certainly not.They cannot, firstly, because these dialects and jargons have no grammaticalsystems or basic word stocks of their own -- they borrow them from thenational language. They cannot, secondly, because these dialects and jargonsare confined to a narrow sphere, are current only among the upper strataof a given class and are entirely unsuitable as a means of human intercoursefor society as a whole. What, then, have they? They have a collection ofspecific words reflecting the specific tastes of the aristocracy or theupper strata of the bourgeoisie; a certain number of expressions and turnsof phrase distinguished by refinement and gallantry and free of the "coarse"expressions and turns of phrase of the national language; lastly, a certainnumber of foreign words. But all the fundamentals, that is, the overwhelmingmajority of the words and the grammatical system, are borrowed from thecommon, national language. Dialects and jargons are therefore offshootsof the common national language, devoid of all linguistic independenceand doomed to stagnation. To believe that dialects and jargons can developinto independent languages capable of ousting and supplanting the nationallanguage means losing one's sense of historical perspective and abandoningthe Marxist position.
References are made to Marx, and the passage from his articleSt. Max is quoted which says that the bourgeois have "their own language,"that this language "is a product of the bourgeoisie"[2]that it is permeated with the spirit of mercantilism and huckstering. Certaincomrades cite this passage with the idea of proving that Marx believedin the "class character" of language and denied the existence of a singlenational language. If these comrades were impartial, they should have citedanother passage from this same article St. Max, where Marx, touching onthe ways single national languages arose, speaks of "the concentrationof dialects into a single national language resulting from economic andpolitical concentration."[3]
Marx, consequently, did recognize the necessity of a singlenational language, as a higher form, to which dialects, as lower forms,are subordinate.
What, then, can this bourgeois language be which Marx says"is a product of the bourgeoisie"? Did Marx consider it as much a languageas the national language, with a specific linguistic structure of its own?Could he have considered it such a language? Of course, not. Marx merelywanted to say that the bourgeois had polluted the single national languagewith their hucksters' lingo, that the bourgeois, in other words, have theirhucksters' jargon.
It thus appears that these comrades have misrepresented Marx.And they misrepresented him because they quoted Marx not like Marxistsbut like dogmatists, without delving into the essence of the matter.
References arc made to Engels, and the words from his TheCondition of the Working Class in England are cited where he says thatin Britain "...the working class has gradually become a race wholly apartfrom the English bourgeoisie," that "the workers speak other dialects,have other thoughts and ideals, other customs and moral principles, a differentreligion and other politics than those of the bourgeoisie."[4]Certain comrades conclude from this passage that Engels denied the necessityof a common, national language, that he believed, consequently, in the"class character" of language. True, Engels speaks here of dialects, notlanguages, fully realizing that, being an offshoot of the national language,a dialect cannot supplant the national language. But apparently, Thesecomrades regard the existence of a difference between a language and adialect with no particular enthusiasm.
It is obvious that the quotation is inappropriate, becauseEngels here speaks not of "class languages" but chiefly of class thoughts,ideals, customs, moral principles, religion, politics. It is perfectlytrue that the thoughts, ideals, customs, moral principles, religion andpolitics of bourgeois and proletarians are directly antithetical. But whathas this to do with national language, or the "class character" of language?Can the existence of class antagonisms in society serve as an argumentin favor of the "class character" of language, or against the necessityof a single national language? Marxism says that a common language is oneof the cardinal earmarks of a nation, although knowing very well that thereare class antagonisms within the nation. Do the comrades referred to recognizethis Marxist thesis?
References are made to Lafargue,[5] andit is said that in his pamphlet The French Language Before and After theRevolution he recognizes the "class character" of language and denies thenecessity of a national language common to the whole people. That is nottrue. Lafargue does indeed speak of a "noble" or "aristocratic language"and of the "jargons" of various strata of society. But these comrades forgetthat Lafargue, who was not interested in the difference between languagesand jargons and referred to dialects now as "artificial languages," nowas "jargons," definitely says in this pamphlet that "the artificial languagewhich distinguished the aristocracy . . . arose out of the language commonto the whole people, which was spoken both by bourgeois and artisan, bytown and country."
Consequently, Lafargue recognizes the existence and necessityof a common language of the whole people, and fully realizes that the "aristocraticlanguage" and other dialects and jargons are subordinate to and dependenton the language common to the whole people.
It follows that the reference to Lafargue is wide of themark.
References are made to the fact that at one time in Englandthe feudal lords spoke "for centuries" in French, while the English peoplespoke English, and this is alleged to be an argument in favor of the "classcharacter" of language and against the necessity of a language common tothe whole people. But this is not an argument, it is rather an anecdote.Firstly, not all the feudal lords spoke French at that time, but only asmall upper stratum of English feudal lords attached to the court and atcounty seats. Secondly, it was not some "class language" they spoke, butthe ordinary language common to all the French people. Thirdly, we knowthat in the course of time this French language fad disappeared withouta trace, yielding place to the English language common to the whole people.Do these comrades think that the English feudal lords "for centuries" heldintercourse with the English people through interpreters, that they didnot use the English language, that there was no language common to allthe English at that time, and that the French language in England was thenanything more than the language of high society, current only in the restrictedcircle of the upper English aristocracy? How can one possibly deny theexistence and the necessity of a language common to the whole people onthe basis of anecdote "arguments" like these?
There was a time when Russian aristocrats at the tsar's courtand in high society also made a fad of the French language. They pridedthemselves on the fact that when they spoke Russian they often lapsed intoFrench, that they could only speak Russian with a French accent. Does thismean that there was no Russian language common to the whole people at thattime in Russia, that a language common to the whole people was a fiction,and "class languages" a reality?
Our comrades are here committing at least two mistakes.
The first mistake is that they confuse language with superstructure.They think that since the superstructure has a class character, languagetoo must be a class language, and not a language common to the whole people.But I have already said that language and superstructure are two differentconcepts, and that a Marxist must not confuse them.
The second mistake of these comrades is that they conceivethe opposition of interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, thefierce class struggle between them, as meaning the disintegration of society,as a break of all ties between the hostile classes. They believe that,since society has disintegrated and there is no longer a single society,but only classes, a single language of society, a national language, isunnecessary. If society has disintegrated and there is no longer a languagecommon to the whole people, a national language, what remains? There remainclasses and "class languages." Naturally, every "class language" will haveits "class" grammar -- a "proletarian" grammar or a "bourgeois" grammar.True, such grammars do not exist anywhere. But that does not worry thesecomrades: they believe that such grammars will appear in due course.
At one time there were "Marxists" in our country who assertedthat the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeoisrailways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that theyshould be torn up and new, "proletarian" railways built. For this theywere nicknamed "troglodytes".
