Top Banner
 Duke University Press and American Dialect Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Speech. http://www.jstor.org  merican Dialect Society Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect Author(s): C. K. Thomas Source: American Speech, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Jun., 1932), pp. 321-326 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/452953 Accessed: 20-02-2016 03:43 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/  info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8

Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

Jul 07, 2018

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 1/7

 Duke University Press and American Dialect Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Speech.

http://www.jstor.org

  merican Dialect Society

Jewish Dialect and New York DialectAuthor(s): C. K. Thomas

Source: American Speech, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Jun., 1932), pp. 321-326Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/452953Accessed: 20-02-2016 03:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/  info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 2/7

VOLUME

VII

NUMBER 5

domeric n

peech

JUNE

-

1932

JEWISH

DIALECT

AND NEW YORK

DIALECT

C.

K.

THOMAS

Cornell University

URING

the

past

four

years

I

have

worked with some

hundreds

of

university

students

in

an

attempt

to

improve

the

quality

of

their

speech.

A fair

proportion

of

these

students

have

been

Jews

from

New

York

City

and its suburbs. Their

social

and

scholastic

levels

are about

the

same as those

of

other

New

Yorkers,

but

their

speech

is

distinctly

inferior,

and this

inferiority

raised

the

question

whether there

might

be

a

clearly

defined

dialect which

was

character-

istic of

New

York

Jews.

The students

with whom

I

have

worked

do

not,

of

course,

constitute a true cross-section of either New York or

Jewish

speech;

such

a

cross-section

would

have

to be

obtained in

New

York itself. Those who

can afford

to travel

250

miles for

their

educa-

tion

represent,

on the

average,

a

higher

social and

economic

level

than

those who

stay

at

home and who are

able,

in

many

cases,

to

earn

a

larger part

of

their

expenses

than

is

possible

in

a

small

town.

Because

of

this

higher

level,

and because few

of

the

New York

Jews at

Cornell

speak

any

language

but

English,

their

dialect is

by

no means as

extreme

as

that

of

the

peripatetic

Mr. Klein

so

carefully

studied

by

Miss

Benardete,1

or even as extreme as that of the

general

run of Jewish

undergraduates

in the

New

York

City

colleges. Many

of

them,

how-

ever,

have

complicated

their

speech

problem

with tricks

acquired

in

the

elocution

schools that

are

at

present

so

popular among

the

higher

class

Jewish

families

of

New

York.

Traditional

Jewish

and

traditional

New York

pronunciations

alike

are in

some

cases

conspicuously

absent.

Moreover,

most of the students with whom

I

am

familiar

are

to

some

extent

conscious

of their

speech,

for

the

greater

number

of them

are

sent

1

Dolores Benardete, Immigrant Speech-Austrian-Jewish Style,

AMERICAN

SPEECH, October,

1929.

321

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 3/7

322

American

Speech

to

me from

courses

in

public speaking

and dramatics. All of

these

factors

complicate

the

problem

of

analysis,

and make the

results less

conclusive.

For

purposes

of

comparison

I

divided

my

students into three

groups:

(1)

Jews

from New

York

City

and

its

suburbs, (2)

Gentiles

from

the

same

area,

(3)

Jews

who had lived

all

their lives at a distance from

New

York

City.

After

discarding

all

doubtful

cases, namely,

those of

uncertain

racial

origin,

those who

had lived both

in

New York

City

and

elsewhere,

and those who

lived

in

the

typically

Jewish summer

resorts

of

the

Catskills,

I

was

left

with the

records of

112

students,

of

whom

75

were New

York

Jews,

19 were

New York

Gentiles,

and

18 were

Jews

from other

parts

of

the

country.

Thus

approximately

67

percent

of

the

total

was

in

group

1,

17

percent

in

group 2,

and 16

percent

in

group

3.

A

normal

distribution of dialectal

peculiarities,

or

errors,

would

therefore result

in the same

percentages,

but when

the

errors had

been

classified

it was

found

that,

out of

a

total

of

673,

the

New York

Jews

had made

522,

the New

York

Gentiles

71,

and the

Jews

from

other

parts

of the

country

80.

In

other

words,

group

1

made

78

percent

of

the

errors,

group

2

made 10

percent,

and

group

3

made

12

percent.

Thus, in comparison

with an

average distribution,

the

speech

of

group

1

was

distinctly

inferior to that

of

the

other

two

groups,

as

the

following

summary

shows:

Group

1 2 3

Total

A Number

of cases

in each

group.........

75

19 18 112

B

Percentage

of

cases...................

67 17

16

100

C Number of errorsin each group ....... 522 71 80 673

D

Percentage

of

errors..................

78

10 12 100

E

Percentage

above

or below

average

dis-

tribution2.............

.......

+16

-38 -26

In

considering

the distribution

of

particular

errors

among

the

three

groups,

one

must

refer to line

D in the

above

table

as a

basis for

com-

parison.

