Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ase. If the base changes or is eliminated, then, following this,its superstructure changes or is eliminated; if a new basearises, then, following this, a superstructure arises correspondingto it.In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure.Take, for example, Russian society and the Russianlanguage. In the course of the past thirty years the old, capitalistbase has been eliminated in Russia and a new, socialistbase has been built. Correspondingly, the superstructure onthe capitalist base has been eliminated and a new superstructurecreated corresponding to the socialist base. The oldpolitical, legal and other institutions, consequently, have beensupplanted by new, socialist institutions. But in spite of thisthe Russian language has remained basically what it was beforethe October Revolution.What has changed in the Russian language in this period?To a certain extent the vocabulary of the Russian languagehas changed, in the sense that it has been replenished witha considerable number of new words and expressions, whichhave arisen in connection with the rise of the new socialistproduction, the appearance of a new state, a new socialistculture, new social relations and morals, and, lastly, in connectionwith the development of technology and science; anumber of words and expressions have changed their meaning,have acquired a new signification; a number of obsolete wordshave dropped out of the vocabulary. As to the basic stockof words and the grammatical system of the Russian language,which constitute the foundation of a language, they, after theelimination of the capitalist base, far from having been eliminatedand supplanted by a new basic word stock and a newgrammatical system of the language, have been preserved intheir entirety and have not undergone any serious changes —4
they have been preserved precisely as the foundation of themodern Russian language.Further, the superstructure is a product of the base, but thisby no means implies that it merely reflects the base, that it ispassive, neutral, indifferent to the fate of its base, to the fateof the classes, to the character of the system. On the contrary,having come into being, it becomes an exceedingly activeforce, actively assisting its base to take shape and consolidateitself, and doing its utmost to help the new system to finishoff and eliminate the old base and the old classes.It cannot be otherwise. The superstructure is created by thebase precisely in order to serve it, to actively help it to takeshape and consolidate itself, to actively fight for the eliminationof the old, moribund base together with its old superstructure.The superstructure has only to renounce this roleof auxiliary, it has only to pass from a position of activedefence of its base to one of indifference towards it, to adoptan 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 the given society, but of the whole courseof the history of the society and of the history of the basesfor many centuries. It was created not by some one class, butby the entire society, by all the classes of the society, by theefforts of hundreds of generations. It was created for thesatisfaction of the needs not of one particular class, but ofthe entire society, of all the classes of the society. Preciselyfor this reason it was created as a single language for thesociety, common to all members of that society, as the commonlanguage of the whole people. Hence the functional roleof language, as a means of intercourse between people, con-5
Page 1: J. V. STALINMARXISMAND PROBLEMSOF L
Page 8 and 9: From Marx to MaoML© Digital Reprin
Page 10 and 11: First Edition 1972PUBLISHER’S NOT
Page 13: MARXISM AND PROBLEMSOF LINGUISTICS
Page 18 and 19: sists not in serving one class to t
Page 20 and 21: grammatical system and its basic st
Page 22 and 23: single and common language of a soc
Page 24 and 25: language.” For this reason, stran
Page 26 and 27: geoisie.” 4 Certain comrades conc
Page 28 and 29: aristocracy? How can one possibly d
Page 30 and 31: Reference is further made to Lenin,
Page 32 and 33: The mistake our comrades commit her
Page 34 and 35: is conceivable without it. But the
Page 36: slowly than the basic word stock. W
Page 39 and 40: elements of the new quality, and he
Page 41 and 42: There can be no doubt that the cros
Page 43 and 44: N. Y. Marr’s “disciples” begu
Page 45 and 46: CONCERNING CERTAINPROBLEMS OF LINGU
Page 47 and 48: tion: instruments of production man
Page 49 and 50: itself, which is free of the “nat
Page 51 and 52: Hence, the existence of specific wo
Page 53 and 54: REPLY TO COMRADESTO COMRADE SANZHEY
Page 55 and 56: TO COMRADES D. BELKIN AND S. FURERI
Page 57 and 58: negligible. Properly speaking, this
Page 59 and 60: concluded that a socialist revoluti
Page 61 and 62: plied to all periods of development
Page 63 and 64: languages takes place as a struggle
Page 65 and 66: communist society. As a science, Ma
Page 67 and 68:
nationalism and separatism in the R
show all

Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?