It goes without saying that such a primitive-anarchist viewof society, of classes, of language has nothing in common with Marxism.But it undoubtedly exists and continues to prevail in the minds of certainof our muddled comrades.
It is of course wrong to say that, because of the existenceof a fierce class struggle, society has split up into classes which areno longer economically connected with one another in one society. On thecontrary, as long as capitalism exists, the bourgeois and the proletarianswill be bound together by every economic thread as parts of a single capitalistsociety. The bourgeois cannot live and enrich themselves unless they havewage-laborers at their command; the proletarians cannot survive unlessthey hire themselves to the capitalists. If all economic ties between themwere to cease, it would mean the cessation of all production, and the cessationof all production would mean the doom of society, the doom of the classesthemselves. Naturally, no class wants to incur self-destruction. Consequently,however sharp the class struggle may be, it cannot lead to the disintegrationof society. Only ignorance of Marxism and complete failure to understandthe nature of language could have suggested to some of our comrades thefairy-tale about the disintegration of society, about "class" languages,and "class" grammars.
Reference is further made to Lenin, and it is pointed outthat Lenin recognized the existence of two cultures under capitalism --bourgeois and proletarian -- and that the slogan of national culture undercapitalism is a nationalist slogan. All this is true and Lenin is absolutelyright here. But what has this to do with the "class character" of language?When these comrades refer to what Lenin said about two cultures under capitalism,it is evidently with the idea of suggesting to the reader that the existenceof two cultures, bourgeois and proletarian, in society means that theremust also be two languages, inasmuch as language is linked with culture-- and, consequently, that Lenin denies the necessity of a single nationallanguage, and, consequently, that Lenin believes in "class" languages.The mistake these comrades make here is that they identify and confuselanguage with culture. But culture and language are two different things.Culture may be bourgeois or socialist, but language, as a means of intercourse,is always a language common to the whole people and can serve both bourgeoisand socialist culture. Is it not a fact that the Russian, the Ukrainian,the Uzbek languages are now serving the socialist culture of these nationsjust as well as they served their bourgeois cultures before the OctoberRevolution? Consequently, these comrades are profoundly mistaken when theyassert that the existence of two different cultures leads to the formationof two different languages and to the negation of the necessity of a singlelanguage.
When Lenin spoke of two cultures, he proceeded preciselyfrom the thesis that the existence of two cultures cannot lend to the negationof a single language and to the formation of two languages, that theremust be a single language. When the Bundists[6] accusedLenin of denying the necessity of a national language and of regardingculture as "non-national," Lenin, as we know, vigorously protested anddeclared that he was fighting against bourgeois culture, and not againstnational languages, the necessity of which he regarded as indisputable.It is strange that some of our comrades should be trailing in the footstepsof the Bundists.
As to a single language, the necessity of which Lenin isalleged to deny, it would be well to pay heed to the following words ofLenin:
"Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unityof language and its unimpeded development form one of the most importantconditions for genuinely free and extensive commercial intercourse appropriateto modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population inall its separate classes."[7]
It follows that our highly respected comrades have misrepresentedthe views of Lenin.
Reference, lastly, is made to Stalin. The passage from Stalinis quoted which says that "the bourgeoisie and its nationalist partieswere and remain in this period the chief directing force of such nations."8 This is all true. The bourgeoisie and its nationalist party really dodirect bourgeois culture, just as the proletariat and its internationalistparty direct proletarian culture. But what has this to do with the "classcharacter" of language? Do not these comrades know that national languageis a form of national culture, that a national language may serve bothbourgeois and socialist culture? Are our comrades unaware of the well-knownformula of the Marxists that the present Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussianand other cultures arc socialist in content and national in form, i.e.,in language? Do they agree with this Marxist formula?
The mistake our comrades commit here is that they do notsee the difference between culture and language, and do not understandthat culture changes in content with every new period in the developmentof society, whereas language remains basically the same through a numberof periods, equally serving both the new culture and the old.
Hence:
a) Language, as a means of intercourse, always was and remainsthe single language of a society, common to all its members;b) The existence of dialects and jargons does not negate but confirms the existence of a language common to the whole of the given people, of which they are offshoots and to which they are subordinate;c) The "class character" of language formula is erroneousand non-Marxist.
QUESTION:What are the characteristic features of language?
ANSWER: Language is one of those social phenomenawhich operate throughout the existence of a society. It arises and developswith the rise and development of a society. It dies when the society dies.Apart from society there is no language. Accordingly, language and itslaws of development can be understood only if studied in inseparable connectionwith the history of society, with the history of the people to whom thelanguage under study belongs, and who are its creators and repositories.
Language is a medium, an instrument with the help of whichpeople communicate with one another, exchange thoughts and understand eachother. Being directly connected with thinking, language registers and fixesin words, and in words combined into sentences, the results of the processof thinking and achievements of man's cognitive activity, and thus makespossible the exchange of thoughts in human society.
Exchange of thoughts is a constant and vital necessity, forwithout it, it is impossible to co-ordinate the joint actions of peoplein the struggle against the forces of nature, in the struggle to producethe necessary material values; without it, it is impossible to ensure thesuccess of society's productive activity, and, hence, the very existenceof social production becomes impossible. Consequently, without a languageunderstood by a society and common to all its members, that society mustcease to produce, must disintegrate and cease to exist as a society. Inthis sense, language, while it is a medium of intercourse, is at the sametime an instrument of struggle and development of society.
As we know, all the words in a language taken together constitutewhat is known as its vocabulary. The chief thing in the vocabulary of alanguage is its basic stock of words, which includes also all the rootwords, as its kernel. It is far less extensive than the language's vocabulary,but it persists for a very long time, for centuries, and provides the languagewith a basis for the formation of new words. The vocabulary reflects thestate of the language: the richer and more diversified the vocabulary,the richer and more developed the language.
However, by itself, the vocabulary does not constitute thelanguage -- it is rather the building material of the language. Just asin construction work the building materials do not constitute the building,although the latter cannot be constructed without them, so too the vocabularyof a language does not constitute the language itself, although no languageis conceivable without it. But the vocabulary of a language assumes tremendousimportance when it comes under the control of grammar, which defines therules governing the modification of words and the combination of wordsinto sentences, and thus makes the language a coherent and significantfunction. Grammar (morphology, syntax) is the collection of rules governingthe modification of words and their combination into sentences. It is thereforethanks to grammar that it becomes possible for language to invest man'sthoughts in a material linguistic integument.
