Titolo della tesi: La categoria di dialetto sociale nella linguistica sovietica degli anni Venti e Trenta del Novecento: il contributo della Scuola leningradese
The Category of “Social dialect” in Soviet Linguistics of 1920s-1930s.
The contribution of the Leningrad School.
The present dissertation focuses on the development of social dialectology in the background
of Soviet social linguistics of 1920s-1930s, illustrating how and why the category of social dialect
rooted in the linguistic discourse. In detail, we examine the contribution of the Leningrad linguists
Lev Ščerba (1880-1944), Lev Jakubinskij (1892-1945), Evgenij Polivanov (1891-1938), Boris Larin
(1893-1964), Viktor Žirmunskij (1891-1971), to the debate about social differentiation of language,
highlighting their interpretation of the notion of social dialect. Although they were central to Soviet
linguistics in the decades under examination, these figures are still little known in the panorama of
Western linguistics, especially in Italy. Even Slavistics seems not to have paid due attention to them.
In the preliminary Chapter 0, after defining the theme and the problem of our research, we
specify what we mean by Leningrad School of linguistics, adopting the formulation of Aleksej A.
Leont’ev (1961). We then illustrate the state of art about Soviet social linguistics of the 1920s and
1930s. It is shown that this topic has been quite investigated, both in Russia and outside Russia, where
the precious and essential contributions of the scholars gravitating around the School of Lausanne,
founded by Patrick Sériot, and the Bakhtin Center of the University of Sheffield stand out. It is
observed that, with the exception of some interventions, the topic of social dialectology has been
subordinated to other topics, with which it actually tends to overlap. The issue of social dialects
emerges in the studies dedicated to Marrism and, in particular, to Nikolaj Marr’s theory of the class
character (klassovost’) of language, as well as in the studies related to Stalin’s intervention about
Marxism and linguistics (1950) and the consequent tabooing of sociological-linguistic researches.
References to our topic are scattered throughout studies concerning the relationship between
linguistics and Soviet power and, in particular, Bolshevik linguistic policy. Most of the available
analyses in the Soviet-Russian scenario agree in considering the social linguistics of the 1920s-1930s
as the prehistory of Russian modern sociolinguistics, supporting the thesis of a chronological priority
of Soviet sociolinguistics over Western, especially American sociolinguistics, which has been
developing since the 1960s.
In the critical literature it is unanimously stated that in the 1920s and 1930s not only the
Leningrad linguists mentioned above, but also other Soviet linguists, such as Rozalija Šor (1894-
1939), Michail Peterson (1885-1962), Afanasij Seliščev (1886 -1942), Nikolaj Karinskij (1873-
1935), Georgij Danilov (1897-1937), Maksim Sergievskij (1892-1946), Konstantin Deržavin (1903-
1956), questioned the relationship between language and society, focusing on the problem of the
social differentiation of language and the existence of social dialects. It is emphasized that it is
precisely at this juncture in time that the category of social dialect enters the scientific discourse on a
permanent basis. Nonetheless, the category of social dialect has never been problematized and chosen
as the focal point of an analysis that would characterize its genesis and semantic content. This seemed
to us reprehensible, considering that several scholars have complained about its semantic obscurity,
emphasizing how at that time this notion referred to the most disparate linguistic phenomena. On the
other hand, in examining the critical literature, we were positively struck by some attempts to
underline the specific contribution of the scholars of Leningrad school, derived from Baudouin de
Courtenay (1845-1929). However, these attempts appear fragmentary and without a broad scope.
Starting from these considerations, we have decided to deepen the reflection conducted by the
Leningrad linguists on the problem of social differentiation of language. In detail, we posit that a
specifical Leningrad contribution to such a discourse may be identified and conceived as a further
ramification of the «process of filiation of ideas», initiated by Baudouin de Courtenay and continued
by his students.
By adopting the methodological approach of compared epistemology proposed by Patrick
Sériot (1999) and his colleagues, and analyzing the texts collected in our corpus (see Appendix I), we
aim at clarifying also the air du temps and air du lieu, i.e. the chronological background and the geoideological space, that made the discourse on social dialects epistemologically licit in the USSR of
1920s-1930s. In order to reconstruct these two components, we resort to comparison. In our case, this
will take place on three levels: first, the selected works of the Leningrad linguists are compared with
each other; secondly, they are related to the texts of their precursors, in particular, Baudouin de
Courtenay; thirdly, they are compared with the works of contemporary linguists, who also expressed
themselves on the subject of social dialects.
The dissertation consists in two parts, respectively articulated into two chapters.
In Chapter I we try to satisfy a first methodological need: the theme chosen and the perspective
adopted require us to address the question of metalanguage. As recognized by Konrad Koerner
(1995), in discussing notions and theories elaborated in past phases of linguistic science, it is
necessary to make them accessible to the modern reader, without however distorting the original
intentions of their authors. In order to avoid inappropriate distortions, in this chapter we try to clarify
the terminological and conceptual dispersion that affects the category of social dialect in modern
Soviet-Russian and Western sociolinguistics. It is shown that in both contexts the interpretation of
social dialect oscillates between two poles: on the one hand, by social dialect some linguists mean a
set of linguistic peculiarities, primarily lexical and phraseological, which arise for communicative or
expressive purposes among specific social groups; on the other hand, some scholars use this notion
to refer to social varieties of the common linguistic repertoire.
In Chapter II we outline some theoretical premises, which paved the way for the discourse on
social dialects. We characterize how the category of dialect was subjected to revision at the turn of
the 19th and 20th centuries, against the background of the crisis in which historical-comparative
linguistics had run into. It is shown that already at that period the notions of social dialect, class
dialect, circulated, albeit sporadically, alongside the traditional notion of territorial dialect. The
problem of linguistic variation gradually detached itself from the mere diachronic and spatial
dimensions, to embrace the social dimension, also thanks to the development of linguistic geography
and experimental phonetics. The semantic content of the notion of dialect ends up indicating also a
way of speaking, a variety of language, which can be correlated not only to a certain geographical
territory, but also to individuals, communicative situations and social groups. Analyzing Baudouin
de Courtenay’s linguistic conception, we observe how he contributed to this revision process. He
explicitly theorized the “vertical” segmentation, i.e. social stratification of the dialectological
continuum (jazykovaja oblast’ or jazykovoe obščestvo), beyond the “horizontal” dimension, i.e.
territorial variation. It turns out that in Baudouin’s view, the social differentiation of language is
connected to two fundamental principles, that is the bilingualism (dvujazyčnost’) of speakers and the
mixing of languages (smešenie jazykov). Baudouin de Courtenay established that every individual is
endowed with a multilingual thinking (myšlenie na neskol’kich jazykach), i.e. a multiple linguistic
competence, due to the compresence of different dialects. Bilingualism is considered in a broad sense,
not only as between different ethnic languages, but also between the different varieties of the same
language. This principle is strictly connected with the social variation of language, not only in the
diaphasic dimension, but also in the diastratic one. Particular attention is then given to Baudouin’s
lexicological and lexicographic works, where he established a link between semasiological
representations of lexemes and the social belonging of the individual (social class, profession), as
well as between stylistic connotation of lexemes and the social environment where words are usually
used. Turning our gaze to Russian dialectology at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, we see that
Baudouin de Courtenay was not the only one who thought of linguistic variation in its social
dimension: other Russian linguists, such as Izmail Sreznevskij (1812-1880), Vladimir Dal’ (1801-
1872), Vasilij Černyšev (1867-1949), Dmitrij Zelenin (1878-1954), Aleksej Šachmatov (1864-1920),
contributed to the emergence of an ante litteram sociological inclination in the treatment of dialectal
variation, thanks to researches dedicated to secret or artificial languages (tajnye or iskusstvennye
jazyki), such as ofenskoe narečie, and the formation of the common Russian literary language (koinè),
as well as the linguistic relationships between the countryside and the city.
