17-18 January 1952 session of the Academic Council of the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss published in «Pravda» December 15, 1951 article vols. Sukhotina, Serebrennikov and Dzhikaevoy «For creative development problems of linguistics.»
Opening the meeting of the Academic Council, Director of the Institute Academician. Vinogradov said that the present meeting of the Academic Council is a response to an article published in «Pravda». A serious mistake of the Institute is that the Marxist errors in the work of the Institute prof. VIAbaev were promptly subjected to serious criticism, especially because prof. VIAbaev he has not yet made publicly criticized some of its anti-Marxist positions. The Scientific Council must help the professor. VI Abaev to overcome the mistakes made by him in his earlier works, and, together with all Soviet linguists, including the work on the introduction of Marxism into linguistics.
The report «On the Marxist error VIAbaev in the works on linguistics,» the deputy director of the Institute of Linguistics BA Serebrennikov. The speaker stressed that prof. Abaev was not only the closest disciple of N. Marr, but also one of the most active supporters of the «new doctrine» of the language. Articles 30s, when the crisis showed the «new doctrine» of the language, prof. Abaev tried to update this teaching. In the article «On the phonetic law» («Language and Thought», 1933, I) Prof. Abaev tries to explain the different processes sound changes observed in the language, only the semantic shift. In «Language as a language as ideology and technique» («Language and Thought», 1934, II) prof. Abaev not only sets out the perverse position of the «new doctrine» of the language, but trying to develop them, cleverly disguising weaknesses of this «doctrine». Reassessing the semantics and ignoring the internal laws of language development, prof. Abaev trying to further develop the position of Marr of the primacy of semantics and introduces the concept of «technical» and «ideological» semantics. The concept of ideological semantics is prof. Abaev starting point for building a metaphysical theory of «mechanization» speech. Basically, this theory is eclectic: it is directly based on the idealistic theory of Levy-Bruhl of the relationship between «core» and «shell». Under the influence of this theory VIAbaev explains the process of «mechanization» as a process of semantic restriction, reduction of «shell» values («loss exists between the different elements of the speech ideological ties») and to strengthen the «technical» meaning of the words, «sustainable technical-empirical, core having roots in objective reality. » In this regard, it is considered the grammar as a set of tools tehnizovannyh language is identified with the ideology and thereby declared superstructure category. Built on a flawed idea of »core», the theory of «mechanization» developing prof. VIAbaev and in his later works («The concept of video semantics», «Language and Thought», 1948, XI). In terms of the theory of «mechanization» by stages of language development is presented as a replacement shifts and the «laws» of language ideology shifts and «laws» of language technology. Developing the theory of «mechanization» without taking into account the processes of semantic association, clearly one-sided, and narrowing the development of contextual meaning, prof. VIAbaev mix ideology with the primary associations, t. E. With the features on which the original nomination took place and that have nothing to do with ideology.
The theory of «mechanization» was a methodological support for the followers of Marr. It opened the way to deny the link between language and thought; with the help of this theory it became possible «resurrection» of the notorious «paleontological analysis.» The speaker stressed that although prof. Abaev and not used directly to four-element analysis, but, as shown by his theory of «mechanization», he sought to improve and justify the methods of analysis.
Critical review and evaluation required by the latest work of prof. Abaeva: they are the main provisions of the theory of Marr (of superstructural nature of language, on the origin of language in the process of crossing, by stages of their development, and others.) Presented in a veiled and, consequently, in the most dangerous form. In these studies, a tendency to idealize the past Ossetian people. Starting from the theory of Markov crossing languages, prof. VIAbaev created the theory of dvuprirodnosti Ossetian language, according to which the Ossetian language is seen as a product of the crossing of the Iranian languages such as the language of the Caucasus. In fact, the Ossetian language is the language of the Iranian type, and Caucasian languages left in it only slight traces. Works prof. VIAbaev of Ossetian folklore objectively contributed to the manifestation of the unhealthy effects of nationalist character performances of his students in Ossetia (see. «Socialist Ossetia» on March 13, 1951) and Ossetian misled the reader and the entire Soviet public.
Without denying the scientific value of etymological dictionaries, including profilers. Abaev «etymological dictionary of Ossetian language» BA Serebrennikov said that in the intense struggle of all Soviet linguists for the introduction of Marxism into linguistics, for the decisive rejection of all errors of Marr, exceptional attention VIAbaev to etymological studies can not be regarded otherwise as a departure from the development of the actual problems of Soviet linguistics. Persistent avoidance of self-critical analysis of its Marxist characterizes the position error VIAbaev as the position is not just wrong, but deeply flawed.
Speakers in the debate p. O. Head. Sector of the Caucasian and Iranian languages YD Deschere, senior researcher EA Bochkarev, prof. Zhirmunsky and scientific secretary of the Institute of Linguistics Gornung BV develops and supplements the provisions put forward in the report of BA Serebrennikov.