The distinguishing feature of grammar is that it gives rulesfor the modification of words not in reference to concrete words, but towords in general, not taken concretely; that it gives rules for the formationof sentences not in reference to particular concrete sentences -- with,let us say, a concrete subject, a concrete predicate, etc. -- but to allsentences in general, irrespective of the concrete form of any sentencein particular. Hence, abstracting itself, as regards both words and sentences,from the particular and concrete, grammar takes that which is common andbasic in the modification of words and their combination into sentencesand builds it into grammatical rules, grammatical laws. Grammar is theoutcome of a process of abstraction performed by the human mind over along period of time; it is an indication of the tremendous achievementof thought.
In this respect grammar resembles geometry, which in givingits laws abstracts itself from concrete objects, regarding objects as bodiesdevoid of concreteness, and defining the relations between them not asthe concrete relations of concrete objects but as the relations of bodiesin general, devoid of all concreteness.
Unlike the superstructure, which is connected with productionnot directly, but through the economy, language is directly connected withman's productive activity, as well as with all his other activity in allhis spheres of work without exception. That is why the vocabulary of alanguage, being the most sensitive to change, is in a state of almost constantchange, and, unlike the superstructure, language does not have to waituntil the base is eliminated, but makes changes in its vocabulary beforethe base is eliminated and irrespective of the state of the base.
However, the vocabulary of a language does not change inthe way the superstructure does, that is, by abolishing the old and buildingsomething new, but by replenishing the existing vocabulary with new wordswhich arise with changes in the social system, with the development ofproduction, of culture, science, etc. Moreover, although a certain numberof obsolete words usually drop out of the vocabulary of a language, a farlarger number of new words are added. As to the basic word stock, it ispreserved in all its fundamentals and is used as the basis for the vocabularyof the language.
This is quite understandable. There is no necessity to destroythe basic word stock when it can be effectively used through the courseof several historical periods; not to speak of the fact that, it beingimpossible to create a new basic word stock in a short time, the destructionof the basic word stock accumulated in the course of centuries would resultin paralysis of the language, in the complete disruption of intercoursebetween people.
The grammatical system of a language changes even more slowlythan its basic word stock. Elaborated in the course of epochs, and havingbecome part of the flesh and blood or the language, the grammatical systemchanges still more slowly than the basic word stock. With the lapse oftime it, of course, undergoes changes, becomes more perfected, improvesits rules, makes them more specific and acquires new rules; but the fundamentalsof the grammatical system are preserved for a very long time, since, ashistory shows, they are able to serve society effectively through a successionof epochs.
Hence, grammatical system and basic word stock constitutethe foundation of language, the essence of its specific character.
History shows that languages possess great stability anda tremendous power of resistance to forcible assimilation. Some historians,instead of explaining this phenomenon, confine themselves to expressingtheir surprise at it. But there is no reason for surprise whatsoever. Languagesowe their stability to the stability of their grammatical systems and basicword stocks. The Turkish assimilators strove for hundreds of years to mutilate,shatter and destroy the languages of the Balkan peoples. During this periodthe vocabulary of the Balkan languages underwent considerable change; quitea few Turkish words and expressions were absorbed; there were "convergencies"and "divergencies." Nevertheless, the Balkan languages held their own andsurvived. Why? Because their grammatical systems and basic word stockswere in the main preserved.
It follows from all this that a language, its structure,cannot be regarded as the product of some one epoch. The structure of alanguage, its grammatical system and basic word stock, is the product ofa number of epochs.
We may assume that the rudiments of modern language alreadyexisted in hoary antiquity, before the epoch of slavery. It was a rathersimple language, with a very meager stock of words, but with a grammaticalsystem of its own -- true, a primitive one, but a grammatical system nonetheless.
The further development of production, the appearance ofclasses, the introduction of writing, the rise of the state, which neededa more or less well-regulated correspondence for its administration, thedevelopment of trade, which needed a well-regulated correspondence stillmore, the appearance of the printing press, the development of literature-- all this caused big changes in the development of language. During thistime, tribes and nationalities broke up and scattered, intermingled andintercrossed; later there arose national languages and states, revolutionstook place, and old social systems were replaced by new ones. All thiscaused even greater changes in language and its development.
However, it would be a profound mistake to think that languagedeveloped in the way the superstructure developed -- by the destructionof that which existed and the building of something new. In point of fact,languages did not develop by the destruction of existing languages andthe creation of new ones, but by extending and perfecting the basic elementsof existing languages. And the transition of the language from one qualityto another did not take the form of an explosion, of the destruction atone blow of the old and the creation of the new, but of the gradual andlong-continued accumulation of the elements of the new quality, of thenew linguistic structure, and the gradual dying away of the elements ofthe old quality.
It is said that the theory that languages develop by stagesis a Marxist theory, since it recognizes the necessity of sudden explosionsas a condition for the transition of a language from an old quality toa new. This is of course untrue, for it is difficult to find anything resemblingMarxism in this theory.
And if the theory of stages really does recognize suddenexplosions in the history of the development of languages, so much theworse for that theory. Marxism does not recognize sudden explosions inthe development of languages, the sudden death of an existing languageand the sudden erection of a new language. Lafargue was wrong when he spokeof a "sudden linguistic revolution which took place between 1789 and 1794"in France (see Lafargue's pamphlet The French Language Before and Afterthe Revolution). There was no linguistic revolution, let alone a suddenone, in France at that time. True enough, during that period the vocabularyof the French language was replenished with new words and expressions,a certain number of obsolete words dropped out of it, and the meaning ofcertain words changed -- but that was all. Changes of this nature, however,by no means determine the destiny of a language. The chief thing in a languageis its grammatical system and basic word stock. But far from disappearingin the period of the French bourgeois revolution, the grammatical systemand basic word stock of the French language were preserved without substantialchange, and not only were they preserved, but they continue to exist inthe French language of to-day. I need hardly say that five or six yearsis a ridiculously small period for the elimination of an existing languageand the building of a new national language ("a sudden linguistic revolution"!)-- centuries are needed for this.
Marxism holds that the transition of a language from an oldquality to a new does not take place by way of an explosion, of the destructionof an existing language and the creation of a new one, but by the gradualaccumulation of the elements of the new quality, and hence by the gradualdying away of the elements of the old quality.
It should be said in general for the benefit of comradeswho have an infatuation for explosions that the law of transition froman old quality to a new by means of an explosion is inapplicable not onlyto the history of the development of languages; it is not always applicableto other social phenomena of a basis or superstructural character. It appliesof necessity to a society divided into hostile classes. But it does notnecessarily apply to a society which has no hostile classes. In a periodof eight to ten years we effected a transition in the agriculture of ourcountry from the bourgeois, individual-peasant system to the socialist,collective-farm system. This was a revolution which eliminated the oldbourgeois economic system in the countryside and created a new, socialistsystem. But that revolution did not take place by means of an explosion,that is, by the overthrow of the existing government power and the creationof a new power, but by a gradual transition from the old bourgeois systemin the countryside to a new system. And it was possible to do that becauseit was a revolution from above, because the revolution was accomplishedon the initiative of the existing power with the support of the bulk ofthe peasantry.
