Marxism and Problems of Linguistics - From Marx to Mao

Hence, the existence of specific words and expressions andthe facts of differences in the semantics of language do notrefute, but, on the contrary, confirm the existence and necessityof a single language common to the whole people.4. QUESTION. In your article you quite correctly appraiseMarr as a vulgarizer of Marxism. Does this mean that thelinguists, including us, the young linguists, should reject thewhole linguistic heritage of Marr, who all the same has tohis credit a number of valuable linguistic researches (ComradesChikobava, Sanzheyev and others wrote about themduring the discussion)? Approaching Marr critically, cannotwe take from him what is useful and valuable?ANSWER. Of course, the works of N. Y. Marr do not consistsolely of errors. N. Y. Marr made very gross mistakes whenhe introduced into linguistics elements of Marxism in adistorted form, when he tried to create an independent theoryof language. But N. Y. Marr has certain good and ablywritten works, in which he, forgetting his theoretical claims,conscientiously and, one must say, skilfully investigates individuallanguages. In these works one can find not a littlethat is valuable and instructive. Clearly, these valuable andinstructive things should be taken from N. Y. Marr andutilized.5. QUESTION. Many linguists consider formalism one ofthe main causes of the stagnation in Soviet linguistics. Weshould very much like to know your opinion as to whatformalism in linguistics consists in and how it should beovercome.39