In the Second Part of the dissertation – the true fulcrum of our research – we illustrate how in
the 1920s and 1930s in Soviet linguistics a debate on social dialects took place de facto with a
collective and systematic scope.
In Chapter I the sociological turn in Soviet linguistics of the first decades of the 20th century
is exposed, by briefly illustrating also the reception of Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale. It
is shown how the conception of language as a social fact spread in the linguistic discourse. Wishing
to retrace the evolution followed by Leningrad scholars’ reflection about the social nature of
language, we deepen some salient texts dating back to the first half of the Twenties. It is observed
that at this chronological stage the discussion on the social character of language lies in the amalgam
of researches placed at the crossroads between linguistics and literaturovedenie, tending to intersect
with aesthetics and poetics on the one hand, and with psychology and sociology on the other. It
emerges that already in the early 1920s the idea of the social stratification of language was latent in
the theoretical baggage of the Leningrad linguists, so much so that the notion of social dialect is
mentioned en passant. However, in this time the topic does not enjoy privileged attention. Baudouin’s
students concentrate on the relationship between the individual moment and the social moment in
language, dealing with questions about poetics and stylistics, in which they develop the notions of
function and style. Social variation is conceived primarily as the functional heterogeneity of language,
which is understood as a human activity (dejatel’nost’) aimed at fulfilling certain ends and expressing
certain thoughts and feelings.
Since the mid-Twenties the debate on the social variation in language became increasingly
permeable with respect to the political context, intertwining with the theoretical legitimacy of
linguistic policy. The consideration of the relationship between language and society was partly
shaped by the needs of the Bolshevik power linked to the realization of the socialist project, which
included the campaign of mass literacy (likbez) and more generally the process of linguistic and
cultural edification (jazykovoe stroitel’stvo). The attention of the Leningrad linguists shifts from the
poetic language to the practical one. In this sense, at this stage the debate on the social variation in
language tends to be tied to the following topics: the post-revolutionary Russian language, in
particular the problem of the mixing between the standard common language and elements typical of
territorial dialects, as well as phraseology and lexicon typical of social and professional groups,
especially professional jargons; the language of the Press – which became the main vehicle of
information and literacy at the time –; the formulation of linguistic policy in terms of linguistic
technology (technologija reči), aimed at the development of the culture of language (kul’tura reči or
kul’tura jazyka). In this context we underline the specific contribution of Lev Ščerba and Lev
Jakubinskij, recognizing some affinities with the positions of Grigorij Vinokur and Afanasij Seliščev.
Particular attention is then paid to the second half of 1920s, when a real discourse focused on
the diastratic variation in language and, therefore, on social dialects, was activated, thanks to the
publication of the works Jazyk i obščestvo (1926) by Rozalija Šor and Jazyk kak social’noe javlenie
(1927) by Michail Peterson. These works disclosed the main achievements of European sociological
linguistics and, in particular, the French sociological school, as entrusted to the texts of Antoine
Meillet, Joseph Vendryes, Charles Bally, Lazare Sainéan, Marcel Cohen etc. Under the influence of
these authors, Šor and Peterson problematized the existence of special languages (special’nye jazyki),
alternatively named as social dialects (social’nye dialekty). In a similar way, Afanasij Seliščev
recovered the thesis of European sociological linguistics in his work Jazyk revoljucionnoj èpochi. Iz
nabljudenij nad russkim jazykom (1917-1926). It turns out that Šor, Peterson and Seliščev remained
essentially faithful to the French sociological approach. According to such a perspective, the
segmentation of society into environments or groups, based on factors such as the division of labor
(profession), age, gender, shared interests, needs and occupations, reflects on the social differentiation
of language, understood in its communicative and expressive function. French linguists affirm the
existence of special languages (languesspéciales), professional languages (langues professionnelles),
jargons and argot, which consist in peculiar linguistic features, concerning the level of lexicon and
phraseology. These special languages are created by social groups on the basis of the common
language (langue commune), through mechanisms of semantic specialization and extension. These
mechanisms are considered as the main factor of linguistic change, in particular semantic one. From
this point of view, the social stratification of language does not affect the grammatical (phonological,
morphological, syntactical) level, so that the unity and homogeneity of the common language is not
undermined by diastratic variation.
Against this background we then clarify the specific contribution of the Leningrad linguists.
We illustrate how Evgenij Polivanov consciously and systematically constructs his own discourse on
social dialects, starting from the problem of the postrevolutionary Russian language. Polivanov uses
the category of social dialect to problematize the notion of literary standard language (literaturnyj
standartnyj jazyk). According to him, the main fact that emerges in the linguistic conditions of the
postrevolutionary era lies in the radical change of the contingent of holders (social’nyj substrat) of
the common standard Russian language, which until then had been a class or caste language
dominated by the narrow circle of the intelligentsia (of the tsarist era). At this stage Russian language
appears to be the language of large masses, workers and peasants. Consequently, Polivanov claims
that it is necessary to develop a classification of the entire repertoire (sovokupnost’) of the
contemporary Russian language on the basis of all existing social dialects. It turns out that in
Polivanov’s works the notion of social dialect is adopted to synchronously describe the post-
revolutionary Russian literary language as a complex repertoire made of different social varieties, i.e.
various group dialects, class dialects, professional dialects (klassovye, podklassovye, professional’nye
dialekty). Although it is lexicon and phraseology that express in a more radical way the influence of
social factors on language and, consequently, the differentiation between social groups, Polivanov
does not exclude its reflection on other linguistic levels as well, as confirmed by his description of
the language of prerevolutionary intelligentsia in terms of a system characterized by specific
phonological and morphological features (priznaki). Against this background, it is also clarified how
Polivanov relied on the category of social dialect to build a sociological theory of the evolution of
common language.
In the same years, Lev Ščerba and Boris Larin reflect on the issue of social differentiation in
language within the ILJaZV, which underwent significant structural and institutional changes since
1926-1927. The administrative measures taken by RANION did much to transform ILJaZV into an
effective research institute, focused on contemporary problems. Linguists are invited to link their
research more clearly with the needs of practical life, orienting it towards the interests of socialist
construction (socialističeskoe stroitel’stvo). We observe that in this atmosphere Ščerba tackles the
problem of the interaction between the common language (obščij jazyk) and social dialects, which he
generally defines as group languages (gruppovye jazyki). Ščerba establishes that any social
differentiation within the group, by arousing a differentiation in linguistic activity (rečevaja
dejatel’nost’) and, consequently, in the linguistic material (jazykovoj material), leads to the
differentiation and disintegration of the unitary language. The degree of unity (edinstvo) of the
language differs according to the level considered: on the level of grammar there is a unitary language
in rather extensive groupings; on the lexical level, conversely, the unity of the language is
subordinated to a greater unity and sharing of the material. In his perspective, modern languages has
an extremely complex structure, in accordance with the equally complex structure of society, of which
they represent a function. This picture becomes even more complex to the extent that some groups of
the population can be simultaneously part of different social groupings and thus relate to different
linguistic systems. Consequently, Ščerba underlines that bilingualism represents the ordinary
condition of the speaking subject; each speaker is “multilingual”, since he uses different dialects
according to the various environments. The way in which these systems coexist and influence each
other depends on the degree of isolation of the different groups from each other. In summary, modern
languages include various group languages, generally considered as “jargons” with respect to a
certain norm, the “common language”, which historically always passes through processes of mixing
(smešenie) with group languages. Therefore, mixing processes represent cardinal and constant
mechanisms in the life and evolution of languages.