It is said that the numerous instances of linguistic crossingin past history furnish reason to believe that when languages cross a newlanguage is formed by means of an explosion, by a sudden transition froman old quality to a new. This is quite wrong.
Linguistic crossing cannot be regarded as the single impactof a decisive blow which produces its results within a few years. Linguisticcrossing is a prolonged process which continues for hundreds of years.There can therefore be no question of explosion here.
Further, it would be quite wrong to think that the crossingof, say, two languages results in a new, third language which does notresemble either of the languages crossed and differs qualitatively fromboth of them. As a matter of fact one of the languages usually emergesvictorious from the cross retains its grammatical system and its basicword stock and continues to develop in accordance with its inherent lawsof development, while the other language gradually loses its quality andgradually dies away.
Consequently, a cross does not result in some new, thirdlanguage; one of the languages persists, retains its grammatical systemand basic word stock and is able to develop in accordance with its inherentlaws of development.
True, in the process the vocabulary of the victorious languageis somewhat enriched from the vanquished language, but this strengthensrather than weakens it.
Such was the case, for instance, with the Russian language,with which, in the course of historical development, the languages of anumber of other peoples crossed and which always emerged the victor.
Of course, in the process the vocabulary of the Russian languagewas enlarged at the expense of the vocabularies of the other languages,but far from weakening, this enriched and strengthened the Russian language.
As to the specific national individuality of the Russianlanguage, it did not suffer in the slightest, because the Russian languagepreserved its grammatical system and basic word stock and continued toadvance and perfect itself in accordance with its inherent laws of development.
There can be no doubt that the crossing theory has littleor no value for Soviet linguistics. If it is true that the chief task oflinguistics is to study the inherent laws of language development, it hasto be admitted that the crossing theory does not even set itself this task,let alone accomplish it -- it simply does not notice it, or does not understandit.
QUESTION:Did Pravda act rightly in starting an opendiscussion on problems of linguistics?
ANSWER: Yes, it did.
Along what lines the problems of linguistics will be settled,will become clear at the conclusion of the discussion. But it may be saidalready that the discussion has been very useful.
It has brought out, in the first place, that in linguisticbodies both in the center and in the republics a regime has prevailed whichis alien to science and men of science. The slightest criticism of thestate of affairs in Soviet linguistics, even the most timid attempt tocriticize the so-called "new doctrine" in linguistics, was persecuted andsuppressed by the leading linguistic circles. Valuable workers and researchersin linguistics were dismissed from their posts or demoted for being criticalof N. Y. Marr's heritage or expressing the slightest disapproval of histeachings. Linguistic scholars were appointed to leading posts not on theirmerits, but because of their unqualified acceptance of N. Y. Marr's theories.
It is generally recognized that no science can develop andflourish without a battle of opinions, without freedom of criticism. Butthis generally recognized rule was ignored and flouted in the most unceremoniousfashion. There arose a close group of infallible leaders, who, having securedthemselves against any possible criticism, became a law unto themselvesand did whatever they pleased.
To give one example: the so-called "Baku Course" (lecturesdelivered by N. Y. Marr in Baku), which the author himself had rejectedand forbidden to be republished, was republished nevertheless by orderof this leading caste (Comrade Meshchaninov calls them "disciples" of N.Y. Marr) and included without any reservations in the list of text-booksrecommended to students. This means that the students were deceived a rejected"Course" being suggested to them as a sound textbook. If I were not convincedof the integrity of Comrade Meshchaninov and the other linguistic leaders,I would say that such conduct is tantamount to sabotage.
How could this have happened? It happened because the Arakcheyevregime[9] established in linguistics cultivates irresponsibilityand encourages such arbitrary actions.
The discussion has proved to be very useful first of allbecause it brought this Arakcheyev regime into the light of day and smashedit to smithereens.
But the usefulness of the discussion does not end there.It not only smashed the old regime in linguistics but also brought outthe incredible confusion of ideas on cardinal questions of linguisticswhich prevails among the leading circles in this branch of science. Untilthe discussion began the "disciples" of N. Y. Marr kept silence and glossedover the unsatisfactory state of affairs in linguistics. But when the discussionstarted silence became impossible, and they were compelled to express theiropinion in the press. And what did we find? It turned out that in N. Y.Marr's teachings there are a whole number of defects, errors, ill-definedproblems and sketchy propositions. Why, one asks, have N. Y. Marr's "disciples"begun to talk about this only now, after the discussion opened? Why didthey not see to it before? Why did they not speak about it in due timeopenly and honestly, as befits scientists?
Having admitted "some" errors of N. Y. Marr, his "disciples,"it appears, think that Soviet linguistics can only be advanced on the basisof a "rectified" version of N. Y. Marr's theory, which they consider aMarxist one. No, save us from N. Y. Marr's "Marxism"! N. Y. Marr did indeedwant to be, and endeavored to be, a Marxist, but he failed to become one.He was nothing but a simplifier and vulgarizer of Marxism, similar to the"proletcultists" or the "Rappists."
N. Y. Marr introduced into linguistics the incorrect, non-Marxistformula that language is a superstructure, and got himself into a muddleand put linguistics into a muddle. Soviet linguistics cannot be advancedon the basis of an incorrect formula.
N. Y. Marr introduced into linguistics another and also incorrectand non-Marxist formula, regarding the "class character" of language, andgot himself into a muddle and put linguistics into a muddle. Soviet linguisticscannot be advanced on the basis of an incorrect formula which is contraryto the whole course of the history of peoples and languages.
N. Y. Marr introduced into linguistics an immodest, boastful,arrogant tone alien to Marxism and tending towards a bald and off-handnegation of everything done in linguistics prior to N. Y. Marr.
N. Y. Marr shrilly abused the comparative-historical methodas "idealistic." Yet it must be said that, despite its serious shortcomings,the comparative-historical method is nevertheless better than N. Y. Marr'sreally idealistic four-element analysis,[10] becausethe former gives a stimulus to work, to a study of languages, while thelatter only gives a stimulus to loll in one's arm-chair and tell fortunesin the tea-cup of the celebrated four elements.
N. Y. Marr haughtily discountenanced every attempt to studygroups (families) of languages on the grounds that it was a manifestationof the "proto-language" theory.[11] Yet it cannot bedenied that the linguistic affinity of nations like the Slav nations, say,is beyond question, and that a study of the linguistic affinity of thesenations might be of great value to linguistics in the study of the lawsof language development. The "proto-language" theory, I need hardly say,has nothing to do with it.
