Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

analysis, 10 because the former gives a stimulus to work, toa study of languages, while the latter only gives a stimulusto loll in one’s arm-chair and tell fortunes in the tea-cup ofthe celebrated four elements.N. Y. Marr haughtily discountenanced every attempt tostudy groups (families) of languages on the grounds that itwas a manifestation of the “proto-language” theory. 11 Yetit cannot be denied that the linguistic affinity of nations likethe Slav nations, say, is beyond question, and that a studyof the linguistic affinity of these nations might be of greatvalue to linguistics in the study of the laws of 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 suchthing as the science of language, that the science of languageappeared with the “new doctrine” of N. Y. Marr. Marxand Engels were much more modest: they held that theirdialectical 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 itfrom its present crisis.Elimination of the Arakcheyev regime in linguistics, rejectionof N. Y. Marr’s errors, and the introduction of Marxisminto linguistics — that, in my opinion, is the way in whichSoviet linguistics could be put on a sound basis.Pravda, June 20, 195032