If

the

percentages

for the

particular

error do not

vary

greatly

from those

of

line

D

it is obvious that

they

give

no

information

regard-

2

These figures represent the variation from 100 of the quotients obtained by

dividing

the

figures

in line

D

by

the

corresponding

figures

in line

B;

in

all

calcula-

ions

the

percentages

were

carried

to

two extra

decimals.

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 4/7

Jewish

Dialect

323

ing

the source of the

error;

but

if

the

percentage

for

group 1, consisting

of New York

Jews,

is

higher

than

78,

that

of

group 2, consisting

of

New

York

Gentiles,

higher

than

10,

and

that of

group 3,

consisting

of

Jews

from

other

localities,

lower than

12,

the distribution

creates a

strong

presumption

that

the

error

in

question

is

local rather

than

racial,

for

only

the

groups

which include New

Yorkers show a

higher

percentage

than

the

average

distribution.

Similarly,

if the

percentages

for

another

error are above

the

average

for

groups

1

and

3,

and

below

for

group 2,

the distribution

creates a

strong

presumption

that this

is a

racial,

rather than

a

local,

error,

for

only

the

groups

which

include Jews

show

higher percentages

than

the

average.

In

many

cases,

of

course,

there

are

neither

sufficiently

large

numbers

of instances

of the

error

nor

sufficiently

great

variations

from the

average

to warrant

any

definite

conclusion;

in

other

cases,

which

are

listed

below,

definite

conclusions

are

inescapable.

The most

frequent

error

among

these students was the

dentalizing

of

the alveolar

consonants

[t,

d, n, 1,

s,

z];

the error consists in

making

the characteristic

consonantal

obstruction

between the

tongue

and

teeth

instead

of between

the

tongue

and

gum

ridge.

The

acoustic effect

of

this

misplacement

is least

noticeable

for

[n,

1];

for

[s,

z]

it

suggests

a

slight lisp;

[t,

d]

sound

overexplosive

and

slightly

higher

in

pitch.

It

is

most

noticeable

when

several alveolar

consonants

appear

in

the

same

word,

as

in dental

and

slant. The distribution

of this

error

clearly

indicates that

it

is Jewish

in

origin: group

1

is 10

percent above,

and

group

3 is

5

percent

below,

the

average

distribution

of line

D;

but

group

2,

the Gentile

group,

is

66

percent

below

the

average.

In

short,

the

Gentile

group

is

remarkably

free

from

this

error, including

only

8

instances

out

of

a total

of

224.

The most

frequently

dentalized of

these

consonants

is

[1],

and

here the distribution

is

even more

clearly

Jewish:

10

percent

above the

average

for

group 1,

5

percent

above

for

group

3,

and 80

percent

below

for

group

2. The cause

of this

error,

whether

a

survival

from

Yiddish,

German,

or Slavic

linguistic

habit

or

otherwise,

is

not

within

the

scope

of this

paper.

Closely

associated

with

dentalization

is the

overaspiration

of

[t]

after

[n]

or

[1], particularly

at

the

beginning

of an unstressed

syllable

or at

the

end

of a

word,

as in

winter,

wilted,

went,

and wilt.

Here the

percentages

are

inconclusive,

but

it

seems

likely

that this error

is also

Jewish.

Letters

in

square

brackets

are

phonetic

characters,

which

refer

to

sounds;

those

in

quotation

marks

refer to

spellings.

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 5/7

324

American

Speech

Difficulty

with

[s]

seems

to be characteristic

of

Jewish

speech.

This

is

in

part owing

to the habit

of

dentalizing,

but

in

addition

there

are

other errors:

exaggerated

hissing,

substitution of voiceless

[1]

and th

[6]

as

in

thin,

and

occasionally

sh

[f]

as

in

she. There

are 35 instances

of these

variations,

of

which

only

3 are

Gentile.

Group

3,

consisting

of

Jews who do not

live in New

York

City,

has

the

greatest

difficulty

with

this

sound, being

68

percent

above

the

average

distribution.

Another

clearly

Jewish

error

is

the

substitution

of

[rig]

or

[i],

so

as,

for

instance,

to make

singer

a

rhyme

for

finger.

There are 35 instances

of

this

error

in

the

three

groups,

and

only

one

of

them

is

Gentile.

Furthermore, according

to

these figures,

the

Jews from New York do

not make this error

quite

as

persistently

as

do

those from other

locali-

ties. The

substitution

of

[ijk]

for

[rJ],

o

as,

for

instance,

to

make

sing

and

sink identical

in

sound,

appears only

8 times.

Though

this

is

the

traditional form

of

the

error,

perhaps

because it

can be

represented

more

easily

in the conventional

alphabet,

I

do

not

believe it

to be

nearly

as

common as

[rig].

Once

in

a

great

while

the

glottic stop

is

added

instead of

either

[k]

or

[g].

Loss

of

the

distinction

between

the

voiced

[w]

and

the voiceless

wh

[Ml,

so as, for instance, to make witch and which identical, is

quite

common

in

both

New

York

groups,

but

less common

among

the

Jews

from other localities.

