Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Триумф и падение «нового учения о языке» академика Н. Я. Марра

Authors: Alpatov, V.;

Триумф и падение «нового учения о языке» академика Н. Я. Марра

Abstract

Academician Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr was a remarkable figure in Russian linguistics during the first half of the twentieth century. He contributed to the fields of historical linguistics and ancient history, having formulated original hypotheses in these areas. The scholar put forward bold, even fantastical hypotheses to refute the main postulates of comparative linguistics. However, he was unable to prove them. Following the October Revolution, Marr’s ideas enjoyed significant popularity in the Soviet Union. Many supporters of the revolution, particularly young people, sought to reject traditional scholarship and embrace new ideas. The “new theory of language” aligned with these aspirations, prompting Marr to adapt his concepts to the evolving landscape. He was the only member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences to join the Communist Party, and Soviet leaders supported him at that time. In 1929, Marr’s ideas were formally recognised as Marxism in the field of linguistics. Following Marr’s triumph, numerous prominent scholars found themselves unable to continue their research, and some were repressed. For 16 years after his death, Marr was officially considered a “great scholar”. However, many linguists at that time distanced themselves from his ideas. In 1948–1950, some linguists from the Marrist camp initiated a campaign against several specialists accused of cosmopolitanism and “bourgeois propaganda”. Their main demand was to return to all of Marr’s ideas. However, the party newspaper Pravda unexpectedly announced a discussion on issues of linguistics. The discussion was participated in by prominent linguists, but it was merely a prelude to Joseph Stalin’s speech (June 20, 1950). He condemned Marr’s theories, and traditional Russian linguistics became the standard.

Академик Николай Яковлевич Марр занимает видное место в отечественном языкознании первой половины ХХ в. Ему принадлежат оригинальные гипотезы в области исторического языкознания и древней истории. Выдвигая смелые и даже фантастические идеи, ученый пытался опровергнуть главные постулаты компаративной лингвистики, однако не мог их доказать. После Октябрьской революции идеи Марра были очень популярны в Советском Союзе. Многие сторонники революции (особенно молодые) стремились отбросить старую науку и использовать новые идеи. «Новое учение о языке» соответствовало этим мечтам, и Марр приспосабливал свои идеи к новой конъюнктуре. Он был единственным из членов Императорской академии наук, кто вступил в Коммунистическую партию, и советские руководители поддерживали его в это время. С 1929 г. идеи Марра были официально объявлены «марксизмом в языкознании». Многие серьезные ученые после победы Марра не могли продолжать работу, некоторые из них были репрессированы. В течение 16 лет после смерти Марр официально считался «великим ученым». Однако многие лингвисты в это время отошли от его идей. В 1948–1950 гг. некоторые лингвисты из марристского лагеря организовали кампанию против ряда специалистов, обвиненных в космополитизме и «буржуазной пропаганде». Главным их требованием было вернуться ко всем идеям Марра. Однако партийная газета «Правда» внезапно объявила дискуссию по вопросам языкознания. В ней участвовали известные языковеды, но она была лишь прологом к выступлению И. В. Сталина (20 июня 1950 г.). Он осудил идеи Марра, и образцом стала считаться русская традиционная лингвистика.

The article was submitted on 22.10.2024.

Keywords

STALIN I. V., MARR N. YA., МАРКСИСТСКОЕ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЕ, MARXIST LINGUISTICS, СТАЛИН И. В., МАРР Н. Я., «НОВОЕ УЧЕНИЕ О ЯЗЫКЕ», “NEW THEORY OF LANGUAGE”

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!