"The Sanskrit language . . is of a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from one common source which, perhaps, no longer exists".

(William Jones: The Third Annual Discourse', Asiatic Society, Calcutta, (February 1786), in: 'Works', Volume 1; London; 1999; p. 26).

"The most outstanding achievement of linguistic scholarship in the

19th century was the development of the comparative method which comprised a set of principles whereby languages could be systematically compared with respect to their sound systems, grammatical structure and vocabulary, and shown to be 'genealogically' related".

('New Encyclopaedia Britannica", Volume 23; Chicago; 1994; p. 42-43).

The genetic classification of languages postulates

"that certain languages are related in that they have evolved from a common ancestral language".

('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 22; Chicago; 1994; p. 572).

the Hamitic family,

"a group of African languages, comprising the Ancient Egyptian and the Berber, Galla and other allied extant languages".

(Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 6; Oxford; 1989; p. 1,056).

the Semitic family,

"of which Hebrew, Aramaean, Arabic, Ethiopic and Ancient Assyrian are the principal members".

(Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 14; Oxford; 1989; p. 961).

the Japhetic family, namely, as the term was originally used,

(Lawrence L. Thomas: 'The Linguistic Theories of N. Y. Marr'; Berkeley (USA); 1957; p. 39).

"family of languages, including Georgian, . . . that are spoken south of the chief range of the Caucasus."

('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 6; Chicago; 1994; p. 752).

the linguistic theory underlying the predominant trends was

the same as that held by philologists throughout the world. This body of theory, which developed during the 19th century, includes the assumption of the existence of 'ancestral' languages like Indo-European, from each of which whole families of languages are derived".

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: 'The Crisis in Soviet Linguistics', in." 'Soviet Studies', Volume 2, No. 3 (January 1951); p. 210).

"From 1930 to 1950 . . . the field of linguistics in the Soviet Union was dominated by the so-called Marr school",

(Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. vii).

"with the express approval of the Academy of Sciences he founded the Petrograd (later Leningrad) Japhetic Institute."

(Katherine H. Phillips: 'Language Theories of the Early Soviet Period'; Exeter; 1986; p. 77).

"Marr was elected President of the Central Council of the Intellectual Workers' Department".

He died in Leningrad in December 1934 at the age of 69.

Early in his career, Marr created what he termed

(Grigory A. Kapantsyan: 'On Certain of N. Marr's General Linguistic Theses' (May 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): The Soviet Linguistic

Controversy: Translated from the Soviet Press'; New York; 1951; p. 42).

Marr's first published paper (1888) postulated that

"the Georgian language . . . is genetically related to the Semitic family of languages".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'The Nature and Peculiarity of the Georgian Language (1888), in: Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. 2).

"The origin of Marr's system is clear. His entire work during this period was subordinated to the task of proving his theory of Japheto-Semitic genetic relationship. . . . One has somewhat the impression that it is the facts which are blameworthy".

(Lawrence L. Thomas: ibid.; p. 17).

"was gradually broadened to include not only the Caucasus languages, but subsequently others as well (Basque, Etruscan, Urartu, Elamite, etc.) until their imagined genealogical connection with the

Semitic ones disappeared".

(Grigory A. Kapantsyan: 'On Certain of N. Marr's General Linguistic Theses' (May 1950). in: Elizabeth Kresky: op. cit.; p. 42).

"... Marr even added languages to the Japhetic family without ever pursuing a special study of them".

(Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. 38).

Thus,

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.: p. 212).

"The term new studies of language' was first used in 1924; prior to that Marr called his theory 'the Japhetic theory'".

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York; 1977; p. 181).

"... in 1931 the name of the Leningrad Japhetic Institute was changed to that of the 'Institute of Language and Thought". (Katherine H. Phillips: op. cit.; p. 85).

"... in 1925, Marr sought to link his system with the philosophical views of historical materialism".

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York; 1978; p. 181).

"... he set out -- consciously and deliberately -- to reassess and adapt his theories in accordance with the principles of dialectical and historical materialism".

(Katherine H. Phillips: op. cit.; p. 80).