To listen to N. Y. Marr, and especially to his "disciples,"one might think that prior to N. Y. Marr there was no such thing as thescience of language, that the science of language appeared with the "newdoctrine" of N. Y. Marr. Marx and Engels were much more modest: they heldthat their dialectical materialism was a product of the development ofthe sciences, including philosophy, in earlier periods.
Thus, the discussion was useful also because it brought tolight ideological shortcomings in Soviet linguistics.
I think that the sooner our linguistics rids itself of N.Y. Marr's errors, the sooner will it be possible to extricate it from itspresent crisis.
Elimination of the Arakcheyev regime in linguistics, rejectionof N. Y. Marr's errors, and the introduction of Marxism into linguistics-- that, in my opinion, is the way in which Soviet linguistics could beput on a sound basis.
Pravda, June 20, 1950
Comrade Krasheninnikova,
I am answering your questions.
QUESTION: Your article convincingly shows that language is neitherthe base nor the superstructure. Would it be right to regard language asa phenomenon characteristic of both the base and the superstructure, orwould it be more correct to regard language as an intermediate phenomenon?
ANSWER: Of course, characteristic of language, asa social phenomenon, is that common feature which is inherent in all socialphenomena, including the base and the superstructure, namely: it servessociety just as society is served by all other social phenomena, includingthe base and the superstructure. But this, properly speaking, exhauststhat common feature which is inherent in all social phenomena. Beyond this,important distinctions begin between social phenomena.
The point is that social phenomena have, in addition to thiscommon feature, their own specific features which distinguish them fromeach other and which are of primary importance for science. The specificfeatures of the base consist in that it serves society economically. Thespecific features of the superstructure consist in that it serves societyby means of political, legal, aesthetic and other ideas and provides societywith corresponding political, legal and other institutions. What then arethe specific features of language, distinguishing it from other socialphenomena? They consist in that language serves society as a means of intercoursebetween people, as a means for exchanging thoughts in society, as a meansenabling people to understand one another and to co-ordinate joint workin all spheres of human activity, both in the sphere of production andin the sphere of economic relations, both in the sphere of politics andin the sphere of culture, both in social life and in everyday life. Thesespecific features are characteristic only of language, and precisely becausethey are characteristic only of language, language is the object of studyby an independent science -- linguistics. If there were no such specificfeatures of language, linguistics would lose its right to independent existence.
In brief: language cannot be included either in the categoryof bases or in the category of superstructures.
Nor can it be included in the category of "intermediate"phenomena between the base and the superstructure, for such "intermediate"phenomena do not exist.
But perhaps language could be included in the category ofthe productive forces of society, in the category, say, of instrumentsof production? Indeed, there does exist a certain analogy between languageand instruments of production: instruments of production manifest, justas language does, a kind of indifference towards classes and can serveequally different classes of society, both old and new. Does this circumstanceprovide ground for including language in the category of instruments ofproduction? No, it does not.
At one time, N. Y. Marr, seeing that his formula -- "languageis a superstructure on the base" -- encountered objections, decided to"reshape" it and announced that "language is an instrument of production."Was N. Y. Marr right in including language in the category of instrumentsof production? No, he certainly was not.
The point is that the similarity between language and instrumentsof production ends with the analogy I have just mentioned. But, on theother hand, there is a radical difference between language and instrumentsof production. This difference lies in the fact that whereas instrumentsof production produce material wealth, language produces nothing or "produces"words only. To put it more plainly, people possessing instruments of productioncan produce material wealth, but those very same people, if they possessa language but not instruments of production, cannot produce material wealth.It is not difficult to see that were language capable of producing materialwealth, wind-bags would be the richest men on earth.
QUESTION: Marx and Engels define language as "the immediate realityof thought," as "practical,... actual consciousness.''[12]"Ideas," Marx says, "do not exist divorced from language." In what measure,in your opinion, should linguistics occupy itself with the semantic aspectof language, semantics, historical semasiology, and stylistics, or shouldform alone be the subject of linguistics?
ANSWER: Semantics (semasiology) is one of the importantbranches of linguistics. The semantic aspect of words and expressions isof serious importance in the study of language. Hence, semantics (semasiology)must be assured its due place in linguistics.
However, in working on problems of semantics and in utilizingits data, its significance must in no way be overestimated, and still lessmust it be abused. I have in mind certain philologists who, having an excessivepassion for semantics, disregard language as "the immediate reality ofthought" inseparably connected with thinking, divorce thinking from languageand maintain that language is outliving its age and that it is possibleto do without language.
Listen to what N. Y. Marr says:
"Language exists only inasmuch as it is expressed in sounds; theaction of thinking occurs also without being expressed.... Language (spoken)has already begun to surrender its functions to the latest inventions whichare unreservedly conquering space, while thinking is on the up-grade, departingfrom its unutilized accumulations in the past and its new acquisitions,and is to oust and fully replace language. The language of the future isthinking which will be developing in technique free of natural matter.No language, even the spoken language, which is all the same connectedwith the standards of nature, will be able to withstand it" (see SelectedWorks by N. Y. Marr).
If we interpret this "labor-magic" gibberish into simple humanlanguage, the conclusion may be drawn that:
a) N. Y. Marr divorces thinking from language;b) N. Y. Marr considers that communication between people can be realized without language, with the help of thinking itself, which is free of the "natural matter" of language, free of the "standards of nature";c) divorcing thinking from language and "having freed" it from the "natural matter,' of language, N. Y. Marr lands into the swamp of idealism.
It is said that thoughts arise in the mind of man prior to theirbeing expressed in speech, that they arise without linguistic material,without linguistic integument, in, so to say, a naked form. But that isabsolutely wrong. Whatever thoughts arise in the human mind and at whatevermoment, they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguistic material,on the basis of language terms and phrases. Bare thoughts, free of thelinguistic material, free of the "natural matter" of language, do not exist."Language is the immediate reality of thought" (Marx). The reality of thoughtis manifested in language. Only idealists can speak of thinking not beingconnected with "the natural matter" of language, of thinking without language.
In brief: over-estimation of semantics and abuse of it ledN. Y. Marr to idealism.
Consequently, if semantics (semasiology) is safeguarded againstexaggerations and abuses of the kind committed by N. Y. Marr and some ofhis "disciples," semantics can be of great benefit to linguistics.
QUESTION: You quite justly say that the ideas, concepts, customsand moral principles of the bourgeoisie and those of the proletariat aredirectly antithetical. The class character of these phenomena is certainlyreflected in the semantic aspect of language (and sometimes in its form-- in the vocabulary -- as is correctly pointed out in your article). Inanalyzing concrete linguistic material and, in the first place, the semanticaspect of language, can we speak of the class essence of the concepts expressedby language, particularly in those cases when language expresses not onlythe thought of man but also his attitude towards reality, where his classaffinity manifests itself with especial clarity?
