Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

itself, which is free of the “natural matter” of language, freeof the “standards of nature”;c) divorcing thinking from language and “having freed”it from the “natural matter” of language, N. Y. Marr landsinto the swamp of idealism.It is said that thoughts arise in the mind of man prior totheir being expressed in speech, that they arise withoutlinguistic material, without linguistic integument, in, so tosay, a naked form. But that is absolutely wrong. Whateverthoughts arise in the human mind and at whatever moment,they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguisticmaterial, on the basis of language terms and phrases. Barethoughts, free of the linguistic material, free of the “naturalmatter” of language, do not exist. “Language is the immediatereality of thought” (Marx). The reality of thoughtis manifested in language. Only idealists can speak of thinkingnot being connected 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 safeguardedagainst exaggerations and abuses of the kind committed byN. Y. Marr and some of his “disciples,” semantics can beof great benefit to linguistics.3. QUESTION. You quite justly say that the ideas, concepts,customs and moral principles of the bourgeoisie and those ofthe proletariat are directly antithetical. The class characterof these phenomena is certainly reflected in the semanticaspect of language (and sometimes in its form — in thevocabulary — as is correctly pointed out in your article). Inanalyzing concrete linguistic material and, in the first place,37