"When Marr's hypothesis on linguistic kinship led to a contradiction of the facts of linguistic scholarship, he attempted to eliminate this contradiction by declaring all 'traditional' . . . linguistics antiquated and incompatible with Marxism

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 15; New York; 1977; p. 492).

"... embodies the national-proletarian antithesis to the feudal-bourgeois great-power thesis".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: Address at Leningrad University (1930), in: William K. Matthews: op. cit.; p. 176).

It was unfortunate that Marr understood Marxism

"... in an over-simplified way, in the spirit of the vulgar sociological approach";

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York; 1978; p. 181).

"... refused to recognise kinship between languages, their genealogical classification".

(Grigory Kapantsyan: 'On Certain of N. Marr's General Linguistic Theses' (May 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p, 42).

"... seems to begin with his personal conviction that the notion of 'language-families was . . . essentially a false metaphor".

(Molly Miller: 'Marr, Stalin and the Theory of Language , in: 'Soviet Studies', Volume 2, No. 4 (April 1951); p. 364).

"... New Linguistics is an exaggerated protest against 'the classification of languages into family groups', each descended from its own ancestral language"

(B. B. Y.: 'The Stalin4larr Philological Controversy in the USSR', in: 'World Today', Volume 6, No. 8 (August 1950); p. 156).

"... had broken away from the main stream of the development of linguistics";

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 214).

Or, as Stalin put it, Marr

"... shrilly abused the comparative-historical method as 'idealistic'.

N. Y. Marr haughtily discountenanced every attempt to study groups (families) of languages. . . . Yet it cannot be denied that the linguistic affinity of nations like the Slav nations is beyond question, and that a study of the linguistic affinity of these nations 'night be of great value to linguists in the study of the laws of language development".

Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p. 229-30).

In other words, he

"... rejected the achievements of comparative-historical linguistics"

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York; 1978; p. 181).

"It is clear that we have before us a linguist who has never heard a word of the wide and successful development of the historical science of language which has taken place during the last sixty years". (Friedrich Engels: 'Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science' (June 1878); New York; 1939; p. 349).

"There is a no less substantial fallacy when they (people -- Ed.,) impute to language at its origin the function which is now the primary one -- the conversational. Language is a magical expedient. ... The necessity and possibility of using language as a means of communication are a much later matter".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'Contribution to the Baku Discussion on Japhetidology and Marxism', (1932), in: Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. 102).

"Marr denied that the original function of language was communication, as Marx taught".

"In the formulation of his semantic laws, ... Marr owed a greater debt to the French philosopher-ethnologist Levy-Bruhl than he owed to Marx... "

Mart accepted Levy-Bruhl's theses; but, on the one hand, he vulgarised them and, on the other hand, tried to give them a Marxist basis". (Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. 78, 79).

"Language only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men". (Karl Marx & Friedrich 1942; p. 19). Engels: 'The German Ideology' (June 1846); London:

"Men in the making arrived at the point where they had something to say to each other. Necessity created the organ; the undeveloped larynx of the ape was slowly but surely transformed by modulation to produce constantly more modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another".

(Friedrich Engels: 'The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man' (June 1876), in: 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State'' London: 1972; p.253-54).

Marxism defines the basis and superstucture of society as follows:

"The basis is the economic structure of society at the given stage of its development. The superstructure is the political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views of society and political, legal and other institutions corresponding to them.

Every basis has its own corresponding superstructure. . . . If the basis changes or is eliminated, then, following this, its superstructure changes or is eliminated; if a new basis arises, then, following this, a superstructure arises corresponding to it".

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p. 195-96).

According to Marrism, language belongs to the superstructure of society:

"Language is of the same type of superstructural social value as painting or art in generals".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'The Japhetic Theory' (1928), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p.11).

"Marr's theory made language a superstructure"

(Francoise Cadet, Jean-Marc Gayman, Yvan Mignot & Elisabeth Rondinesco: 'Les maitres de la langue, avec des textes de Marr, Staline, Polivanov' (The Masters of Language, with texts by Marr, Stalin, Polivanov); Paris; 1979; p.13).