The

distribution is

4

percent

above

the

average

from

group 1,

60

percent

above for

group

2,

and

29

percent

below

for

group

3.

In other

words,

the

Jews from

outside

of

New

York have

least

trouble with

the

voiceless

[M],

and

this

bears

out

the

traditional

notion

that,

although

this error

is

by

no means

confined

to

New

York,

it is there most

conspicuous

and

prevalent.

Similarly,

the

addition of

an

[r]

to

such

words as idea

and

law,

especially when the following word begins with a vowel, is, at least for

these

three

groups,

a

New

York

characteristic,

for

none

of

group

3

added

the

[r],

and

group

2,

the

Gentile

group,

added

it

more

consistently

than

group

1.

The error

is

not,

of

course,

limited to New

York

City,

but

is also encountered

in

New

England.

Errors

in vowels and

diphthongs are,

with some

doubtful

excep-

tions,

New

Yorkese rather than Jewish.

The

vowel

[o(v)]

is

distorted

into an

exaggerated

diphthong

which

can

best

be

indicated as

[ev]

or

[ev],

as in the

pronunciation [nevt]

for note

[no(v)t].

This is similar

to

the extreme pronunciation of Oxford, though it is drawled to a greater

length

in

New

York.

Group

1

is

2

percent

above

the

average

for

this

error, group

2

is

31

percent above,

but

group

3

is

42

percent

below.

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 6/7

Jewish Dialect

325

It

should

be

noted that

the

Gentile

group

has

the

most

trouble

with

this

sound.

Another

characteristic

error is

the

substitution

of the

compromise

[a]

for

the

flat

[m]

in

such words as

land,

man,

and

bad.

This

differs

from the

New

England

use of

[a]

and the Southern

British

use of

[a]

in

such words as

path, dance,

and

laugh,

and

is more like

certain Scotch

and

Irish

dialects.

A

possible

explanation

may

lie in the

concerted

efforts now

being

made

in

New

York

to teach

the

broad a

[a]

of

world

standard

English.

One who

acquires

this broad

a,

or

even the

compromise [a],

some

years

after

learning

to

speak English

is

likely to use

it in

the

wrong words,

and at

the same

time

to

get

the

impression

that

the

flat

a

[oe]

s

a

disreputable

sound,

to be avoided

whenever

possible.

At

any rate, group

3

is

least

susceptible

to

the

error,

and

group

1,

which has

had the

greatest

amount of

elocutionary

training,

the most

susceptible.

Substitution

of

[yev]

for

[av]

in such words

as

now, out,

and

power

appears

not

to

be a Jewish error.

Group

1 is

3

percent

below

average,

group

3

is

5

percent below,

and

group

2,

the

Gentile

group,

is

29

percent

above.

This error

is

characteristic

of the

South

and of rural New

England as well as of New York, and its significance in this study is

doubtful.

The

change

of the

diphthong

in

my,

fine,

and

light

from

[ai]

to

[aI],

or

to an

even more retracted

form,

appears

to

be a New York character-

istic,

though

more data

will be

required

for

certainty.

In its most

characteristic

form the

distortion

resembles

the

German

variety

of

the

diphthong

more

closely

than

anything

else.

Group

1

is

12

percent

above

the

average; group

2

is 10

percent

below;

group

3,

however,

includes

only

one instance

of

the

error.

Statistical figures on vocal quality are much less reliable, as the

qualities

themselves are so

variable.

In

general, however,

indistinct-

ness

resulting

from

inactivity

of

the

lips

appears

to

be

a

New

York

characteristic,

drawl

is

more

common

among

the

Jews,

and

throat-

iness

exclusively

Jewish.

Nasality

is

common,

and not

limited

to

either

group.

So

far, then,

as

can be

learned from the data of

this

study,

the

New

York Jew dentalizes

the

alveolar

consonants, overaspirates [t],

has

various difficulties

with

[s]

and

[ra],

and has a

drawling,

throaty

vocal

quality because he is Jewish; on the other hand, he uses the voiced

[w]

for the voiceless

[&],

substitutes

[ev]

for

[o(v)],

[a]

for

[em],

mev]

or

[av],

and

[ai]

for

[ai] adds,

the intrusive

[r],

and uses

his

lips

insufficiently

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 7/7

326

American

Speech

because he is

a

New Yorker.

Obviously

these conclusions

are

tenta-

tive, and much more data will be required before any conclusions

approaching

finality

can

be

reached;

but it seems

evident, nevertheless,

that

a

good

bit

of what

passes popularly

for

Jewish

dialect

is

really

New

York

dialect,

and

that

details which

pass

unnoticed

in

Gentile

speech

are

more

apt

to

be noticed

in

Jewish

speech

because

of the lower

quality

resulting

from

the

mixture of

errors

from local

and racial

sources.

This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll se s bject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions