Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

More documents

Recommendations

Info

grammatical system and its basic stock of words, in all essentialsit has remained as the basis of modern Russian.And this is quite understandable. Indeed, what necessityis there, after every revolution, for the existing structure ofthe language, its grammatical system and basic stock of wordsto be destroyed and supplanted by new ones, as is usuallythe case with the superstructure? What object would therebe in calling “water,” “earth,” “mountain,” “forest,” “fish,”“man,” “to walk,” “to do,” “to produce,” “to trade,” etc., notwater, earth, mountain, etc., but something else? What objectwould there be in having the modification of words in alanguage and the combination of words in sentences follownot the existing grammar, but some entirely different grammar?What would the revolution gain from such an upheavalin language? History in general never does anything of anyimportance without some special necessity for it. What, oneasks, can be the necessity for such a linguistic revolution, ifit has been demonstrated that the existing language and itsstructure are fundamentally quite suited to the needs of thenew system? The old superstructure can and should be destroyedand replaced by a new one in the course of a few years,in order to give free scope for the development of the productiveforces of society; but how can an existing languagebe destroyed and a new one built in its place in the course ofa few years without causing anarchy in social life and withoutcreating the threat of the disintegration of society? Who buta Don Quixote could set himself such a task?Lastly, one other radical distinction between the superstructureand language. The superstructure is not directly connectedwith production, with man’s productive activity. It isconnected with production only indirectly, through the economy,through the base. The superstructure therefore reflects8
changes in the level of development of the productive forcesnot immediately and not directly, but only after changes inthe base, through the prism of the changes wrought in thebase by the changes in production. This means that thesphere 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 productiveactivity, but with all his other activity in all his spheres ofwork, from production to the base, and from the base to thesuperstructure. For this reason language reflects changes inproduction immediately and directly, without waiting forchanges in the base. For this reason the sphere of action oflanguage, which embraces all fields of man’s activity, is farbroader and more comprehensive than the sphere of action ofthe superstructure. More, it is practically unlimited.It is this that primarily explains why language, or rather itsvocabulary, is in a state of almost constant change. Thecontinuous development of industry and agriculture, of tradeand transport, of technology and science, demands thatlanguage should replenish its vocabulary with new words andexpressions needed for their functioning. And language,directly reflecting these needs, does replenish its vocabularywith new words, and perfects 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 is classlanguage, that there is no such thing as language which is the9
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 16 and 17: ase. If the base changes or is elim
Page 18 and 19: sists not in serving one class to t
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

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?