Discussion on Problems of Linguistics

In the 1950s, the Soviet Marxists represented by Stalin and the idealists represented by N. Marr had a great discussion about linguistics.

N. Marr was a renowned scholar and also linguistic authority in the Soviet Union at that time. N. Marr and his supporters denied that a language is a tool for people’s communication. They thought that language is a superstructure above the economic base and has a class nature. It is a tool of the struggle between one class and another. He denied the inheritance of language development and held that the development of language is realized through periodic outbursts. Language is separated from thought, and communication can be done without language, through thought itself, which is completely free from the “natural substance” of language. For such a theory, the Soviet theorists argued that it was “truly creative and materialistic and should be the basis for Soviet linguistics science”.

In January 1950, a conference was held to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the death of N. Marr, he was praised as “a gifted scholar of the Soviet Union who created materialistic linguistics”. To eliminate the negative influence of the idealistic views of N. Marr and his supporters, since May 1950, the Pravda newspaper of the C.P.S.U. published a large number of articles to discuss linguistic issues. Stalin attached great importance to this discussion and suggested that “no science can develop and achieve anything without the debate of different opinions, without the freedom of criticism.” Stalin hoped that the discussion would lead to the abandonment of N. Marr’s errors and the inculcation of Marxism into the philological studies. Starting from June 20, 1950, Stalin published a series of articles and letters in Pravda, directly criticizing the idealist views of N. Marr and others on the one hand and elaborating the basic Marxist views on linguistics and the economic base and superstructure on the other. According to Stalin, language is not the basic superstructure, and the superstructure is not equal to language; there is a difference between the two.

Firstly, the length of life is different. The superstructure is only the product of an era existing and active on the same foundation, and it will disappear as its foundation disappears; language is the product of many different eras, and its life is incomparably longer than that of any superstructure. Secondly, the speed of development and change is different. The superstructure evolves extremely rapidly; however, it is simply impossible to eliminate a language and create an entirely new one to replace it in a short period of time. Thirdly, the connection with production is different. The superstructure needs to be linked to production through the intermediary of the economy, only an indirect link; language, on the other hand, has a direct link to production. Fourthly, there are different motivations to reflect the essential characteristics. The superstructure is a social phenomenon with a distinct class character; language has no class character and was created to serve society as a tool for people’s communication. Thus, Stalin pointed out that “Marxists cannot regard language as a superstructure on the base” and “To confuse language and superstructure is to commit a serious error.” Stalin analyzed the features of language development and argued that language development is not done by the method of eliminating existing languages and creating new ones, but by the method of expanding and transforming the basic elements of existing languages. The transition of the language from one quality to another did not take the form of an explosion, of the destruction at one blow of the old and the creation of the new, but of the gradual and long-continued accumulation of the elements of the new quality, of the new linguistic structure, and the gradual dying away of the elements of the old quality.

The publication of Stalin’s articles and letters had a huge impact in Soviet philosophical circles, and there was extensive discussion that Stalin was a Marxist, and that N. Marr and others were anti-Marxist.