"Quite a few of Academician N. Y. Marr's theses are really incontrovertible. . . . The decisive one is the recognition of language as a superstructure".

(Stepan Nikiforov: 'The History of the Russian Language and N. Y. Marr's Theory' (June 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit. p. 62).

But this is contrary to Marxism:

"Language differs radically from the superstructure. . . . In the course of the past thirty years, the old, capitalist basis has been eliminated in Russia and a new socialist basis has been built. Correspondingly, the superstructure on the capitalist basis has been eliminated and a new superstructure created corresponding to the socialist basis.

What has changed in the Russian language in this period? To a certain extent the vocabulary of the Russian language has changed, in the sense that it has been replenished with a considerable number of new words and expressions. ' , As to the basic stock of words and the grammatical system of the Russian language, which constitute the foundation of a language, they . . . far from having been eliminated and supplanted by a new basic word stock and a new grammatical system of the language, they have been preserved in their entirety...

In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure. Language is not a product of one or another basis, old or new, within the given society, but of the whole course of the history of the society... for many centuries... A language may equally serve both the old, moribund system and the new, rising system.

A language therefore lives immeasurably longer than any basis or superstructure.

hence:

a) A Marxist cannot regard language as a superstructure on the basis,

b) To confuse language and superstructure is to commit a serious error.

N. Y. Mart introduced into linguistics the incorrect, non-Marxist formula that language is a superstructure, and got himself into a muddle and put linguistics into a muddle. Soviet linguistics cannot be advanced on the basis of an incorrect formula'.

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p, 196, 197-98, 199, 203, 229).

"Language cannot be included either in the category of bases or in the category of superstructures.

Nor can it be included in the category of 'intermediate' phenomena between the basis and the superstructure, for such 'intermediate' phenomena do not exist".

(Josef V. Stalin: 'Concerning Certain Problems of Linguistics' (June 1950) (hereafter listed as Josef V. Stalin (1950) (2), in: 'Works', Volume 16; London; 1986; p. 232).

"Manual language . . . gave way to oral speech very late".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'Language and Thought' (1933-40), in: Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. 102).

According to Marr, kinetic speech

"... was replaced by a system of articulate speech only when a separate class of 'magicians' arose who first used speech. . . It was they who in time imposed vocal speech on the whole collective (Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p.215).

"According to Academician N. Y. Marr's theory, the origin of language is conceived as follows: a gesture language is aboriginal ('manual language ); vocal speech arose much later".

(Arnold S. Chikobava: 'On Certain Problems of Soviet Linguistics (May 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 12).

"Manual language ... gave way to oral speech . . . in the course of a struggle... between the collective with ... oral speech and the collective without oral speech".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'Language and Thought' (1933-40); in: Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p. 102-03).

"... between communities with, and those without, vocal speech, until the former triumphed"..

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 215).

"Marr ... invented the ridiculous fable of a class struggle (between 'speakers' and 'gesturists') at a stage of social development when, according to Marxist theory, there were no class divisions

"Comrade Belkin . . . seems to think . . . that at one time human society had no language of words, that 'hand' language at that time played the part of the language of words, which appeared later.

But . . . spoken language, or the language of words has always been the sole language of human society capable of serving as an adequate means of intercourse between people. History does not know of a single human society, be it the most backward, that did not have its own spoken language. Ethnography does not know of a single backward tribe which did not have its own spoken language.

The significance of the so-called gesture language, in view of its extreme poverty and limitations, is negligible. . . . Properly speaking, this is not a language, ... but an auxiliary means of extremely limited possibilities, to which man sometimes resorts to emphasise this or that point in his speech".

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Comrades D. Belkin & S. Furer (July 1950), in: Josef V. Stalin (1950) (2): op. cit.; p. 242-43).

According to Marrism,

there has never been a non-class language; language was of a class nature from the moment it began, it was the language of the class having control over the implements of production

"A national ... language does not exist"

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'Why it is so Difficult to become a Theoretical Linguist' (1929), in: Lawrence L. Thomas: op. cit.; p.95).

"... the idea of the class nature of language is woven through the entire theory (of Marrism -- Ed.)".

