列斐伏尔的语言批判起到其思想发展历程上的过渡作用,前承日常生活批判,后启空间批判。人类哲学史就是一部遗忘日常生活的历史;人类语言史也是一部遗忘人类日常语言的历史。列氏因此提倡乔伊斯、马拉美等炼金术式的诗性存在之语言哲学,而反对维特根斯坦、索绪尔意义上逻辑/结构之语言转向,结构主义、形式主义和功能主义因此被列氏斥之为恐怖主义社会的基础,它制造了现代社会由符号构成的仿像与拟像这一虚假意识,使得意义交流的日常空间成了詹明信所言的没有深度感和历史感的平面化的零度空间。列氏并没有悲观失望,正是在日常生活的废墟中,他看到了拯救希望,在此意义上,他和本雅明所追求的“纯语言”、埃柯所谓的“完美语言”有着内在的逻辑一致性,语言批判和现代性批评在此合二为一、异形同构。列氏的话语“解放叙事”启迪了德波的景观社会、德赛图的日常实践批判和鲍德里亚的符号政治经济学批判。 Lefebvre’s linguistic criticism played a transitional role in the development of his thought. He criticized daily life before criticizing space. The history of human philosophy is a history of forgetting everyday life; the history of human languages ​​is also a history of forgetting the everyday language of mankind. Thus, Leigh advocated the alchemical language philosophy such as Joyce’s, Marathi’s, and so on, and opposed Wittgenstein’s and Saussure’s linguistic turn of logic / structure. Structuralism, formalism, and functionalism were thus opposed Lenin denounced the foundation of a terrorist society and created a false sense of imitation and imitation of the modern society, making the daily space for exchange of meaning into the sense of depth and history that Zhan Mingxin said Flat zero space. Lie was not disappointed with pessimism. It is in the ruins of daily life that he saw the hope of salvation. In this sense, he and Benjamin pursued the “pure language”, the so-called “perfect language” “There is an inherent logical consistency in which linguistic criticism and criticism of modernity are all in one and the same shape. Lie’s discourse, ”Liberation of the Narrative," inspired Debord’s landscape society, Descendants’ daily practice critique and Baudrillard’s symbolic political economy critique.