Browse results

You are looking at 81 - 90 of 1,307 items for :

  • Indo-European Languages x
  • Primary Language: English x
Clear All Modify Search

Edited by Dalit Assouline

Dalit Assouline


This article discusses why and how English was able to turn into a contemporary Jewish language among Yiddish-speaking American Hasidic Jews, in marked contrast to Israeli Hebrew (IH), which has not been similarly adjusted. One reason is that communal attitudes towards English are not as ideologically charged as compared to the “zealous” opposition to IH. Another reason is that English is able to undergo phonological and lexical modifications that enable Hasidic English to function as an ethnolect used within the community. This process, however, is linguistically more complex for IH, which thus remains an outsider language among Israeli Yiddish-speaking Haredim. The outsider status of IH versus the insider status of Hasidic English is reflected in the code-switching patterns attested among Yiddish public speakers, resulting in a common and effortless pattern of Yiddish-English switching among American speakers, as opposed to rare and marked instances of switches to IH among Israeli speakers.

Edition des Briefwechsels zwischen Georg Gottfried Gervinus und Wilhelm Scherer 1869–1870

Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der mediävistischen Literaturgeschichtsschreibung

Mirko Nottscheid and Thorsten Ries


This article provides a scholarly edition of the correspondence between the literary historian Georg Gottfried Gervinus (1805–1871) and the philologist Wilhelm Scherer (1841–1886) during the years 1869–1870. The exchange of letters between the two scholars whose publications have been highly formative with regard to the developing literary historiography of their time is a document of the history of the germanistische Mediävistik. It yields insights into the contemporary research discussions about philological problems of numerous medieval texts, especially of the 11th and 12th century, as well as into the individual development of the correspondents’ conceptual views on literary historiography.

Netta Avineri


This ethnographic research examines language socialization practices and language ideologies in secular Yiddish “metalinguistic communities,” communities of positioned social actors shaped by practices that view language as an object. “Metalinguistic community” is a framework for diverse participants who can experience both distance from and closeness to the language and its speakers, due to historical, personal, and/or communal circumstances. Through an examination of classroom interactions in California, this article shows how simultaneous distancing and closeness experienced by metalinguistic community members can manifest in “contested stance practices,” public demonstrations of language ideologies that reveal both internal and external tensions. Contested stance practices reveal how members’ perceptions of language are shaped by their personal histories and those of their imagined communities; these practices become a fertile means through which individuals negotiate their relationships with language as a symbol of identity, ideology, and community.

Paul Glasser


Present-day Southeastern Yiddish (sey) is a relatively young dialect, probably formed after the Khmelnytskyy massacres of 1648. Was the primary force in its historical phonology the influence of coterritorial languages, of other dialects, or internal factors? How important was the role of homonymy and the functional load of specific phonemes? Internal factors that may have had the greatest influence on the development of sey are best sought in the transitional dialects on the fringes of sey.

David M. Bunis


From the 19th–20th-century beginnings of modern linguistics, scholars reported on various results of interactions between diverse language speakers; but it was only with Uriel Weinreich’s Languages in Contact (1953) that a solid theoretical basis for the systematic study of contact linguistics was elaborated. The present article studies lexical influences from South Slavic on Judezmo (Ladino/Judeo-Spanish) resulting from contact during the 16th–19th centuries between speakers of these two languages in the regions that, between 1918 and 1992, were known jointly as Yugoslavia. During the Ottoman and then Austro-Hungarian periods, borrowings in local Judezmo from South Slavic were relatively few compared with Turkisms. But from the nineteenth century, when the South Slavs gained political independence, Serbo-Croatian exerted an ever-increasing influence on Judezmo in this region. The case of Judezmo there differs considerably from Yiddish in Slavic Eastern Europe throughout the same period, as described by Uriel Weinreich and others.

Rachel Steindel Burdin


This study examines the production and use of the rise-fall contour by three Yiddish/English bilinguals in a small American Jewish community. Acoustic analysis shows that the Yiddish rise-falls have higher peaks, larger rise spans, and later Tonal Centers of Gravity compared to a similar intonational contour in English. These results hold for all three speakers despite their diverse linguistic histories. Additionally, evidence is provided that rise-falls with higher peaks have social meaning in both languages. English rise-falls are produced with higher peaks during meetings of a local Yiddish club than during one-on-one interviews, and rise-falls with high peaks are used in both Yiddish and English during an exchange in which one of the speakers discusses his relationship to Passover. The social meaning of the phonetically extreme rise-falls is posited to be the reason why all three speakers have either successfully acquired or maintained phonetic distinctiveness between their English and Yiddish.

William Labov


In this article, William Labov offers a personal take on the scholarly accomplishments and advising style of Uriel Weinreich, his mentor and later his colleague as well. He also draws on letters he and Weinreich exchanged in the mid-1960s, and he documents aspects of the collaboration that resulted in Weinreich’s most lasting contribution to the study of language change, the 1968 Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog paper (U. Weinreich, W. Labov, and M.I. Herzog. “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change,” in Directions for Historical Linguistics, eds. W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95–195).