The theorization of bilingualism or multilingualism as the ordinary condition of the speaking
subject proves crucial in the case of Larin’s works, where the problematization of social dialects goes
hand in hand with such a principle. In detail, we illustrate how Larin raised the problem of studying
urban linguistic reality (jazykovoj byt goroda) for the first time in the Soviet panorama. He considers
the study of urban dialects essential not only for the analysis of the literary language, but also from a
methodological point of view, since it allows to shed light on the “bi-dialectophony” (dvudialektnost’)
or “multi-dialectophony” (mnogodialektnost’) of social groups living in cities. In fact, linguistic
heterogeneity in the city is twofold, manifesting itself not only in the encounter between multilingual
collectives (mnogojazyčie), but also in the multiplicity of linguistic habits (jazykovye navyki) of each
group. According to Larin, language always turns out to be a factor of social differentiation as much
as a factor of social integration. In the urban context each stable social group is united by sharing a
language, i.e. by the presence of a common language, which is added to the other languages, which
differ from individual to individual. Under the conditions of the modern state, each speaker dominates
two or more dialects, more or less necessarily. Therefore, Larin recognizes a close interdependence
of two or more linguistic systems, which are available to each social group (and consequently to the
individual), due to the fact that the group (or the individual) belongs simultaneously to several
collectives, which are differentiated by their composition. We notice that, by comparing himself with
Western sociological linguists, Larin rejects their approaches to the analysis of social dialects or
jargons as deviations from the common norm. Larin proposes a third point of view, which rejects any
paternalistic judgment and aims to free the study of urban dialects from that of the literary language.
To Larin it seems more correct to conceive urban argot in terms of bilingualism, defining them as
mixed linguistic systems, whose elements are charged with specific semantic and stylistic features
and maintain systemic combinations and relationships (sistemnye sočetanija i sootnošenija).
In Chapter II we focus on the texts published in the late Twenties and the early Thirties. It is
shown how the discourse on social dialects changed against the background of increasingly heated
discussions on the possibility of founding a Marxist linguistics, affected by the rise of Marrism to
official linguistic theory, which advocated the idea of the class character of language. Soviet linguists
changed – in a more or less convinced way – their models, turning their gaze to the works of Lenin,
Marx, Engels, Plechanov et al., whose citations became a conditio sine qua non for the publication
of linguistic works. Soviet scholars more and more frequently speak of class languages, the struggle
between languages, the class component of the language, the class linguistic ideology. In this phase,
the concept of social dialect becomes operational on the level of diachrony to explain linguistic
evolution, that is the process of social development of the language, in particular the history of the
Russian language. Not without feeling the growing pressure of Stalin’s policy aimed at state
centralization and national unification, the debate on social dialects is intertwined with the
theorization of the national language as an historical category, which takes shape with capitalism, or
rather with the capitalization of linguistic relationships in the city and in the countryside. By
promoting a “sociologization” of traditional dialectology, Polivanov, Larin, Jakubinskij, Žirmunskij,
as well as Karinskij and Danilov, returned a picture of linguistic evolution far removed from the
traditional approach, based on the scheme of the family tree; dialectal segmentation is reconsidered
in terms of socio-dialectal segmentation (social’no-dialektologičeskoe droblenie) and dialect
levelling as the result of a convergence between socially characterized language varieties. In this
phase, social linguistics properly becomes social dialectology. It emerges that the linguistic situation
of the Soviet Union itself weighs on this change of course. The internal migration of the peasant
masses, which swelled the ranks of the urban proletariat, resulted in profound transformations in rural
linguistic habits, increasingly subject to the influence of the national language, favored by the school,
the press, military service, the penetration of administrative and state institutions in peripheral rural
areas. The official linguistic discourse focuses on the “language of the proletariat” (jazyk proletariata)
and the “language of the peasant masses” (jazyk krest’janstva), examined in their interaction with the
standard literary or national language (literaturnyj or nacional’nyj jazyk). The weight of the dominant
ideology transpires, in particular, in the resizing of the assumption of the social stratification of
language (raznojazyčie) with respect to the class of the proletariat. As witnessed by the writings of
Jakubinskij and Ivanov, as well as by those of Žirmunskij, linguistic heterogeneity (raznoyazyčie)
within the working class is seen as a threat to the interests of the class struggle. Thus, the unity of the
proletariat as a class distinct from the bourgeoisie is claimed and the creation of a proletarian linguistic
culture is hoped for.