Acting. Head. Sector of the Caucasian and Iranian languages of the Institute of Linguistics YD Deschere acknowledged that the sector is weak staged work on the revision of the critical work of employees Sector — former supporters of the theory of Marr. In Gaza there is still the employees who were supporters of the «new doctrine» of the language that are not made with extensive criticism of his past mistakes. Among them belongs to prof. VIAbaev. YD Deschere informed about specific activities which the sector intends to implement in order to deploy criticism of works of prof. VIAbaev and other «disciples» and followers of Marr. Next YD Deschere elaborated on the criticism put forward by prof. VIAbaev erroneous «theory» about dvuprirodnom crossed nature of the Ossetian language.
Senior researcher at the Institute of Linguistics of EA Bochkarev emphasized that prof. VIAbaev over the past year and a half has never declared his rejection of methodologically flawed theory of Marr. In his earlier works prof. Abaev tried eclectically combine the provisions of the «new doctrine» with elements of comparative-historical method. Speaking of dvuprirodnosti Ossetian language, prof. Abaev completely misunderstood the question of the crossing of related languages. EA Bochkarev noted that the scientific community is concerned about the failure of prof. Abaeva publicly admit their mistakes; a detailed analysis of its past mistakes is a prerequisite for further successful work of Professor. VIAbaev in the study of Ossetian language and in the field of general linguistics.
In his speech, corr. USSR Academy of Sciences prof. Zhirmunsky gave a detailed analysis of the works of Professor. Abaeva of Ossetian folklore. Zhirmunsky reminded that he himself in his work on the Central Asian folklore made mistakes that have undergone a serious and fair criticism. Among these errors is primarily the pursuit of parallels «global» obscures the subject of study and lead to a denial of the national identity of the works of folk art. Such mistakes are repeated and being in printing the book prof. Abaeva «Ossetian language and folklore» (Vol. II). In this paper, the author tries to prove «global» nature of a motive (Wed clarify the origin of the murder of the son of a motive, motive wonderful apples wonderful cup motif and so on. D.). The concept VIAbaev is typical of bourgeois folklore mythologizing folklore and epic revival which in the Soviet folklore strongly promoted Marr. Biased point of view is found most clearly in the reported prof. Abaev etymologies. Thus, the etymology of the word Nibelungen contrary to the facts they erected a space element: Nibelungs — «children of the mist», «Children of the sky.» Meanwhile, it is known that the Germans with the concept of «fog» associated representation is not about heaven, and about the underworld. The same bias is found in the proposed prof. Abaev their etymology sledges. The book indicates the presence of VIAbaev constructions in the spirit of Marr and strongly confronts the author of the need to understand their mistakes and self-critical review of the work. Zhirmunsky highlighted the issue of the impact of the methodology Marr on the Central Asian and eastern folklore; distortion of Marxism in this area is not yet disclosed. The necessity and urgency of the matter being confirmed by the presence of works but folklore, based on the methodology of the «new doctrine» of the language and have not received until now the proper critical assessment. Among these works is the work of SP Tolstov «Ancient Khorezm» (Wiley, 1948), a collection of «Mythology and folklore of the peoples of Central Asia» (1948) and others.
Scientific secretary of the Institute of Linguistics BV Gornung drew attention to the fact that prof. VIAbaev criticizing Marr, does not consider it necessary to publicly make a critical assessment of its own scientific position. Meanwhile, in some of his articles, which at first glance could be perceived as a decisive shift away from the «new doctrine» of the language, the basic provisions of the «exercises» remain essentially unresolved. Thesis VIAbaev the special Scythian-Sarmatian branch among the Iranian languages, and the only direct successor of which is the Ossetian language, can contribute to the revival of local nationalist sentiment. At the same time prof. VIAbaev uncritically uses the methods and theories of foreign science (in particular, Dumezil).
Scientific secretary of the Council SI O w e r about to read to the Academic Council received written comments on the work VIAbaev professors BV Miller and Propp. In his letter, Professor. BV Miller subjected to fair criticism put forward VIAbaev idealistic notion of «ideosemantiki» designed to link theory with long Marr rejected Soviet science idealistic terms bourgeois linguistics. Prof. Propp, Commending the work VIAbaev «Ossetian language and folklore» (Vol. II), points to the viciousness of her method. Using comparative-historical method in his old running from J. Grimm modifications in accordance with the old methods of Indo-European folklore, prof. Abaev studied them all the facts to fit the predetermined scheme: the author’s efforts aimed at finding a common ancient mythological substrate. This trend crosses the methodologically flawed methods etimologizirovaniya: the etymology of words put forward only on the basis of initial contacts with religious concepts of the elements (sun, sky and so on. D.). The idealization of the tribal system leads to a misunderstanding of the author and the evaluation of the ancient epic.
Speech by prof. VIAbaev but satisfied audience. By insisting on its special, «independent» position compared with other supporters of the «new doctrine», prof. Abaev tried to prove that the mistakes that are pointed speakers are mistakes twenty years ago and refer to the period when he believed in the revolutionary theory of Marr visibility, blind to its glaring contradictions. Prof. Abaev in his speech tried to prove that in his understanding of the theory of crossing language had nothing in common with those of Marr. The presence of broadcast applications marrovskogo sense in his work «The Ossetian language and folklore,» prof. Abaev says censorship «Arakcheyev regime.» In conclusion, Professor. Abaev said he wanted to go along with all Soviet linguists, the path indicated by the Stalinist doctrine. That’s what he said. It sees its work on the etymological dictionary of Ossetian language.
Scientific Secretary of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences prof. VP Sukhotin in his speech expressed his satisfaction with the previous discussion of the article published in «Pravda». This discussion has proved timely appearance of the article; On the other hand, it testifies to the sincere desire of all of the Institute of Linguistics of help prof.V. I. Abaev to become a truly Marxist way in the research work. Prof. VP Sukhotin said he was surprised by the performance of VI Abaev, who walked around the main issues of criticism and, ignoring the just observations, did not refute any of them. Attention prof. Abaeva focused on to emphasize its special position among the followers of Marr. He pleaded only disciple Marra, while in reality prof. Abaev was an ardent follower and theorist of the «new doctrine» seeks to develop the provisions of this perverse «doctrine.» Handling prof. Abaeva to the comparative-historical method was flawed due to a desire to save the methodology of the «new doctrine» in the service of his comparative-historical method. Prof. Abaev should understand that it was particularly bad, as Marr gave teachings pseudoscientific visibility. Describing the recent work of Professor. Abaeva, VP Sukhotin showed that they exhibit an eclectic, vicious combination of positions Marr with idealistic bourgeois theories of comparative. The idealization of the tribal system of the Ossetian people, excessive exaggeration of his role in the history of the peoples of the Caucasus and in the creation of the Caucasus epic objectively contributed to the revival of nationalist elements in Ossetia. Prof. Abaev has never publicly expressed his attitude to the linguistic debate and to the works of Stalin on linguistics. His silence was an incentive to the manifestation of relapse Marrism. All of this suggests that the prof. Abaev not realize the harm they brought Soviet linguistics, and did not understand the need to abandon error Acad. Marr.
The decision adopted by the Academic Council of the Institute of Linguistics of the expanded resolution notes that VIAbaev in the past, was one of the strongest supporters and theorists of the «new doctrine» of the language. During the rule of the «new doctrine» in Soviet linguistics, he released a number of works that are not only promoted the «doctrine» of Marr, but also showed a marked tendency to develop further the provisions of this perverse «doctrine.» Like Murray he abused semantics, which found its clearest expression in the article «On the phonetic laws.» Wishing to strengthen the Markov «teaching», he often resorted to an eclectic mix of different positions Marr other views. His article «Language as an ideology and the language as a technique,» demonstrates the desire to combine Marrism with Indo-European. Perverted understanding of ideology, mixing language with ideology and worldview, «improvement» Markov theory of stages of stages by transferring to ideosemantiki, incorrect understanding of grammar as a set of tehnizovannyh means the doctrine of progressive mechanization and separation from the language of thought — these are gross errors VIAbaev . Adhering to the theory of Markov crossed VIAbaev created the theory of dvuprirodnosti Ossetian language. Conversion to the hypothesis of the absolute Iranism all Scythians Ossetians and their direct successors created a ground for unhealthy nationalistic sentiments in Ossetia, expressed in the idealization of the past Ossetians, of exaggerating the cultural role of Alan and their former power. Despite the presence of gross errors in his work, VIAbaev not acted so far with their criticism, avoided extensive work in the field of Marxist general linguistics and nowhere has not publicly expressed his attitude to the linguistic debate.
Considering totally unacceptable such behavior VIAbaev and assessing his performance at the Academic Council of 18. I.52 as insufficiently self-critical and does not contain a specific analysis of its methodological errors, the Scientific Council considers it necessary to offer Abaev VI:
1) appeared in print with more criticism of their mistakes and give theoretical articles, reflecting its new point of view.
2) Actively engage in the activities of the Institute of Linguistics, through participation in the sessions, debates, reports, and so the collective. N.
3) Make it at a meeting of the Sector of the Caucasian and Iranian languages a detailed report on the principles drawn up by them Historical and etymological dictionary of Ossetian language.
4) Actively participate in the «Journal of Linguistics» by placing theoretical articles aimed at further development of the basic principles of the Stalinist doctrine of language.