"Languages of one and the same class in different countries, given an identical social structure, display greater similarity of type than do languages of different classes ... of one and the same nation".

(Nikolai Y. Marr: 'Why it is so Difficult to become a Theoretical Linguist' (1929), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 12).

However, Marxism holds that

"... a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation".

(Josef V. Stalin: 'Marxism and the National Question' (January 1913), in:

'Works', Volume 2; Moscow; 1953; p. 304).

"Everywhere and at all stages of development, language as a means of intercourse between the people of a society, was the common and single language of that society, serving its members equally, irrespective of their social status.

I am not referring here to ... empires... These empires could not have had a single language common to the whole empire. They were conglomerations of tribes and nationalities, each of which had its own language... History tells us that the languages of these tribes and nationalities were not class languages, but languages common to the whole of a tribe or nationality.

With the appearance of capitalism, ... nationalities developed into nations, and the languages of nationalities into national languages. History shows that national languages are not class, but common languages, common to all the members of each nation and constituting the single language of that nation."

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p. 203-05).

Of course. admits Stalin,

"... 'class' dialects, jargons, high-society 'languages are created.

Can these dialects and Jargons be regarded as languages? Certainly not. They cannot, firstly because these dialects and jargons have no grammatical Systems or basic word stocks of their own -- they borrow them from the national language. They cannot, secondly, because these dialects and jargons are confined to a narrows sphere, . . and are entirely unsuitable as a means of human intercourse for society as a whole".

(Josef V. Stalin (1959) (1): ibid.; p. 205-206).

Stalin points out that it is wrong to

"... confuse language with culture... Culture and language are two different things. Culture may be bourgeois or socialist, but language, as a means of intercourse, is always a language common to the whole people.

Hence:

a) Language, as a means of intercourse, always was and remains the single language of a society, common to all its members;

b) The existence of dialects and jargons does not negate but confirms the existence of a language common to the whole of the given people, of which they are offshoots and to which they are subordinate;

c) The 'class' of language formula is erroneous and non-Marxist".

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): ibid. p. 213, 215).

('Oxford English Dictionary , Volume 16; Oxford; 1989; p. 439).

"The partisans of Academician Marr consider ... that language develops not only by evolution, i. e.g. by quantitative changes in various aspects and facets of language, but also by revolution, by skips and mutations, i.e., by the transition of this language from one qualitative state into another, ending the evolutionary path of development".

(Garma D. Sanzheyev: Either forward or backward (May 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 37).

"Marr's view of the development of languages assumes changes from one stage to another by sudden 'dialectical' leaps".

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 217).

"Languages did not develop by the destruction of existing languages and the creation of new ones, but by extending and perfecting the basic elements of existing languages. And 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 linguistic structure, and the gradual dyings away of the elements of the old.

Marxism does not recognise sudden explosions in the development of languages".

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p. 222).

"Linguistic crossing cannot be regarded as the single impact of a decisive blow which produces its result within a few years. Linguistic crossing is a prolonged process which continues for hundreds of years. There can therefore be no question of explosions here.

Further, it would be quite wrong to think that the crossing of, say, two languages results in a new, third language which does not resemble either of the languages crossed. ... As a matter of fact, one of the languages usually emerges victorious from the cross, retains its grammatical system and its basic word stock, and continues to develop in accordance with its inherent laws of development, while the other language gradually loses its quality and gradually dies away."

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): ibid.; p. 224-25).

Pokrovsky

1932".

(Marin Pundeff (Ed.): 'History in the USSR: Selected Readings'; San Francisco; 1967; p. 64),

"... with the patronage of the 'Marxist' historian Pokrovsky, afterwards discredited, . . Marr won the approval of the Communist Academy and laid down the thematics and the methodology of the new philology of the proletarian era".

"... to be specifically Marxist. and, indeed, the only possible Marxist theory of language, was officially recognised in the 1920s, and ... for . . . twenty-five years enjoyed a virtual ideological monopoly of linguistic teaching and research in the Soviet Union".

Bolshevism' (1930) (hereafter listed as 'Josef V. Stalin (1930)', in: 'Works', Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 86).

"... Lenin did not wage an irreconcilable struggle against opportunism": (Josef V. Stalin (1930): ibid.; p. 86).

"... criticism of Pokrovsky was succeeded by a direct challenge to his authority. Kaganovich, as one of the secretaries of the Party Central Committee, requested a report from Pokrovsky on the state of the historical front".

(John Barber: 'Soviet Historians in Crisis: 1928-1932'; London; 1981; p. 124).

"... at a meeting of the presidium of the Communist Academy on 15

January (1931 -- Ed.), Pokrovsky was confronted with a statement by three

of its members demanding a thorough examination of the Institute of

History."

(John Barber: ibid.; p. 124).

After Pokrovsky's death in 1932,

"... his historiographic empire began to . . . be actively broken up. The Institute of Red Professors, . . . the Communist Academy, and the Society of Marxist Historians were all gradually dismantled and the functions providing leadership in the field of history and supervising it were vested in the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR".

(Marin Pundeff (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 97).

(George M. Enteen: 'The Soviet Scholar-Bureaucrat: M. N. Pokrovsky and the Society of Marxist Historians'; University Park (USA); 1978; p. 191).

'abstract sociological schemes' of his school. . . The decree also set up several teams to write new textbooks to replace the products of Pokrovsky's era

(Marin Pundeff (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 98).

"... that the teaching of history in the schools of the USSR is unsatisfactorily handled. Textbooks and instruction have an abstract schematic nature."

(Joint Decree of Council of People's Commissars and CC of the All-Union Communist Party on the Teaching of History in Schools', (16 Nay 1934), in: Mann Pundeff (Ed.): ibid.; p. 98).

"Signed by Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov, these were specific directives for the implementation of the May 16 decree. . . . Though the decrees did not mention Pokrovsky, it was evident that the Party opted for his detractors."

(George M. Enteen: op. cit.; p. 190).

article that condemned Pokrovsky -- the first public repudiation". (George M. Enteen: ibid.; p. 190).

(Mikhail N. Pokrovsky, cited in: George M. Enteen, Tatiana Gorn & Cheryl Keen: Soviet Historians and the Study of Russian Imperialism'; University Park (USA); 1979; p. 25).

"... the most important branches of Russian industry were in the hands of foreign capitalists. . . . All these circumstances chained tsardom to British and French imperialism , and converted Russia into a tributary, a semi-colony of these countries".

('History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course'; Moscow; 1939; p. 162).

The article announced that the new draft textbooks were as unsatisfactory as their predecessors and for the first time made an explicit denunciation of Pokrovsky:

"The authors of the textbooks mentioned continue to insist on historical definitions and interpretations repeatedly criticised by the Party and plainly groundless, which are based on the well-known mistakes of Pokrovsky. . . . The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of the Party emphasise that these harmful tendencies and attempts to eliminate history as a science are first and foremost connected with . . . the so-called 'historical school' of Pokrovsky".

(Council of People's Commissars & CC of the CPSU: Statement of 27 January 1936; in: John Barber: op. cit., p. 139-40).

"... culminating in the Central Committee's resolution of November 1938 condemning Pokrovsky's school for 'anti-Marxist distortions' and vulgarisations'".

(John Barber: ibid.: p. 140).

In 1939-40, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences

(Mann Pundeff (Ed.): ibid.; p. 140).

"... base for wrecking activities by enemies of the people unmasked by the organs of the NKVD, by the Trotskyite-Bukharinite hirelings of fascism, and by wreckers, spies and terrorists who had skilfully camouflaged themselves with the aid of the harmful and anti-Leninist historical conceptions of M. N. Pokrovsky".

(Anna N. Pankratova: cited in: Marin Pundeff (Ed.): ibid.; p. 140). 

Historian Nikolai Rubinshtein in his book "Russian Historiography" writes:

erroneous anti-Marxist positions of the historical scheme of Pokrovsky; some did that unconsciously without subjecting the positions to Marxist-Leninist criticism, while others did it as wreckers hiding their anti-Soviet ideological activity behind the master S authority".