It turns out that in the 1930s there was a detachment – more or less ideologically forced –
from Western sociological linguistics, now branded as “bourgeois”, and in this context the
interpretation of the category of social dialect inherited from it was rejected. Soviet linguists claim
that the social nature of language does not only reflect on the existence of “group dialects”,
“professional languages”, “secret languages”, understood as lexical repertoires within and in
opposition to a certain common language or local dialect. The same common language, the same
territorial dialect, the same national language are differentiated on a social level. Therefore, the
homogeneity and unity of the common language, warded in the French sociological approach, is
refused. In the meanwhile, the assimilation between special languages, professional languages and
social dialects, accomplished by Western linguists, is disregarded.
It is worth noting that some Soviet linguists who engage in this critical revision do so by
recovering the theses of the Leningrad linguists. This is the case of Georgij Danilov, who, by
questioning the theoretical legacy of Western sociological linguistics, formulated the concept of class
language (or dialect), on the basis of Polivanov’s and Larin’s theses. In particular, Danilov welcomed
the idea that the social belonging of a speaker cannot be imagined as a one-dimensional relationship
and the consequent principle concerning the coexistence of multiple linguistic systems dominated by
a certain individual, i.e. bilingualism; as well as the idea that the class language or dialect represents
a mixed linguistic system, endowed with specific peculiar phonetic, morphological and lexical traits.
In the final pages of the dissertation we focus on the contribution of Leningrad scholars to the
debate about the specific topic of argot, through the analysis of the works of Polivanov, Larin and
Žirmunskij.
In summary, the analysis conducted allows us to demonstrate that between the second half of
the 1920s and the early 1930s in Soviet linguistics a systematic and collective discourse on the
problem of the social differentiation of language effectively took place. In particular, it can be seen
that the notion of social dialect underwent a semantic evolution between the 1920s and 1930s: while
in the early stages it is interpreted as a vocabulary and set of peculiar linguistic uses, in accordance
to European sociological linguistics, in the later works another macro-interpretation emerges,
according to which social dialects are considered as the varieties into which the common linguistic
repertoire is differentiated according to social groups. In our opinion, the group languages identified
by Ščerba, the dialects of social groups described by Polivanov, the urban social dialects characterized
by Larin, as well as the language of the peasant masses and the language of the proletariat described
by Jakubinskij and the social dialects defined by Žirmunskij, are related to such an interpretation. It
seems to us that this interpretation is strictly connected to Baudouinian principles above mentioned,
that is the vertical segmentation of the dialectological continuum and the principle of bilingualism,
which is linked to the coexistence of several varieties of language available to the speaker. Far from
wanting to consider these principles as exclusive to the thinking of Leningrad linguists, we
nevertheless think that they recur within their texts with a coherence that we have not seen elsewhere.
Stalin’s meddling in the official linguistic discourse, through the pamphlet on Marxism and
linguistics, led to a ban on sociolinguistic topics. In a certain sense, we can affirm that Stalin restored
the conception of social dialect established in European sociological linguistics, to the extent that
class dialects, jargons, contrary to territorial dialects, are thought of as lexical systems derived from
the common national language without their own grammatical structure. From this perspective, the
unity of the common national language is not undermined by social stratification.
It can also be concluded that both in Soviet social linguistics of the 1920s and 1930s, as well
as in modern Soviet-Russian sociolinguistics – as seen in the methodological chapter of the
dissertation – the meaning of the category oscillates between two poles: on the one hand, social dialect
means a set of linguistic peculiarities, primarily lexical and phraseological, which arose for
communicative or expressive purposes, within a restricted social group; on the other hand, it refers to
social varieties of the common linguistic repertoire. The terminological-conceptual dispersion
represents one of the main critical issues we encountered during the analysis. To stem the
terminological dispersion, we conclude the dissertation with some synoptic tables, in the hope that,
on the one hand, they can help the reader to orient himself in this multiplicity of views, and on the
other, they can contribute to the systematization of the conceptual-terminological apparatus of
sociolinguistics, still perceived today as an urgency in the Russian panorama.