ANSWER: Putting it more briefly, you want to knowwhether classes influence language, whether they introduce into languagetheir specific words and expressions, whether there are cases when peopleattach a different meaning to one and the same word or expression dependingon their class affinity?
Yes, classes influence language, introduce into the languagetheir own specific words and expressions and sometimes understand one andthe same word or expression differently. There is no doubt about that.
However, it does not follow that specific words and expressions,as well as difference in semantics, can be of serious importance for thedevelopment of a single language common to the whole people, that theyare capable of detracting from its significance or of changing its character.
Firstly, such specific words and expressions, as well ascases of difference in semantics, are so few in language that they hardlymake up even one per cent of the entire linguistic material. Consequently,all the remaining overwhelming mass of words and expressions, as well astheir semantics, are common to all classes of society.
Secondly, specific words and expressions with a class tingeare used in speech not according to rules of some sort of "class" grammar,which does not exist, but according to the grammatical rules of the existinglanguage common to the whole people.
Hence, the existence of specific words and expressions andthe facts of differences in the semantics of language do not refute, but,on the contrary, confirm the existence and necessity of a single languagecommon to the whole people.
QUESTION: In your article you quite correctly appraise Marr as avulgarizer of Marxism. Does this mean that the linguists, including us,the young linguists, should reject the whole linguistic heritage of Marr,who all the same has to his credit a number of valuable linguistic researches(Comrades Chikobava, Sanzheyev and others wrote about them during the discussion)?Approaching Marr critically, cannot we take from him what is useful andvaluable?
ANSWER: Of course, the works of N. Y. Marr do notconsist solely of errors. N. Y. Marr made very gross mistakes when he introducedinto linguistics elements of Marxism in a distorted form, when he triedto create an independent theory of language. But N. Y. Marr has certaingood and ably written works, in which he, forgetting his theoretical claims,conscientiously and, one must say, skillfully investigates individual languages.In these works one can find not a little that is valuable and instructive.Clearly, these valuable and instructive things should be taken from N.Y. Marr and utilized.
QUESTION: Many linguists consider formalism one of the main causesof the stagnation in Soviet linguistics. We should very much like to knowyour opinion as to what formalism in linguistics consists in and how itshould be overcome.
ANSWER: N. Y. Marr and his "disciples" accuse of "formalism"all linguists who do not accept the "new doctrine" of N. Y. Marr. Thisof course is not serious or clever.
N. Y. Marr considered that grammar is an empty "formality,"and that people who regard the grammatical system as the foundation oflanguage are formalists. This is altogether foolish.
I think that ''formalism'' was invented by the authors ofthe "new doctrine" to facilitate their struggle against their opponentsin linguistics.
The cause of the stagnation in Soviet linguistics is notthe "formalism" invented by N. Y. Marr and his "disciples," but the Arakcheyevregime and the theoretical gaps in linguistics. The Arakcheyev regime wasset up by the "disciples" of N. Y. Marr. Theoretical confusion was broughtinto linguistics by N. Y. Marr and his closest colleagues. To put an endto stagnation, both the one and the other must be eliminated. The removalof these plague spots will put Soviet linguistics on a sound basis, willlead it out on to the broad highway and enable Soviet linguistics to occupyfirst place in world linguistics.
Pravda, July 4, 1950
Esteemed Comrade Sanzheyev,
I am replying to your letter with considerable delay, forit was only yesterday forwarded to me from the apparatus of the CentralCommittee.
Your interpretation of my standpoint on the question of dialectsis absolutely correct.
"Class" dialects, which it would be more correct to calljargons, do not serve the mass of the people, but a narrow social uppercrust. Moreover, they do not have a grammatical system or basic word stockof their own. In view of this, they cannot possibly develop into independentlanguages.
Local ("territorial") dialects, on the other hand, servethe mass of the people and have a grammatical system and basic word stockof their own. In view of this, some local dialects, in the process of formationof nations, may become the basis of national languages and develop intoindependent national languages. This was the case, for instance, with theKursk-Orel dialect (the Kursk-Orel "speech") of the Russian language, whichformed the basis of the Russian national language. The same must be saidof the Poltava-Kiev dialect of the Ukrainian language, which formed thebasis of the Ukrainian national language. As for the other dialects ofsuch languages, they lose their originality, merge with those languagesand disappear in them.
Reverse processes also occur, when the single language ofa nationality, which has not yet become a nation owing to the absence ofthe necessary economic conditions of development, collapses as a resultof the disintegration of the state of that nationality, and the local dialects,which have not yet had time to be fully uniformized in the single language,revive and give rise to the formation of separate independent languages.Possibly, this was the case, for example, with the single Mongolian language.
Pravda, August 2, 1950
I have received your letters.
Your mistake is that you have confused two different thingsand substituted another subject for that examined in my reply to ComradeKrasheninnikova.
In that reply I criticized N. Y. Marr who, dealing with language (spoken)and thought, divorces language from thought and thus lapses into idealism.Therefore, I referred in my reply to normal human beings possessing thefaculty of speech. I maintained, moreover, that with such human beingsthoughts can arise only on the basis of linguistic material, that barethoughts unconnected with linguistic material do not exist among people,who possess the faculty of speech.
Instead of accepting or rejecting this thesis, you introduceanomalous human beings, people without language, deaf-mutes, who have nolanguage at their disposal and whose thoughts, of course, cannot ariseon the basis of linguistic material. As you see, this is an entirely differentsubject which I did not touch upon and could not have touched upon, sincelinguistics concerns itself with normal human beings possessing the facultyof speech and not with anomalous deaf-mutes who do not possess the facultyof speech.
You have substituted for the subject under discussion anothersubject that was not discussed.
From Comrade Belkin's letter it is evident that he places on a par the"language of words" (spoken language) and "gesture language" ("hand" language,according to N. Y. Marr). He seems to think that gesture language and thelanguage of words are of equal significance, that at one time human societyhad no language of words, that "hand" language at that time played thepart of the language of words which appeared later.
But if Comrade Belkin really thinks so, he is committinga serious error. Spoken language or the language of words has always beenthe sole language of human society capable of serving as an adequate meansof intercourse between people. History does not know of a single humansociety, be it the most backward, that did not have its own spoken language.Ethnography does not know of a single backward tribe, be it as primitiveor even more primitive than, say, the Australians or the Tierra del Fuegansof the last century, which did not have its own spoken language. In thehistory of mankind, spoken language has been one of the forces which helpedhuman beings to emerge from the animal world, unite into communities, developtheir faculty of thinking, organize social production, wage a successfulstruggle against the forces of nature and attain the stage of progresswe have to-day.
In this respect, the significance of the so-called gesturelanguage, in view of its extreme poverty and limitations, is negligible.Properly speaking, this is not a language, and not even a linguistic substitutethat could in one way or another replace spoken language, but an auxiliarymeans of extremely limited possibilities to which man sometimes resortsto emphasize this or that point in his speech. Gesture language and spokenlanguage are just as incomparable as are the primitive wooden hoe and themodern caterpillar tractor with its five-furrow plow or tractor row drill.
Apparently, you are primarily interested in the deaf-mutes, and only secondarilyin problems of linguistics. Evidently, it was precisely this circumstancethat prompted you to put a number of questions to me. Well, if you insist,I am not averse to granting your request. How do matters stand with regardto deaf-mutes? Do they possess the faculty of thinking? Do thoughts arisewith them? Yes, they possess the faculty of thinking and thoughts arisewith them. Clearly, since deaf-mutes are deprived of the faculty of speech,their thoughts cannot arise on the basis of linguistic material. Can thisbe taken to mean that the thoughts of deaf-mutes are naked, are not connectedwith the "standards of nature" (N. Y. Marr's expression)? No, it cannot.The thoughts of deaf-mutes arise and can exist only on the basis of theimages, sensations and conceptions they form in every-day life on the objectsof the outside world and their relations among themselves, thanks to thesenses of sight, of touch, taste, and smell. Apart from these images, sensationsand conceptions, thought is empty, is deprived of all content, that is,it does not exist.
I have received your letter.
Pressure of work has somewhat delayed my reply.
Your letter tacitly proceeds from two premises: from thepremise that it is permissible to quote the work of this or that authorapart from the historical period of which the quotation treats, and secondly,from the premise that this or that conclusion or formula of Marxism, derivedas a result of studying one of the periods of historical development, holdsgood for all periods of development and therefore must remain invariable.
I must say that both these premises are deeply mistaken.
A few examples.
In the forties of the past century when there was no monopoly capitalismas yet, when capitalism was developing more or less smoothly along an ascendingline, spreading to new territories it had not yet occupied, and the lawof uneven development could not yet fully operate, Marx and Engels concludedthat a socialist revolution could not be victorious in one particular country,that it could be victorious only as a result of a joint blow in all, orin most, civilized countries. This conclusion subsequently became a guidingprinciple for all Marxists.
However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, especiallyin the period of the first world war, when it became clear to everyonethat pre-monopoly capitalism had definitely developed into monopoly capitalism,when rising capitalism had become dying capitalism, when the war had revealedthe incurable weaknesses of the world imperialist front, and the law ofuneven development predetermined that the proletarian revolution wouldmature in different countries at different times, Lenin, proceeding fromMarxist theory, came to the conclusion that in the new conditions of development,the socialist revolution could fully prove victorious in one country takenseparately, that the simultaneous victory of the socialist revolution inall countries, or in a majority of civilized countries, was impossibleowing to the uneven maturing of the revolution in those countries, thatthe old formula of Marx and Engels no longer corresponded to the new historicalconditions.
It is evident that here we have two different conclusionson the question of the victory of socialism, which not only contradict,but exclude each other.
Some textualists and Talmudists who quote mechanically withoutdelving into the essence of the matter, and apart from historical conditions,may say that one of these conclusions should be discarded as being absolutelyincorrect, while the other conclusion, as the absolutely correct one, shouldbe applied to all periods of development. Marxists, however, cannot butknow that the textualists and Talmudists are mistaken, they cannot butknow that both of these conclusions are correct, though not absolutely,each being correct for its own time: Marx's and Engels' conclusion -- forthe period of pre-monopoly capitalism; and Lenin's conclusion -- for theperiod of monopoly capitalism.
Engels in his Anti-Dühring said that after the victory of the socialistrevolution, the state is bound to wither away. On these grounds, afterthe victory of the socialist revolution in our country, textualists andTalmudists in our Party began demanding that the Party should take stopsto ensure the speedy withering away of our state, to disband state organs,to give up a standing army.
However, the study of the world situation of our time ledSoviet Marxists to the conclusion that in the conditions of capitalistencirclement, when the socialist revolution has been victorious only inone country, and capitalism reigns in all other countries, the land ofthe victorious revolution should not weaken, but in every way strengthenits state, state organs, intelligence organs and army, if that land doesnot want to be crushed by the capitalist encirclement. Russian Marxistscame to the conclusion that Engels' formula has in view the victory ofsocialism in all, or in most, countries, that it cannot be applied in thecase where socialism is victorious in one country taken separately andcapitalism reigns in all the other countries.
Evidently, we have here two different formulas regardingthe destiny of the socialist state, each formula excluding the other.
The textualists and Talmudists may say that this circumstancecreates an intolerable situation, that one of these formulas must he discardedas being absolutely erroneous, and the other -- as the absolutely correctone -- must be applied to all periods of development of the socialist state.Marxists, however, cannot but know that the textualists and Talmudistsarc mistaken, for both these formulas are correct though not absolutely,each being correct for its time: the formula of Soviet Marxists -- forthe period of the victory of socialism in one or several countries; andthe formula of Engels -- for the period when the consecutive victory ofsocialism in separate countries will lead to the victory of socialism inthe majority of countries and when the necessary conditions will thus havebeen created for the application of Engels' formula.
The number of such examples could be multiplied.
The same must be said of the two different formulas on thequestion of language, taken from various works of Stalin and cited by ComradeKholopov in his letter.
Comrade Kholopov refers to Stalin's work Concerning Marxismin Linguistics, where the conclusion is drawn that, as a result of thecrossing, say, of two languages, one of them usually emerges victorious,while the other dies away, that, consequently, crossing does not producesome new, third language, but preserves one of the languages. He refersfurther to another conclusion, taken from Stalin's report to the SixteenthCongress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), where it is said that in the period of thevictory of socialism on a world scale, when socialism is consolidated andbecomes part of every-day life, national languages will inevitably mergeinto one common language which, of course, will be neither Great Russiannor German, but something new. Comparing these two formulas and seeingthat, far from coinciding, they exclude each other, Comrade Kholopov fallsinto despair. "From your article," he writes in his letter, "I understoodthat the crossing of languages can never produce come new language, whereasprior to your article I was firmly convinced, in conformity with your speechat the Sixteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), that under communism, languageswould merge into one common language."
Evidently, having discovered a contradiction between thesetwo formulas and being deeply convinced that the contradiction must beremoved, Comrade Kholopov considers it necessary to get rid of one of theseformulas as incorrect and to clutch at the other as being correct for allperiods and countries; but which formula to clutch at -- he does not know.The result is something in the nature of a hopeless situation. ComradeKholopov does not even suspect that both formulas can be correct -- eachfor its own time.
That is always the case with textualists and Talmudists whodo not delve into the essence of the matter, quote mechanically and irrespectiveof the historical conditions of which the quotations treat, and invariablyfind themselves in a hopeless situation.
Yet if one examines the essence of the matter, there areno grounds for considering the situation hopeless. The fact is that Stalin'spamphlet Concerning Marxism in Linguistics, and Stalin's speech at theSixteenth Party Congress, refer to two entirely different epochs, owingto which the formulas, too, prove to be different.
The formula given by Stalin in his pamphlet, in the partwhere it speaks of the crossing of languages, refers to the epoch priorto the victory of socialism on a world scale, when the exploiting classesare the dominant power in the world; when national and colonial oppressionremains in force; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nationsare consolidated by differences between states; when, as yet there is nonational equality of rights; when the crossing of languages takes placeas a struggle for the domination of one of the languages; when the conditionsnecessary for the peaceful and friendly co-operation of nations and languagesare as yet lacking; when it is not the co-operation and mutual enrichmentof languages that are on the order of the day, but the assimilation ofsome and the victory of other languages. It is clear that in such conditionsthere can be only victorious and defeated languages. It is precisely theseconditions that Stalin's formula has in view when it says that the crossing,say, of two languages, results not in the formation of a new language,but in the victory of one of the languages and the defeat of the other.
As regards the other formula by Stalin, taken from his speechat the Sixteenth Party Congress, in the part that touches on the mergingof languages into one common language, it has in view another epoch, namely,the epoch after the victory of socialism on a world scale, when world imperialismno longer exists; when the exploiting classes are overthrown and nationaland colonial oppression is eradicated; when national isolation and mutualdistrust among nations is replaced by mutual confidence and rapprochementbetween nations; when national equality has been put into practice; whenthe policy of suppressing and assimilating languages is abolished; whenthe co-operation of nations has been established, and it is possible fornational languages freely to enrich one another through their co-operation.It is clear that in these conditions there can be no question of the suppressionand defeat of some languages, and the victory of others. Here we shallhave not two languages, one of which is to suffer defeat, while the otheris to emerge from the struggle victorious, but hundreds of national languages,out of which, as a result of a prolonged economic, political and culturalco operation of nations, there will first appear most enriched unifiedzonal languages, and subsequently the zonal languages will merge into asingle international language, which, of course, will be neither German,nor Russian, nor English, but a new language that has absorbed the bestelements of the national and zonal languages.
Consequently, the two different formulas correspond to twodifferent epochs in the development of society, and precisely because theycorrespond to them, both formulas are correct -- each for its epoch.
To demand that these formulas should not be at variance witheach other, that they should not exclude each other, is just as absurdas it would be to demand that the epoch of the domination of capitalismshould not be at variance with the epoch of the domination of socialism,that socialism and capitalism should not exclude each other.
The textualists and Talmudists regard Marxism and separateconclusions and formulas of Marxism as a collection of dogmas, which "never"change, notwithstanding changes in the conditions of the development ofsociety. They believe that if they learn these conclusions and formulasby heart and start citing them at random, they will be able to solve anyproblem, reckoning that the memorized conclusions and formulas will servethem for all times and countries, for all occasions in life. But this canbe the conviction only of people who see the letter of Marxism, but notits essence, who learn by rote the texts of conclusions and formulas ofMarxism, but do not understand their meaning.
Marxism is the science of the laws governing the developmentof nature and society, the science of the revolution of the oppressed andexploited masses, the science of the victory of socialism in all countries,the science of building communist society. As a science, Marxism cannotstand still, it develops and is perfected. In its development, Marxismcannot but be enriched by new experience, new knowledge -- consequentlysome of its formulas and conclusions cannot but change in the course oftime, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions, correspondingto the new historical tusks. Marxism does not recognize invariable conclusionsand formulas, obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemyof all dogmatism.
[1] Stalin's essayMarxism and Problemsof Linguistics was published in Pravda on June 20, 1950. Prior to this,there had already been discussion on Soviet linguistic problems in Pravda.This essay by Comrade Stalin is in reply to questions put to him by a groupof Soviet students in connection with the discussion, and to essays publishedin Pravda's columns. The titles of these latter were "On the Path of MaterialistLinguistics" by member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Bulakhovsky,"The History of Russian Linguistics and Marr's Theory" by Nikiforov, "Onthe Problem of the Class Character of Language" by Kudriavtsev and others.p 1.
[2] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Works, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1958, Vol. 3, p. 212 p. 13
[4] Ibid., 1957, Vol. 2, p. 351.p. 14
[5] Paul Lafargue (1842-1911), well-knownactivist of French and international workers' movements, and outstandingMarxist propagandist and publicist. He was one of the founders of the Frenchworkers' Party, student and comrade-in-arms of Marx and Engels, and husbandof Marx's daughter Laura. p. 14
[6] Bund, General Jewish workers'Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia, was a Jewish petty-bourgeois opportunistorganization founded at a congress held in Vilna in October, 1897, whichworked mainly among Jewish handicraftsmen. At the Russian Social-DemocraticLabor Party's First Congress in 1898, Bund joined the R.S.D.L.P. as "anindependent autonomous organization concerned only with the special problemsof the Jewish proletariat." Once it joined the Party, however, it propagatednationalism and separatism in the Russian working-class movement. The Bundistbourgeois-nationalist standpoint was sternly repudiated by Iskra newspaperfounded by Lenin. p. 18
[7] V. I. Lenin, "The Right of Nationsto Self-Determination "Selected Works in Two Volumes, Eng. ed.,Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2 pp. 318-19. p. 19
[8] J. V. Stalin, "The National Questionand Leninism,"Works, Eng. ed. Moscow, 1954, Vol. 11 p. 353. p.19
[9] Arakcheyev regime, named afterthe reactionary politician Count Arakcheyev, was an unrestrained dictatorialpolice state, warlord despotism and brutal rule enforced in Russia in thefirst quarter of the 19th century. Stalin uses the term here to indicateMarr's overriding domination in Soviet linguistic circles. p. 30
[10] Four-element analysis -- Marr assertedthat pronunciation of mankind's primitive language was evolved from thefour syllables sal, ber, yon and rosh. P. 31
[11] "Proto-language" theory --the doctrine of the Indo-European school which holds that a linguisticfamily consists of a group of patois (dialects), split from a common primitive"parent language." For example, modern Italian, French, Spanish, Portugueseand Romanian are sister languages derived from Latin, and were originallyonly different patois. However, as there is no documentary evidence forthe existence of a "parent language" of most of the dialects or languages,the Indo-European scholars have worked out a hypothetical "parent language,"their main aim being to facilitate explanation of the rules of phoneticchanges, but there is no way to prove the extent of the truth. p. 32
[12] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Works, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1958, Vol. 3, pp. 432 and 430. p. 35
Works by Decade |J. V. Stalin Archive