(Nikolai Rubinshtein: 'Povrovsky' (1941), in: 'Russkaia istoriografia' (Russian Historiography); Moscow; 1941, cited in: Mann Pundeff (Ed.):

ibid.; p. 141).

"... to transform (the ideological monopoly of Marrism -- Ed.) into an absolute administrative monopoly.

Marr's followers, entrenched in the Institute of Language and Thought, methodically established their ideological dictatorship over Soviet philology".

"Academician N. Y. Marr formulated the new teaching on language which he designated thus to distinguish it from old, bourgeois linguistics (Fedot Filin: 'Against Stagnation, for the Development of Soviet Linguistics' May 1950), in: Elisabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 38).

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 2; 1973; p. 229).

Stalin reported in June 1950:

It is generally accepted that no science can develop and flourish without a battle of opinions, without freedom of criticism. But this generally recognised rule was ignored and flouted in the most unceremonious fashion. There arose a close group of infallible leaders '.ho, having secured themselves against any possible criticism, became a law unto themselves and did whatever they pleased.

This ... happened . . . because the Arakcheyev regime established in linguistics cultivates irresponsibility and encourages such arbitrary actions".

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p. 226-27).

"... to preserve his (Marr's -- Ed.) views, including the obviously erroneous ones".

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York: 1978; p. 181).

"... advanced the idea of 'four elements that supposedly constituted the basis for the lexical stock of all languages. By this time he was making his final break with scholarly comparative-historical linguistics".

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York; 1978; p. 181).

"All languages of the world were now said to derive from the four monosyllabic combinations: Sal, Ber, Yon and Ros".

(Katherine H. Phillips: op. cit.; p. 82-83).

(Ivan I. Meshehaninov. in: Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.: p.224).

"Element analysis once forced Academician N. Y. Marr's theory of linguistics into a blind alley. Now that element analysis has been rehabilitated, all linguistic work is arriving at an impasse". (Arnold S. Chikobaya: 'On Certain Problems of Soviet Linguistics' (May 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 10).

"Marr himself, at the end of his life, had withdrawn from circulation a Course of Lectures he had given at Baku, which taught his erroneous 'four element' theory, but it was revealed (during the 1950 debate --Ed.) by Meshchaninov that this course was still being used by undergraduate students."

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; 220).

Of course, Marrism

"... evoked harsh criticism of the new studies of language by Soviet linguists".

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 18; New York; 1978; p. 181).

"Scholars like Vinogradov, Peterson and Chikobava ignored or openly flouted the New Linguistics",

(D. B. Y.: op. cit.; p. 359).

(Francoise Cadet et al.: op. cit.; p. 36).

"Polivanov attempted to set up a 'Marxist linguistics' in opposition to Marr"

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 217).

"Marrist influence was strongest in Leningrad, and opposition to Marr strongest in Moscow, particularly in the Moscow University". (Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: ibid.; p. 222).

"Polivanov was a dangerous opponent for those who tried to canonise 'the new study of language' and to portray it as the only Marxist study of language. Therefore the struggle against him went on until his death".

(Aleksey A. Leontiev et al.: 'The Life and Activities of E. D. Polivanov', in: Evgeny D. Polivanov: op. cit.; p. 24).

"The basic defect of the Japhetic theory (and specifically the material which should be revised) is . . . the use of concrete living material which contradicts the facts.

Any science which claims to participate in the creation of a realistic and, in particular, a Marxist ideology, should be deduced from factual material and should not amount to several general premises unconnected with concrete facts.

The route of creating Marrist linguistics should not proceed from the Japhetic theory: with the aid of Marxist methodology and on the basis of Marxist premises, one must explain . . . the factual material which is beyond argument and suspicion. . . . The discipline created should begin to operate at first with known material and only after thoroughly moulding its methods should begin to cross deeper into the unknown".

(Evgeny D. Polivanov: 'The Problem of Marxist Linguistics and the Japhetic Theory' (February 1929) in: 'Selected Works: Articles on General Linguistics'; The Hague; 1974; p. 169).

Later in 1929. Polivanov

"... was relieved of the positions he held . . . and he went to Samarkand"

(Aleksey A. Leontiev et al.; op. cit.: p. 27).

However, in early 1931 Polivanov succeeded in publishing

"... a collection of popularly written articles entitled . . .'In Favour of Marxist Linguistics'".

(Aleksey A. Leontiev et al.: ibid.; p. 26).

"... which razed to the ground ... 'The New Study of Linguistics' roused Polivanov's opponents ... into the fullest frenzy"

"Direct hostile attacks may be observed, reflecting the bourgeois science and imperialist politics of capitalism (E. Polivanov's 'In Favour of Marxist Linguistics' "

('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', (September 1931), in: Aleksey A. Leontiev et al.: op. cit.; p. 26).

At the end of 1934,

Kirghiz Institute for Cultural Construction . . . and taught in the Pedagogical Institute".

(Aleksey A. Leontiev et al.: op. cit.: p. 29).

(Heinrich B. Schulz. Paul K. Urban & Andrew I. Lebed (Eds.): 'Who was Who in the USSR: A Biographic Dictionary'; Metuchen (USA); 1972; p. 454).

Polivanov's death did not, of course, end the discussions on linguistics.

A most important debate took place in 1948, after the revisionist

"The Marrists thought that they had found weighty support in the session of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences (of 31 July - 5 August 1948). marked by the famous report of T. D. Lysenko, where there was proclaimed in particular the radical opposition between 'bourgeois science' and 'proletarian science a report which had received the support of the Central Committee of the Communist Party". (Rene L'Hermitte: 'Science et perversion ideologique: Marr, marrisme, 'Marristes: Une page de l'histoire de la linguistique sovietique'

(Science and Ideological Perversion: Marr, Marrism, Marrists: A Page from the History of Soviet Linguistics): Paris; 1987; p. 59).

"The discussion and resolutions of the special August 1948 session of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences strengthened those who wished to secure the predominance of Marrism'

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 227).

"Particularly sinister were the proceedings of a philological conference held in November 1948. Academician Meshchaninov delivered the main address. ... Soviet philologists were to infer that Marr was the Michurin of linguistics and Meshchaninov his Lysenko. 'Party spirit' in philological science and adherence to Marr's doctrine were identical".

(D. B. Y.: op. cit.; p. 359).

'That the meetings were intended by the organisers to parallel the biological discussion is emphasised by the title of Meshchaninov's report 'On the Situation in Linguistic Science', an exact parallel with Lysenko's 'On the Situation in Biological Science'"

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 228).

In January 1949 meetings were organised

"... in all linguistic institutes of the Soviet Union, in all academies of sciences of the union republics and higher educational institutions of our country during the observance of the 85th anniversary of N. Y. Marr's birth and the 15th anniversary of his death". ('Current digest of the Soviet Press', Volume 2, No. 18; p. 13).

"... revealed the generally unsatisfactory situation in the field of linguistics", (Editorial Note: 'Problems of Philosophy', No. 3, 1949, (hereafter listed as 'Philosophy (1949') in: 'Current Digest of the Soviet Press', Volume 2. No. 18; p. 21).

by which they meant that

"... the session did not reflect the creative development of N. Y. Marr's theoretical heritage by his pupils and followers in the 15 years since the founder of materialist linguistics died", ('Philosophy'(1949): p. 21).

"It is utterly inadmissible that linguists doing research on the great Russian language took no part in the session's work. It was especially important that they participate, because it is precisely in this field that a struggle against anti-Marr traditions is extremely urgent ('Philosophy' (1949): op. cit.; p. 21).

"... to end the covert and overt attacks on Marr and to raise Soviet, materialist, Marr linguistics to a higher level". ('Philosophy' (1949): op. cit.; p. 21).

"... the whole question was discussed by the Presidency of the

Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the most important scientific body in the Soviet Union, and on June 21 1949 it passed a long resolution of 3,000 words on 'The Present Position in Soviet Linguistics and Measures for the Improvement of Linguistic Work in the Academy of Sciences of the USSR'.

It attacks Vinogradov, Chikobaya and others, and praises the work of Meshchaninov".

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 231).

"... extolling the merits of Marrism and condemning all deviationist tendencies",

(Katherine H. Phillips: op. cit.; p. 90).

"... activity of a tendency hostile to materialist linguistics, influence of idealist-reactionary currents from foreign bourgeois linguistics.

"... the generally unsatisfactory situation in the field of linguistics"

('Philosophy' (1949): op. cit.; p. 21).

"... lasted nine weeks, and included contributions from 14 important philologists".

(Jeffrey Ellis & Robert W. Davies: op. cit.; p. 234).

"I am not a linguistic expert and, of course, cannot fully satisfy the request of the comrades. As to Marxism in linguistics, as in other social sciences, this is something directly in my field".

(Josef V. Stalin (4950) (1): op. cit.; p. 195).

"The discussion ... has proved to be very useful first of all because it brought this Arakcheyev regime into the light of day and smashed it to smithereens.

It ... also brought out the incredible confusion of ideas on cardinal questions of linguistics which prevails among the leading circles in this branch of science.

It turned out that in N. Y. Marr a teachings there are a whole number of defects, errors, ill-defined problems and sketchy propositions. Why, one asks, have N. Y. Marr's 'disciples' begun to talk about this only now, after the discussion opened? Why did they not see to it before? Why did they not speak about in due time openly and honestly, as befits scientists?"

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (1): op. cit.; p. 227-28).

The anti-Marrists ... had little difficulty in demonstrating that Marr's doctrine is amorphous, arbitrary, unproven and in contradiction with certain important Marxist tenets".

Stalin summed up his views on linguistics as follows:

"I think that the sooner our linguistics rids itself of N.Y. Marr's errors, the sooner it will be possible to extricate it from its present crisis.

Elimination of the Arakcheyev regime in linguistics, rejection of N.

Y. Marr's errors, and the introduction of Marxism into linguistics -- that, in my opinion, is the way in which Soviet linguistics could be put on a sound basis".

(Josef V. Stalin (195) (1): op. cit.; p. 230).

(Josef V. Stalin (1950) (2): ibid.: p. 239).

"The majority of us Soviet linguists, and especially myself, were so firmly convinced that language was a phenomenon of a superstructural nature that we did not even make any effort to think over those definitions of superstructures and their relation to the base which are contained in the Marxist-Leninist classics. Hence the erroneousness of many of our other theoretical theses.

Our assessment of the superstructural nature of language inevitably led to the incorrect assertion of its class nature, of its development through 'upheavals' and consequently of the incorrect evaluation of the role of language hybridisation as the basis of language formation and development.

These and many other errors of Marr himself and of his pupils, particularly myself, actually led to stagnation in Soviet linguistics.

The attempts made to study the grammatical structure of languages were indiscriminately proclaimed formalistic and met with direct opposition from the representatives of that linguistic regime which Comrade Stalin quite correctly labelled as 'Arkacheyev-like'"

(Ivan I. Neshchaninov: Letter to the Editors of 'Pravda' (4 July 1950), in: Elizabeth Kresky (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 92).

The decree also provided for

"... the annulment of the decision which had been taken on 21 July 1949 ... by the Presidium of the Academy, precisely on the initiative of these three persons;

the liquidation of the Institute of Language and Thought as such; it was combined with the Institute of Russian to form a new academic entity, the Institute of Linguistics

(Rene L'Hermitte: op. cit.; p. 79).

It has to be noted that

"... the former champions of the new theory of language, although they were demoted on the administrative plane, were not the object of any repressive measure. Nothing comparable, for example, to the tragedy of E. D. Polivanov in the thirties."

(Rene L'Hermitte: ibid.; p. 80).

Meshchaninov

"... was allowed to retain his academic title and to continue his activities -- in relative isolation but without official interference".

(Katherine H. Phillips: op. cit.; p. 94).

1950."

(Rene L'Hermitte: ibid.; p. 81).

"... their authority was no longer omnipotent, as it had been between 1930 and 1950".

(Rene L'Hermitte: ibid.; p. 84).