Yiddish: Turning to Life

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE by JOSHUA A. FISHMAN Distinguished University Research Professor, ...

Author: Joshua A. Fishman

84 downloads 1499 Views 23MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE by

JOSHUA A. FISHMAN Distinguished University Research Professor, Emeritus Yeshiva University New York, N.Y.

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA 1991

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fishman, Joshua A. Yiddish : turning to life / by Joshua A. Fishman. p. cm. English and Yiddish. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Yiddish language -- Social aspects. 2. Jews - Languages. I. Title. PJ5113.F58 1991 437'.947-dc20 ISBN 90 272 2075 1 (Eur.)/l-55619-lll-l (US) (alk. paper)

91-7243 CIP

© Copyright 1991 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

Contents

Foreword by Mordkhe Schaechter

ix

Preface

1

Part I. YIDDISH AND HEBREW: CONFLICT AND SYMBIOSIS Introduction Post-exilic Jewish languages and pidgins/creoles: Two mutually clarifying perspectives Nothing new under the sun: A case study of alternatives in language and ethnocultural identity Shprakhikeyt in hayntikn yisroyel Part II. YIDDISH IN AMERICA Introduction Birth of a voting bloc: Candidates pay court to Hasidic and Orthodox Jews Yiddish in America Nathan Birnbaum's view of American Jewry Yidish, modernizatsye un reetnifikatsye: an ernster un faktndiker tsugang tsu der itstiker problematik

Part III. CORPUS PLANNING: THE ABILITY TO CHANGE AND GROW Introduction The phenomenological and linguistic pilgrimage of Yiddish: Some examples of functional and structural pidginization and depidginization

11 13 19 37 68 73 75 75 81 161 172

181 183 189

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii

Why did Yiddish change? Modeling rationales in corpus planning: Modernity and tradition in images of the good corpus Part IV. STATUS PLANNING: THE TSHERNOVITS CONFERENCE OF 1908 Introduction Nathan Birnbaum's 'second phase': The champion of Yiddish and Jewish cultural autonomy Nosn birnboyms dray tshernovitser konferentsn Attracting a following to high culture functions for a language of everyday life: The role of the Tshernovits Conference in the rise of Yiddish Der hebreyisher opruf af der tshernovitser konferents

Part V. STOCK-TAKING: WHERE ARE WE NOW? Introduction Starting with the future The sociology of Yiddish after the holocaust: Status, needs and possibilities. How does Yiddish differ? The lively life of a 'dead' language Vos ken zayn di funktsye fun yidish in yisroyel?

203 217 231 233 239 248

255 284

291 293 301 313 325 342

References APPENDIX: Statistical Tables: Yiddish (20th Century) Introduction List of Tables The Czarist Empire, USSR and Poland Israel USA Other countries/World wide

377 385 406 440 492

Foreword M o r d k h e Schaechter Columbia University and League for Yiddish New York, NY. I met Joshua Fishman before he met me. It was in the winter of 1945-46 in Bucharest, Rumania. We, a group of former students of the Chernovtsy Yiddish schools, refugees from the Soviet-annexed Northern Bukovina, had organised a Yiddish youth group named "Yugntkrayz frayndfun yidishn vort". At one of our meetings, a member brought along a copy of the American Yiddish youth magazine Yugntruf, which he had gotten hold of somehow. We read it there, at the meeting, from the title-page all the way through to the last word on the last page, with youthful fervor and admiration. And in that issue of Yugntruf we encountered the name Shikl Fishman several times, Shikl being a Yiddish nick-name for Joshua. Shikl Fishman was one of the editors of the publication, a regular contributor to the publication and, indeed, one of its founders. Years passed, I emigrated to the United States, and I encountered this name in other Yiddish publications, both as the author of stimulating articles for the layman and as a young scholar that people were beginning to talk about. More years passed, my own academic career began, and Joshua A. Fishman had become a household word, a central and trailblazing figure in the world of general and international sociolinguistics. But it seemed quite natural to me that the Joshua Fishman, whose first scholarly paper was a prize-winning monograph (written for the Yivo and only published in part, both in English and in Yiddish) on "Bilingualism in a Yiddish School", should also continue to find time for, and to contribute magnificently to, sociolinguistic research on Yiddish. However, it is only "natural" with the wisdom of hindsight. Hundreds if not thousands of other American-born scholars easily abandoned the languages of their immigrant parents and grand parents, both intellectually and emotionally. Fishman stands out from among them, not only by his academic stature but by his re-

x


jection of such abandonment and his intellectualization of the problems of abandonment, on the one hand, and cultivation, on the other, whether for Yiddish or for minority languages more generally. Through his perspective on Yiddish, Joshua Fishman has also helped develop an entire discipline and fashioned a Weltanschauung which is meaningful to him and to many others as well. Fishman's ability to intellectualize phenomena that derive from the world of Yiddish struck me with full force when I read his nowclassic paper on the famous "First Yiddish Language Conference" which took place in Austro-Hungarian Tshernovits in 1908. I myself was born and grew up in a Yiddishist family and social circle in Tshernovits (then Rumania, now Soviet Moldavia). The Conference was a topic that was broached innumerable times during my formative years. I grew up with an ambivalence towards the Conference, an ambivalence that was widespread in my Yiddishist environment: I was proud that the Conference had occurred and I admired its goals and many of its organizers (particularly Nathan Birnbaum), but I was thoroughly negative with respect to its lack of organizational follow-up and its dearth of palpable achievements. Fishman's research on the Conference (not to mention his exhaustive psycho-social biography of Birnbaum and his penetrating historical analysis of the entire turn-of-the-century scene in AustroHungary and in the Czarist Empire) was a real eye-opener for me. Contrary to the very common tendency to disparage the Conference, Fishman pointed out that its impact was ultimately "much stronger than its resolutions would lead one to suspect. The fact of dignifying Yiddish with an international conference was (at that time) of symbolic value in itself'. Fishman's paper, full of understanding for the conditions under which the Tshernovits Conference was organized and took place, his pointing out the proverbial halffullness of the glass, touched me profoundly. I can't remember ever having read a scholarly paper that so completely changed my outlook as did Fishman's on the Tshernovits Conference. The fact that this paper also addressed general sociolinguistic concerns further intensified my high regard for it. But even in his studies that are not primarily devoted to the sociology of Yiddish, that is, even in the bulk of his work - including such truly fundamentally ground-breaking studies as Language Loyalty in the United States, Language and Nationalism and The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival - Joshua Fishman's interest in his native tongue comes clearly to the fore. In an incredible and incomparable way he

FOREWORD

xi

has successfully brought Yiddish examples to the sociolinguistic specialist, just as he has brought general sociolinguistic sophistication to the Yiddish specialist. As a result of this very unique symbiosis which really is the essence ofJoshua Fishman himself, both fields are tremendously richer than they would otherwise have been. Fishman's early specialization in history (through to the completion of his master's degree) is quite evident from the fact that many of his very best works in the field of Yiddish, e.g., his publications on Yiddish in America and in Israel and his masterful interpretation of the early 19th century case of Mendl Lefin, all have a very strong historical component. This is precisely the component that is called for to lend depth to sociology's usual focus on the contemporary scene. In addition, Fishman's treatment of Mendl Lefin once again demonstrates that problems of interest to the sociology of Yiddish can have theoretical and methodological implications for the sociology of language as a whole. I have already mentioned Fishman's warmth when writing about Yiddish. But there is also a definite humor and humanity permeating much of his work. C'est le ton qui fait la musique. Above all, the courage of his convictions shines through and these convictions point toward a world that is not only safe and appreciative vis-à-vis Yiddish but a world and a sociolinguistics that is solicitous and appreciative of minority languages everywhere, a world in which young scholars will not feel impelled to leave behind their mother tongues but will become their intellectual champions and the intellectualizers of what these languages have to teach us all, linguistics and activists on behalf of cultural pluralism alike. I want to conclude my observations in the same vein in which I began them, i.e., with a personal recollection. In 1952, hardly 10 months after arriving in the USA, I was drafted into the Army - it was during the Korean War - and a farewell party for me took place in the very hospitable home of Gele and Shikl Fishman, in the Bronx. The parting words of Max Weinreich at that party still resound in my ears, because they also apply so admirably to Joshua Fishman. Said Max Weinreich (to me) that evening: "When I see you, I see myself as a young man". Joshua Fishman and I are approximately the same age, but when I see his involvement in Yiddish affairs, in Yiddish scholarship and in general sociolinguistic scholarship, I identify with him; he is a cultural and an intellectual hero for me: the prototype of the socioculturally committed scholar. I am grateful that he has put this book together because it will help

xii


more of his colleagues and students, as well as more of my colleagues and students, to more fully appreciate his multifaceted productivity and to adopt for themselves his pluralistic views and commitments, at the same time as they are stimulated by his empirical findings and theoretical constructs.

Preface

I believe that it is fair to say that most of my sociolinguistic endeav ors, covering more than a quarter century, have been intellectually stimulated and emotionally motivated by my interest in Yiddish. Whether I was studying language maintenance and language shift, language and ethnicity/nationalism, language planning, bilingual education or the Whorfian assumptions with respect to language and cognition, my initial sensitivities, hypotheses and ideas were derived, if only indirectly, from the world of concern for Yiddish in which I have been immersed since childhood. As a social-scientist, I have done all that was in my power to generalize the relevance of my findings and theories, doing so by the very interdisciplinary nature of my training (my degree is in social psychology but I have worked and taught primarily in sociology and linguistics), by seriously studying several additional languages (in addition to Yiddish and English, both of which I learned so early that I cannot remember learning either of them, I have studied Spanish, Hebrew, Hausa and N e t h e r l a n d i s h ) , by living in and sociolinguistically focusing on various parts of the world (in addition to my studies of Jews, Francophones, Germans, Hispanics and Navajos in the USA, I have also lived and worked in Israel, India and Indonesia and have visited Canada, Spain, Egypt, Belgium, The Netherlands, Hungary, Australia and Latin America for briefer periods of field work). Nevertheless, I can honestly say that everything I have done anywhere began with a problem, sensitivity or curiosity nurtured by my involvement with Yiddish and, often enough, wound up with a "lesson", at least in the back of my mind, relevant to the sociology of Yiddish and to Yiddish speaking society. My sociolinguistic colleagues are normally unaware of my abiding interest in Yiddish, either because my Yiddish-related sociolinguistic publications, some fifty in number, constitute less

2


than 10% of my total publications, or because it is only since the early '70s, when I had already attained some prominence in the worldwide sociolinguistic enterprise, that I began to publish rather frequently on Yiddish. However, since most of these publications appeared in a variety of sociolinguistic journals, yearbooks and Festschriften throughout the world, specialists in Jewish and Yiddish studies generally remained unaware of them or only stumbled upon them "accidentally", so to speak, when they rubbed shoulders with colleagues from other disciplines or made forays into unusual sources for the purposes of broader background reading. One of the main goals of this collection, therefore, is to overcome both of the foregoing limitations, these having been pointed out to me separately by the sociolinguists and Yiddish specialists most familiar with my work. It is high time that sociolinguists everywhere realized my lifelong indebtedness to and my continued involvement in Yiddish, just as it is desirable that my sociolinguistic efforts that pertain directly to Yiddish become more easily available to students and faculty in Jewish studies in general and in Yiddish studies in particular. A "late bloomer" The discrepancy between the date of my embarking on sociolinguistic inquiry more generally (I place that in 1960, when my "Systematization of the Whorfian Hypothesis" appeared) and the date of my concerted scholarly involvement in Yiddish (roughly a decade later) is attributable primarily to Max Weinreich's influence. Weinreich (1894-1969), the doyen of Yiddish scholarship at least from the forties through to his death, had a tremendous influence on my selection of an area of graduate specialization. My personal inclination was to select either Jewish history or (Jewish) linguistics, although that was still before the time of widespread Jewish studies in American colleges and my employability outside of the Yivo was really quite questionable. But from the day that I first met him, in 1947, Weinreich seemed to have a different "future" in mind for me. "We already have enough historians and linguists", he opined, the "we" referring to the Yivo (then "Yiddish Scientific Institute" and later "Yivo Institute for Jewish Research"), in particular, and to the world of Jewish scholarship, more generally. Weinreich probably dreamed of bringing the Yivo in America (only recently fully re-

PREFACE

3

established in New York,.1940) not only back to the stature but also back to the structure that it had had in the Lithuanian Vilna of its birth (1925). In his mind's eye, he could see his elder son, Uriel, as the future director of its "Philological Section", Arcadius Cahan as the director of its "Economics and Statistics Section", Zosa Szajkowski as director of its "Historical Section" and I, in his master plan, given my undergraduate major and my teaching experience, would be perfect as the director of its "Psychological-Pedagogical Section". "The best laid plans of mice and men . . . " The "sectional" structure of the American Yivo did not develop much vitality and was soon nothing more than a thinly disguised fiction. Although all four of his prospective "section-directors" did play more or less active roles in the Yivo, none of them did so in quite the way that Weinreich had imagined. But my doctoral training, once begun, was never reversed. I continued along the path that Weinreich had selected and, although I did manage to take several courses with Salo Baron, I got my graduate degree in social psychology (Columbia University, 1953). However, my almost tropistic attraction to language studies could not be gainsaid. En route to my Ph.D. I won one of the Yivo's annual prizes (for research on Jewish themes by graduate students) with a study entitled "Bilingualism in a Yiddish School: Some Correlates and non-Correlates" (published, in part, in 1951). Furthermore, as soon as I began to teach social psychology at the City College of New York (now City College of the City University of New York), I unhesitatingly used as my text Joseph Bram's Language and Society (1955). I was obviously the only one in the department to do so and it was clearly a case of the fated return of a river to the sea. From that point on, my march towards sociolinguistic involvement was slow but sure. I gave my first course in the area in 1959, at the University of Pennsylvania, and obtained my first major grant for sociolinguistic research in 1960. Although the latter was concerned broadly with fathoming the "Non-English Language Resources of the United States", I, nevertheless, made sure that one of the languages of primary focus was Yiddish. My "Yiddish in America" (1965; reprinted in this volume) was a byproduct of that project, the major fruit of which was my Language Loyalty in the United States (1966). However, another decade would have to pass before I began to focus on Yiddish in a major and direct way and, once again, Max Weinreich, who had been "responsible" for my original detour, was now "responsible" for my finding a broad-gauged way back to this area of original interest.

4


Weinreich's history of the Yiddish language Max Weinreich died in the early spring of 1969, just as he completed his four volume masterpiece, Di geshikhte fun der yidisher shprakh (published posthumously in 1973). That same year I was invited to assist Shlomo Noble in translating this work into English, an effort which occupied approximately a day per week of my time for the ensuing five years. Weinreich's work was more than merely an eyeopener for me; it excited my scientific imagination, stimulated me to formulate topics and hypotheses and, all in all, caused me to finally make room in an always crowded and successful research, writing, editing and teaching agenda, for the sociology of Yiddish proper. Weinreich's comparative approach, i.e., his always viewing the history of Yiddish relative to the history of other Jewish languages, beginning with the genesis and spread of Aramic and the demise of spoken Hebrew, was an absolutely perfect match to my own comparative sociolinguistic interests. Just as I had sought worldwide perspective for sociolinguistic hunches, curiosity and intuition derived overwhelmingly from my Yiddish interests and commitments, so he had sought worldwide Jewish interlinguistic perspective for his ideas, findings and interpretations pertaining to Yiddish in the context ofJewish society and culture. Our translation {The History of the Yiddish Language 1980) of the first two volumes of Weinreich's four (the latter two, consisting entirely of notes and bibliography, remain available only in the original Yiddish edition, although our unpublished English translation of those very volumes rests in the Yivo archives) yielded an award for Shlomo Noble and myself, and, in my case, left an indelible impression on my subsequent career. Indeed, I have Max Weinreich to thank not only for my somewhat unusual disciplinary and methodological socialpsychological perspective vis-à-vis sociolinguistics proper, but for my ultimate "return" to the sociology of language and the sociology of Yiddish with a much richer perspective than would have been the case had he not detoured my original interests a quarter century before, when my doctoral training had to be decided upon.

Teaching and editing efforts After the early seventies, I not only continued to fit Yiddish into my overall comparative studies, as heretofore (see, e.g., the chapters on

PREFACE

5

Yiddish in my Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival 1985e), but I proceeded to avidly read and, as much as possible, also to regularly teach, edit, research and write directly in the field of the sociology of Yiddish. My prior contacts and commitments, rather than proving to be competitive or oppositional to my newfound priorities, actually helped me accomplish somewhat more along these lines than might otherwise have been the case. Since the papers included in this volume provide an adequate sample of my research and writing efforts, I would like to say a word or two about my teaching and editing efforts which a volume such as this cannot reflect. On several occasions during the 80s, Yeshiva University's Bernard Revel Graduate School enabled me to teach a course on the Sociology of Jewish Languages and, on one occasion, to teach a course on the Sociology of Yiddish per se. On most occasions these courses were also co-sponsored by the Yivo's Max Weinreich Center for Jewish Studies, an arrangement which was first implemented between the Center and Yeshiva's Ferkauf Graduate School in connection with my joint course in the "Sociology of Language: Sociology of Yiddish", as far back as 1969, when the Center first began to function. These courses not only enabled me to deepen by own command of the Jewish and Yiddish dimensions of the sociology of Yiddish, but they also served as a constant reminder to me of Weinreich's contribution to that field and as an intensifier of my own involvement in it. Now, more than two decades after his demise, it is clear that he was not and could not be the last word in this field. Fortunately, a new generation of scholars has arisen (and on three continents to boot) both to critique his work as well as to carry it further. Nevertheless, it is easier to see far when one stands on the shoulders of giants and Weinreich was indisputably a giant in the sociology of Yiddish. As for my editing efforts, I view these both as pedagogic efforts that were, hopefully, of service to the younger generation in the field, as well as to field-building efforts per se. A young and small area of concentration, such as the sociology of Yiddish, desperately needs to cultivate a stronger community of interest among its members and a greater opportunity for visibility and interchange among them. My Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages (1985b) and the several issues of the InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Jewish Languages that I have devoted to the sociology ofJewish languages in general, and to individual Jewish languages in particular (1974, no. 1; 1980, no. 24; 1981, no. 30 and 1987, no. 67), have all been attempts to serve these

6


dual purposes. In a very real sense, this volume too is a further effort along those very lines. Topical foci The topical subdivisions of this volume represent an ex post facto attempt to present some of my major interests within a more or less organized framework. They are not intended either to demarcate or to subdivide the sociology of Yiddish as a whole. I start out with an overall historical perspective, intended particularly for the general sociolinguistic audience, treating many matters of general orientational import and focusing on the joint and interrelated contributions of Yiddish scholarship and of Yiddish literature as major sources for a better understanding of the role of Yiddish in the medieval and modern Jewish experience. My major aspiration for this somewhat extended introduction is that the position of Yiddish in our own day and age not be taken as merely the foregone and inescapable conclusion of essentially well known and predictable modernization, immigration, assimilation and annihilation processes. It is the unusual (or more unusual) aspect of the Yiddish story that needs to be known and appreciated as well, both in its traditional diglossic as well as in its multifaceted secularmodernistic settings. The subsequent sections represent a sampling of both some of the more unusual as well as some of the more generally patterned aspects of the sociology of Yiddish. Certainly the internal relationship with Hebrew, simultaneously symbiotic and conflicted, nurturing and debilitating, eternal and passing, unconscious and ideological, requires examination. The coming into being of the state of Israel, and the development there of the most vibrant UltraOrthodox and modern secular Yiddish circles in existence today, in the very midst of the society which experienced and fostered the revernacularization of Hebrew, is certainly an unusual juncture well worthy of monitoring by interested scholars and laymen alike. The American context of Yiddish may have had its counterparts in earlier fortunate periods ofJewish history (e.g., the "Golden Age" in Spain or the havens generally represented by The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries), but for Yiddish it is the first major experience with both the assets and the debits of an "open society" and its modern as well as post-modern opportunities and dangers for

PREFACE

7

even the numerically most numerous and the demographically most concentrated minority languages and cultures. The predictions as to what would become of Yiddish and yidishkayt in America have differed widely, from the very outset, and differ even now (including an unpredictable return to Ultra-Orthodox language use and language defense manifestations that were first common in early modern times in Central and East-Central Europe). Certainly, the secular apogee and nadir and the Ultra-Orthodox societal continuity that Yiddish has experienced in America are phenomena that every sociology of Yiddish must recognize. The field of language planning is an excellent example of how the sociology of Yiddish both contributes to and benefits from the general sociolinguistic enterprise, although even the two more particularistic topic-areas mentioned in the paragraphs immediately above are also by no means lacking in such examples. Generally, language planning is not recognized for minority languages as a whole and, even less so, for those that are in a weakened state. Yiddish provides very ample evidence that such planning goes on almost continually, even for languages without politically recognized authorities, and not only in corpus planning but also in the incomparably more conflicted areas of status planning, an area whose success is also a sine qua non for the success of corpus planning to any broader degree, i.e., success above and beyond the inner core of the corpus planners and their most devoted loyalists. It is no accident, therefore, that in conjunction with Yiddish status planning I have concentrated on the Tshernovits Conference of 1908. Only then and in the Soviet Union, from the mid-twenties to the midthirties, did fully diversified efforts for Yiddish status planning come into play. Given the paucity of status planning for Yiddish (to be sure, I speak only of positive status planning and set aside for the moment the negative planning that has gone on under zionist, assimilationist-modernist, neo-Orthodox and communist auspices), it is no surprise that its corpus planning has about it the definite stamp of incompleteness. That is not nearly as noteworthy, however, as the fact that as much has been accomplished, and under the most unfacilitating circumstances, as the past seventy years reveal. Perhaps it is the Jewish experience of recurringly skirting disaster and, nevertheless, coming out of that encounter with surprising recuperative capacity, that constantly brings discussions of Yiddish, regardless of their immediate foci, to the omnipresent question of "the bottom line". Thus, it is inevitable that we wind up

8


our selections with a section on "where do we go from here", both geographically (in America and Israel) and intellectually (in Yiddishistica and in Jewish interlinguistics). The sociology of language, like all of social science, is inevitably perspictival and a good bit of any observer's values and beliefs therefore rub off on his or her observations. That may well partially explain why the title and the contents of this work are alert to life, continuity and prospects in connection with Yiddish rather than the gloom, despair and demise that have become pseudo-intellectually de rigueur for nearly a century. This is not to say that I believe that things will once again be as they were. " (vos geven is geven, vet mer nit zayn) a Yiddish theatre-song proclaims, but social change makes this prediction true of all life everywhere. Yiddish will probably never again be the vernacular of almost all of Ashkenazic Jewry, just as its major claim to fame will probably never again be its dominant association with a pulsating intellectual, political and ideological secularism that was simultaneously intensely Jewish and intensely secular-modernistic. Nevertheless, it is sociologically clear to me that a future for Yiddish is assured, for the 21st century and thereafter as well, as far as can be foreseen. It may be more intimately and preponderantly associated with UltraOrthodox thought, observance and daily behaviour in the future than it has been since the mid-19th century, but there will always be a select few who will utilize it as an instrument of modern Jewish secular creativity and an even larger periphery who will enjoy it in that connection, either in the original or in translation. Thus, it is to a consideration of the life of Yiddish that we must turn, rather than to a mistaken, masochistic fixation on its purported death, the latter being no more than a reflection of the increasing distance between the life of Yiddish and the bulk of its secular or neo-Orthodox observers. I conclude with the feeling that the last word is very far from having been said, both because the last word is never said in scientific inquiry and because I myself am incapable of the Schadenfreude needed for pronouncing it in connection with the life of any still weakened (though recuperating) society and culture. In connection with Yiddish it is always wise to remember that we are dealing with a veritable phoenix, or the phoenix offspring of a phoenix parent. Death and extinction have been predicted and disconfirmed for it (and for its parent, the Ashkenazi diaspora) so

PREFACE

9

often that I feel quite comfortable in predicting for it (actually, for "them" both) quite the contrary, indeed, not only merely "life" but dignity, appreciation and even situated recuperation as well. The words of the Psalmist (Ps. 95) seem particularly appropriate (in Yiddish I would say in connection with them both: ("They shall yield fruit even in old age; vigorous and fresh shall they be"). *

A brief digression, in order to clarify the differences and similarities between this work and my Never Say Die! A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and Letters (1981a), may be a propos at this point. Whereas the former was a collective volume, the present one consists only of my own writings. Whereas the former volume was intended primarily for a lay readership (and, therefore, its highly decorative composition), with only a few contributions that had the scholar and specialist in mind, the present book follows the reverse principle, emphasizing empirical and theoretical scholarship and providing far fewer items that were explicitly written for the interested lay reader. In both volumes, however, I have included articles written in Yiddish as part and parcel of what are essentially English books. I know that by doing so I have penalized those who read no Yiddish. Nevertheless, those who do read Yiddish deserve an additional reward, just as those who do not, deserve at least to see what the language looks like in print and to realize that even today, when so much of the Yiddish trove has been translated into English, there is something (particularly something for the scholar and the intelligent layman ) to be gained from learning it.

I Yiddish and Hebrew: Conflict and Symbiosis

Introduction

The story of Yiddish cannot be told without reference to Hebrew and the story of Modern Hebrew (and even of late p r e m o d e r n Hebrew) cannot be told without reference to Yiddish. They are an "odd couple", bound together by the partnership which is inherent in the usual diglossia relationship, but by much more too: by love and hate, by rivalry and cooperation, and, above all, by the peculiar sense of eternity that marks all things that are quintessentially Jewish. Almost throughout the entire thousand year history of Yiddish the co-presence of the Hebrew-Aramic amalgam referred to as Loshnkoydesh and the latter's intra-cultural dominance has been an inescapable 'Tact of life". Only during roughly half a century of unreconstructed Communist hegemony in the Soviet Union was there an apparent reversal, but that reversal was totally dependent on extra-cultural terror. Indeed, the co-presence (or omnipresence) of the Loshn-koydesh "big brother" needs to be recognized, linguistically, socioculturally and psychologically, and on all three of these dimensions it needs to be recognized from the very beginnings of Yiddish to the present day. Psychologically the co-presence of Loshn-koydesh and its honorific status, on the one hand and the arrival of the Enlightenment (and of voting rights and compulsory secular education in official national languages), on the other hand, led to widespread inferiority feelings (not to mention death wishes, death predictions and death plans) with respect to Yiddish. Such inferiority feelings, expressed via negative language attitudes pertaining to functional, esthetic and even strictly linguistic characteristics of Yiddish, are not at all surprising, given that Yiddish had neither exalted sacred nor exalted secular utility. Indeed, these attitudes are not essentially different from those that were once exhibited vis-à-vis English itself or, more recently, vis-à-vis Ukranian or White Russian and a host of other

14


"inelegant" Johnny-come-lately vernaculars. The negative views concerning Yiddish and the exaggerated sensitivity of many of its speakers to its varied componential structure (each non-Germanic component being viewed as a "foreign marking" and each Germanic feature being viewed as either "simply German" or as "even worse than German") are, therefore, by no means as unique accompaniments of Yiddish as either its defenders or its detractors have often assumed. What is more unique is that these negative attitudes were primarily contrastively nourished vis-à-vis Loshnkoydesh, at least insofar as intra cultural functions and identity were concerned. Also substantially unique is the fact that the departures of Yiddish from outside norms, Germanic and non-Germanic, themselves came to be regarded as markers of sanctity, i.e., of a Godgiven design to separate Jews from gentiles in speech as well as in beliefs and practices and, thereby, as safeguards of Jewish distinctiveness. In a sense, Yiddish was made a junior partner of Loshn-koydesh via such an interpretation. This type of psychological reversal was also later evinced by modern Yiddish linguists who seized upon these very departures (even departures within the Loshnkoydesh component itself) as the hallmarks of Yiddish independence from the other languages with which it was constantly being compared by its own speakers, erstwhile speakers and outsiders as well. Although late in coming and rather circumscribed even at its apogee, positive attitudes towards Yiddish ultimately developed to a more extreme and doctrinaire degree than was the case in connection with any other post-exilic Jewish language and, at their most extreme, embodied strong anti-Loshn-koydesh Modern Hebrew sentiments as well. Many of the initial "linguistic" differences between Yiddish and its Germanic determinant are also attributable to the co-presence of Loshn-koydesh . This is even more certainly the case in connection with the extant written evidence of earliest Yiddish, since those who were capable of reading and writing were generally even more steeped in Loshn-koydesh than was the community as a whole. In this respect Yiddish Loshn-koydesh diglossia differs from that of Swiss German/High German, Haitian Creole/French or Vernacular Arabic/Koranic Arabic. In the latter cases the High variety is either superposed from outside of the vernacular speech community, or it must be assumed that the written (H) variety is itself a later, formalized version of one or other prior spoken variety, or both.

INTRODUCTION

15

Only in the case of Yiddish and Loshn-koydesh do we have two genetically distinct languages in a longterm diglossic relationship, in which both are equally intra-communal (i.e., neither is superposed by foreign powers), with the H clearly the older of the two and, therefore, available from the very outset as an influence on the new intra-communal vernacular "upstart". However, the prior existence of Loshn-koydesh does not, in and of itself, explain the great linguistic impact of Loshn-koydesh on Yiddish. The prior existence of this "big brother" and of a rabbinic elite trained in its literate use and literary styles also obtain for the other post-exilic Jewish languages and none of them (not Judezmo, not Mugrabi, not Farsic, to mention only the largest - after Yiddish - but still extant) reveals anywhere near the extent of Loshn-koydesh impact, particularly in the formal speech and writing of the rabbinic elite and other similarly trained scholars, as does Yiddish. Clearly, therefore, when a modern secular-nationalist espousal of Yiddish developed, it inevitably led to a re-examination of the linguistic ties of Yiddish to Loshn-koydesh, in terms of spelling conventions and lexicon and even in terms of the Hebrew writing system as a whole. No similar re-examination (in terms of being "liberated" from "big brother's" hegemony) is recorded for the other post-exilic Jewish languages, not even for those that were also caught up in the Soviet revolution, although it is also true that none of the others ever attained as varied and as serious secular functions as did Yiddish. Both those who argued for the de hebraization of Yiddish (on the grounds that the hebraic component was obscurantist, clerical and even fascistic) and those who argued valiantly and successfully against any such development and, indeed, championed the increased use of traditional scholarly Loshn-koydesh terms and expressions, were utterly convinced that they were spokesmen for the true nature ofJews and the language. As always, linguistics and ideology were closely intertwined, but in this case, with the two languages being so historically intertwined themselves during a millennium of time, the arguments were all the more impassioned and unreconcilable. However, it is in the sociocultural sphere that the co-presence of Loshn-koydesh (and now of Ivrit, i.e., of Modern Israeli Hebrew) has stimulated most discussion. Yiddish has had to cope with several "language problems" since the rise of the Enlightenment, the problem vis-à-vis Loshn-koydesh and Hebrew being only one of them. There were Central and Eastern-European Jewish advocates of

16


German (instead of Yiddish), of Polish (instead of Yiddish), of Russian (instead of Yiddish) and even of Hungarian (instead of Yiddish). However, the struggle between Yiddish and Loshn-koydesh was the most basic of all, because it was viewed as a struggle for control of the internal modernization, and therefore, of the future identity, of the Jewish people, at a time when East-Central European Ashkenaz, the major home of both languages, was world-Jewry's largest, most powerful and most actively modernizing branch, the branch that would apparently lead in the modernization and deter mine the future of this people-religion for the forseeable future. The holocaust declared both Loshn-koydesh and Hebrew to be the winners in this struggle. Hebrew, in terms of both the extermination of five million Yiddish speakers (and the indigenous culture in which it was anchored and in which it thrived) and the establishment of the new state of Israel in which Hebrew was both the national language of Jews and the official language of the state. For the first time in nearly two thousand years a Jewish language (for many, the most Jewish of all Jewish languages) would have its own state apparatus to foster, protect and favor it. In addition, both the holocaust and, ultimately, the state too, dethroned Ashkenaz and ensconced AfroOriental Jewry (Sefardic, Magrebic, Yemenite, Iraqi, etc.), almost all of it speaking diaspora Jewish languages other than Yiddish, in a position of demographic, political and, ultimately, cultural ascendancy. Hebrew became not only the language of ideological zionists but the lingua franca of the "ingathering of exiles", Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi alike, whereas Yiddish rarely spread outside the circle of Ashkenazim. However, Loshn-koydesh too came out of the holocaust a victor. Modern Yiddish secular culture was no more than a quarter to a third of a century old, a still young and fragile flower, when the holocaust struck. It could not weather the destruction of its Eastern European heartland, or if it did so in small part it could not really compete as a way of life with the non-modern and anti-modern Orthodoxy shared by Ashkenazim and non-Ashkenazim alike, both in Israel and in the diaspora. Post-holocaust Jewish fundamentalism led some to ultra-Orthodox Yiddish (primarily oral Yiddish) but it led many, many more to Hebrew, to the co-territorial languages and to the study of Loshn-koydesh religious texts. Neo-Orthodoxy, consistent with its pre-War anti-Yiddish stance, also led in the same directions. However, neither Hebrew nor Loshn-koydesh could serve, as Yiddish had done before the holocaust, as the unifying vernacular of world-

INTRODUCTION

17

wide Jewish thought and Jewish action. As a result of the collapse of the intercontinental role of Yiddish, English has begun to serve this function. For the first time in Jewish history Jews the world over are "united" by a non-Jewish language. Yiddish was incinerated in the death camps of Europe, eclipsed by assimilative processes in the overseas centers of immigration, and replaced as the language of international Jewish comunications, but in none of these instances was it replaced by Hebrew. Just as Yiddish could not really outgrow its Ashkenazi limitations, Modern Hebrew as a mother tongue seems to be unable to outgrow its Israeli markers. Only Loshn-koydesh, a language of sanctified and scholarly texts continues with its functions beyond serious challenge. However the intertwined story of Hebrew and Yiddish is still not completed. The zionist-inspired discrimination against Yiddish in Palestine/Israel has become muted. Yiddish is taught in all Israeli universities and, as an elective, in some 60 high schools. A fondness for Yiddish songs (in the original or in translation, although not all translations are forthright enough to even "credit" the Yiddish originals from which they are derived) and for Yiddish literature and drama (almost always in translation) have become a palpable feature of the beleaguered and conflicted Israeli scene. Even the lexical, phraseological and pragmatic contributions of Yiddish to the vernacularization of Hebrew "as she is spoke" by the average Jewish Israeli today are increasingly recognized. The recent phenomenal growth of Yiddish-speaking Ultra-Orthodoxy in Jerusalem and its environs has once more associated the language with commercial and political clout. None of the foregoing developments either threaten the sway of Hebrew nor will they lead to the adoption of Yiddish as a major language of modern Israeli secular life. They do imply new attitudes, however, and a new modus vivendi with Yiddish, both in its secular and in its religious realizations. They also imply that the story goes on: the thousand year relationship is by no means over and done with. The predictions of its dissolution were mistaken and self-deluding. The "junior partner", once so certainly assigned to oblivion in comparison with the timeless and regal sway of Hebrew, has been found to have more life in him (the proverbial cat's nine lives) than had ever been expected by friend or foe alike. Living Language

For a supposedly dead language ... (there is) a lot of lively, spoken Yiddish (in Jerusalem, including) an astonishing 18,600 haredi children alone who

18

YIDDISH: T U R N I N G TO LIFE

learn daily in Yiddish in elementary to high schools . . . Counting other Ultra-Orthodox haredi centers in the country, such as Bnai B r a k , . . . Yiddish (in Israel) may be on the upswing . . . But the census bureau admits that they don't have an accurate picture of Yiddish in haredi populations (because) many haredim do not appear in the census because they are against participating in i t . . . . Over the past 20 years haredi neighborhoods have steadily expanded: Mea She'a rim, Geula, Bayit Vegan, Sanhedria, Kiryat Sanz, Ramot Polin, Har Nof, Mattersdorf and others. The choice of Yiddish plays a particular role in . . . maintaining their identity . . . although more and more people are speaking Hebrew at home as a result of mixed Sephardi-Ashkenazi marriages and an influx of the newly religious into the community . . . (But) Yiddish represents UltraOrthodox, right wing Judaism. Geula Cohen once said in horror, "The fate of this country is going to be decided by people who speak Yiddish!" Jerusalem Post. June 25,1989, p.3

Post-exilic Jewish languages and pidgins/creoles: two mutually clarifying perspectives* Introduction Post-exilic Jewish languages (hereafter PEJLs)1 have often been reacted to by their own speakers, and frequently by outsiders as well (Jewish and non-Jewish), in ways that are reminiscent of how pidgins/ creoles are reacted to by speakers and outsiders. The very names by which some PEJLs have been popularly called (as observed by S.A. Birnbaum 1872, Gold 1980 and 1983, Weinreich 1980) are indicative of avowedly pejorative (or previously pejorative) views with respect to them, due either to their fusion nature (for example, zhargón for Yiddish and zargón for Judezmo) or due to a fixation on their similari ties to and departures from non-Jewish coterritorial correlate languages (for instance, 'Jewish dialect","Judeo-Italian" [instead of Italkic], 'Judeo-French" [instead of Tsarfatic], etcetera). The char acteristics attributed to these languages, by many insiders as well as by outsiders, have often stressed their purported "esthetic" and "moral" shortcomings ("ugly", "rasping", "corrupted", "crippled", "bastardized"). A purported lack of autonomy and standardization is also commonly recognized ("mishmash", "grammarless", "undisciplined"), as is their purported poverty in attempting to cope with concepts and artifacts of modern Western (and, almost always, Christian) cultures (іk 1833 [1815], Birnbaum 1890, Jospe 1975, Sholem-Aleykhem 1981 [1881]).2 A careful examination of the "charges" against and the "defenses" on behalf of PEJLs may provide us with a new perspective for considering such "charges" and "defenses" with respect to pidgins/creoles, and vice versa. In addition, a review of the similarities and differences between PEJL and pidgin/ creole phenomena, may be useful to both fields of inquiry, not least of all to various scholars who have, of late, erroneously stressed the pidgin/creole nature of PEJLs (such as Wood 1970, and Hancock 1977).

20


The multicomponential nature of post-exilic Jewish languages One of the major characteristics of pidgins/creoles is the recognized and negatively evaluated diversity of their lexical versus their grammatical constituents. This is also an invariable characteristic of PEJLs, all of which reveal major influences and borrowings derived from previous Jewish vernaculars (prelanguages), from contemporary coterritorial non-Jewish vernaculars and, until most recently, from traditional Hebrew/Targumic (together: Loshn-koydesh),3,4 as well as more minor traces derived from whatever international lingua franca(s) might influence the life and thought of their speech communities (Cohen 1985, Chetrit 1985, Wexler 1985).5 At least the first three components mentioned above can have recognizable grammatical (rather than solely lexical) consequences, as well as impressing themselves strongly on metaphors and proverbs, due to the recurring and extensive use of the prelanguages and leshonhakodesh in biblical translation and in Talmudic study and disputation. All derivational components are productively employed and hybrids between them are formed without limitation. As a result, PEJLs differ from their coterritorial correlates not only in terms of patterning of elements but also in terms of semantic change vis-à-vis the correlates per se. The "mixed" nature of PEJLs has been all the more noticeable due to the seemingly greater componential homogeneity of leshonhakodesh, on the one hand, and of standardized coterritorial languages, on the other hand. Indeed, in modern times, the advocates of one or another PEJL tend to gravitate towards two defenses rather than deny the charge of "mixed" status. To the charge of linguistic shatnez (prohibited mixture of wool and linen, after Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11), they reply "guilty with an explanation". The more traditional response claims that the mixed nature of any given Jewish language is the result of God's intention that Jews be identifiably different and separate from their neighbors (see, for example, the views of nineteenth-century Rabbi Khsam Soyfer and of his pupil, Rabbi Hillel Likhtnshteyn, cited in Weinreich 1980; also see two recent issues of the Ultra-Orthodox publication B'darkey hatoyre [April-May and June-July 1986] where this same defense is emphasized). This particular defense assumes that although the usage of Jews might initially have been identical with that of non Jews, God purposely distanced the language ofJews from that of their non-Jewish neighbors so that Jews could more clearly be

POST-EXILIC JEWISH LANGUAGES

21

a separate people, in accord with Biblical commandments. At the same time, the absence of vernacular functions for Loshn-koydesh is explained as deriving from Goďs desire that it remain pure and undefiled by the exigencies of daily life. Thus, even traditional advocatory circles reveal an awareness of multicomponentiality. This dimension is not entirely positively evaluated because no matter how desirable it may seem to be for PEJLs, it is not at all considered to be desirable for Loshn-koydesh. Cultural sensitivity with respect to purity and separateness more generally (separateness of Israel and other nations, of men and women, of different types of foods, of different materials and of different rituals) may well provide the traditional foundations upon which an unusual degree of popular awareness has developed in Jewish speech communities vis-à-vis the multicomponentiality of their own PEJLs. In more modern PEJL advocatory circles, the multi componentiality of any particular Jewish vernacular has usually been viewed in a more comparative-linguistic light. It is recognized that other (that is, non-Jewish) languages too are more "mixed" and less "pure" than is commonly realized. Interestingly enough, although Russian is the first such language to be mentioned (іk 1833 [1815]), after the middle of the nineteenth century the usual example of a "mixed" non-Jewish language is English (Lifshits 1863, Birnbaum 1890, Mizes 1907). Although extremely few Ashkenazic Jews were speakers or readers of English at that time, the multicomponential nature of English was apparently well known to westernizing/modernizing (maskilic) Jewish intellectuals. English becomes the example par excellence of the multicomponential language that has eminently succeeded. It has come to be respected, by insiders and by outsiders, notwithstanding its "mixed" origins and composition. It is widely and proudly spoken and read. It controls an empire in all parts of the globe: armies, navies, industry, higher education. No one thinks anymore of questioning its legitimacy. The components of English are so well fused that the whole is one seamless, harmonious web. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the harmony of the fusion between the four major components of Yiddish (Hebrew/Targumic, Romance, Germanic and Slavic) is highlighted by advocates of the language (Birnbaum 1902a, Mizes 1907). Far from being a mishmash, its components purportedly make it more effective, more colorful, more original and noteworthy than blander, triter, more hum-drum languages of apparently uniform provenience. Similar attitudinal escalation in the field of

22


pidgin/creole languages still remains to be fully studied, although the fact that the "mixed" nature of most languages is now well recognized by scholars and by many educated laymen might well lead in that very direction. The dialect nature of PEJLs Related to but distinct from the criticism leveled at PEJLs on the grounds of their multicomponentiality is the perjorative view that they are merely dialects of their respective non-Jewish correlates. Thus, it is not "impurity" but lack of autonomy, of internal authoritative arbiters of right and wrong relative to the non Jewish big brother, that this criticism decries. By this yardstick, PEJLs are unauthorized and illegitimate departures from proper norms and, as such, "grammarless", "corrupted", "bastardized" and associated with a variety of esthetic and moral shortcomings such as "ugly", "rasping", "crippled", "dwarfed", "hunchbacked" and "hoarse" (Mendelssohn 1718, Feder 1853 [1816], Birnbaum 1890). Note that Mendelssohn himself was hunchbacked but much admired by his followers, including Feder (who utilized this adjective relative to Yiddish). On ocasion, the advocates of one or other PEJL have reacted to this criticism with some of the same arguments as those used to counteract the "impurity" argument. The stance that "God meant our language to be different from the ones the Gentiles use" applies here as well. Accordingly, the differences between Jewish and nonJewish languages are sought out, collected and even cultivated. Within the correlate-derived component itself, differences, neologisms and archaisms are stressed. Regionalisms that are most discrepant from the non Jewish correlate norm are preferred and recommended, particularly by scholars. Avek fun daytsh! ([move the language] away from [New High] German!) is the slogan and program of various Yiddish language planners in the twentieth century, but has its conscious beginnings with Mendl Lefin Satinover at the very beginning of the nineteenth (see following Chapter). Thus, the criticism of norm discrepancy relative to the non Jewish correlate is converted into a value, a desideratum, a source of strength and pride. On the other hand, alternates that are closer to or identical with the norms of the correlate language are consciously preferred and advocated by those who favor language shift towards


23

"big brother". 6 Only Hebrew has been spared invidious comparison with its original non-Jewish correlate (Canaanite), obviously because so little is known about the latter that comparison is rendered difficult (and, for the laymen, impossible). However, with respect to revernacularized modern Hebrew, purity and a "return to its true oriental nature" have become concerns shared by some intellectuals from Ben Yehuda onward (Fellman 1973), that is, the fear of multicomponentiality has surfaced, even though the fear of dialect status has not. A particular set of culturally specific traditional functions is substantially responsible for distancing PEJLs from their non-Jewish correlates (Weinreich 1980 [1973], Rabin 1981). These functions involve the widespread and age-old practice of studying the Pentateuch by translating it into an oral or written calque which follows ("shadows") the word order and grammatical conventions of the original. Even more time is devoted to the study of the Hebrew/Targumic Talmud (Kats 1982), with the resulting number of influences upon PEJLs being, if anything, even greater. Although this translation calque variety is never spoken conversationally (nor written for the purposes of interpersonal communication), its constant association with time-consuming and prestigious male functions cannot but pervasively influence the spoken and written language more generally, lexically, grammatically and even prosodically.7 The Hebrew/Targumic components of PEJLs are thus not outside influences or borrowings but derived from culturally indigenous diglossic partners and catalysts. The pidgin/creole picture is obviously different, although even in the latter case it is frequently not realized that these languages too may diversify in ternally in various ways, with their core cultural pursuits (far different from those of Western cultures) first fashioning function ally specific varieties. These then have differential initial influence on subsequent varieties, all of which are accordingly distanced, to a greater or lesser degree, from the Western linguistic standard. More so than either the typically spoken or the calque variety, the secular-written variety of PEJLs is likely to be massively influenced by the written non-Jewish norm (Wexler 1981). This constitutes a curious but informative inversion of the more usual (although not invariable) state of affairs wherein Ausbau languages differ more in their written than in their spoken varieties. Setting aside the major visual distinction between written Jewish and non-Jewish languages, namely their writing systems (a difference that results in various phonological

24


and orthographic consequences), 8 and setting aside the calque varieties of the Jewish languages with their constant culture-specific need to be as close to the word-order of the Loshn-koydesh original as possible, most other varieties of the written language are, of necessity, more exposed to influences from coterritorial writing conventions. Thus, males who read/write PEJLs for other than traditional-related functions are also most likely to be exposed to at least some reading/writing in the non-Jewish coterritorial correlate (and perhaps other languages as well), at least for commercial and legal purposes, and, therefore, to carry over features of that language into their secular reading/writing within the Jewish fold. Since PEJLs do not have traditional, non-calque-related written functions within the Jewish fold, any substantial additional written functions that are realized by them are initially likely to be nontraditional. 9 For such functions, the non Jewish variety usually serves as the initial model (in orthographic conventions and in lexical and grammatical preferences) and it is only substantially later that an indigenous Jewish writing style develops, patterned, in part, on intra-communal speech models (on which the calque variety ultimately also exerts its influence) rather than on external writing models. Since pidgin/creole reading/writing also initially represents culturally unprecedented functions for those languages, their reading/writing varieties too may stand closer to those of their coterritorial Western correlate than do their most typically spoken varieties. Only substantially indigenized writing functions can lead to writing conventions in accord with indigenous speech-proximate markers. Yiddish and Judezmo have been further helped in arriving at the latter conventions, and the greater distancing from correlate writing norms that they represent, by their ultimate geographic distancing (in Ashkenaz 2 and in Sefarad 2, respectively) from their original nonJewish correlates, although even in their case this required centuries.

Language genesis: two substantially different scenarios PEJLs appear to be similar to pidgins/creoles in the disparateness of their etymological components and in their frequent "non-standard" (that is, "dialectal") image, both to insiders and outsiders. Both of these features (lack of "purity", lack of autonomy) lead to similarly poor intragroup attitudes and negative mother-tongue associations on the part of PEJL communities and pidgin/creole communities.


25

Indeed, one universal that has been advanced with respect to PEJLs is their generally low repute within their own speech communities, where they are "spoken by all, valued by none" (Fishman 1981c). However, at this point the similarities end, even when considered phenomenologically, and the differences become clearly predominant. One area of profound difference is that of language genesis. In the genesis of pidgins, intragroup communication is at least as primary a motivating factor as is intergroup communication. The dislocated members of a newly constituted aggregate hail from a variety of different locales and have no common language. They must communicate with one another on a make-shift basis as much as they are forced to do so with their masters. In the genesis of PEJLs, however, intergroup communication is, initially, clearly the primary motivating factor. The Jews themselves already have a vehicle of communication in their prior Jewish vernacular, or, alternatively in Loshn-koydesh (albeit spoken with great difficulty and with errors even by most males, including the most learned among them - due to its restricted traditional textual functions) if they are of diverse backgrounds. 10 Thus, the genesis of a PEJL is an instance of language spread from, initially, intergroup to, primarily, intragroup purposes and one in which no attempt need initally be made by the "teachers" to simplify or reduce for the benefit of the "learners" nor in order to deny them access to the language norms of their "teachers" in order to maintain proper status differentials. Prior Jewish residents are generally available, residents who frequently predate the establishment of a larger Jewish settlement by many years, to facilitate the "proper" learning of the new intergroup language by those who require it most: merchants and certain communal leaders. How well the new non-Jewish language is ever learned by the generality of first or later generations (in terms of acquiring fully native phonology, lexicon, grammar and prosody, without "foreign" and, particularly, without "Jewish" markings) is an interpersonal variable rather than an intracommunal constant. Ultimately, however, whether due to the worsening of intergroup relations or due to the increasing adoption of the new language for specifically Jewish intragroup interlocutors and traditional functions too, a Jewish variety arises and becomes socioculturally stabilized with sociofunctional norms of its own. What began, primarily, as language spread for intergroup purposes, then arrives at the stage of language shift for intragroup purposes, since these latter had pre-

26


viously been filled by an earlier Jewish language (or languages). As this stage progresses, the language is increasingly distanced from its intergroup norm and two norms coexist, one for intragroup and the other for intergroup purposes. If geographic distancing also occurs, then further distancing between these two norms is facilitated and the intergroup variety may actually disappear from the Jewish speech-community's shared repertoire. Different segments of the Jewish population may, initially, be at different stages in this chain of developments (for example, men and women, scholars/clergy and laymen with little immersion in traditional study). Indeed, these different speech networks may be differentially instrumental in con nection with bringing about the ultimate distancing between PEJLs and their co-territorial correlates. All in all, however, the above scenario is obviously different from the pidgin/creole genesis case. Instead of the nativization and expansion of a pidgin (a variety with out prior indigenous precedent) into a creole, we, initially, have a language spread to language shift sequence, a sequence which is not too different from that known in many immigrant contexts (Fishman 1985c), followed (and some would say ''paralleled"), from the very outset, in certain speech networks, by the development of indigen ous norms for certain intracommunal functions. Both scenarios are dislocative, but of the two, the genesis of a new PEJL is far less so, since an earlier Jewish vernacular is initially available, particularly to adults, as a vehicle of intracommunal functioning in general and for traditional functions in particular. In addition the high culture remains minimally impacted, since the sanctified Loshn-koydesh texts, prayers and responsa, as well as the elites most closely associated with them, usually remain, at least in part, to provide ethnocultural stability and continuity. Thus, though the displacement of one PEJL by another is inevitably dislocative for the transitional generations (and undoubtedly represents an initial cultural loss, perhaps even a cultural trauma [Glatshteyn 1972]), it does not begin to approximate the dislocation that marks the genesis of a pidgin, with its massive demographic heterogeneity, ethnocultural discontinuity and physi cal extirpation and abuse.

Intragroup literacy: two different scenarios Because Jews have experienced a high degree of cultural change, including vernacular language shift, during the past two millennia,


27

it is instructive to ponder the significance of a well nigh complete lack of recorded laments in the latter connection. 11 The transition from Hebrew to Targumic and from Targumic to dozens (perhaps scores) of PEJLs cannot have been painless, not by any means, nor could it have failed to exact an intergenerational price to the detriment of traditional study of hallowed texts via the calque-translation method. Nevertheless, rabbinic literature, enormously extensive and attentive to every detail of daily life, and particularly attentive to the consequences of culture change in so far as observance of all Ortho dox requirements and customs is concerned, pays almost no atten tion to intergenerational language discontinuity as either an individual or communal problem. The most plausible explanation for this blind spot in rabbinic vision is that the continuity of the leshon-hakodesh literacy tradition - with its emphasis on sanctified texts, commentaries and responsa - is accorded such overwhelming priority (at least by the rabbis) as to seem to more than compensate for any discontinuity in the spoken or calque-translation languages. We have already observed that PEJLs are generally not held in high regard - certainly not by the rabbinic authorities themselves, and only a few exceptions during a 2000 year recorded history of rabbinic opinion - nor, until comparatively modern times, by ordinary rankand-file members of the community. 12 The continuing and wide spread availability of the rabbinic literacy and literary tradition is, of course, also a very definite departure from the pidgin/creole constel lation. What is more, however, is the fact that Jews approximated universal male literacy from the preexilic period of their history onward. This is not to say that the ideal was fully realized. Most men (and it was only in connection with males that even the ideal was pursued), in all times, could probably read little more than their daily prayers, and most women, not even that much (even setting aside the issue of understanding in both instances),13 but the ideal as such and an array of communal schools to pursue it remained landmarks of every Jewish community anywhere. These ubiquitous Jewish schools did not add much conscious luster to the PEJLs which invariably served them as media of instruction. Nevertheless, they did produce a sense of a tradition of uninterrupted literacy, a sense of collective ethnocultural continuity which penetrated the mass of the popula tion and which is the very antithesis of the pidgin/creole context. Perhaps it should be mentioned, at least in passing, that the continuity of the tradition of leshon-hakodesh literacy, study and prayer, both among the rabbinic elite and among the ordinary mem-

28


bers of the speech community, is not at all the same as the repeated outcropping of Portuguese elements that the monogenesis theory of pidgins has highlighted (Thompson 1961; also see Decamp 1971 : 23). The latter constancy is due to the recurring nature of outside influences (these having their own outside continuity and linkages) in a large number of otherwise unrelated pidgin contexts. Clearly, Portuguese was not part of the prior cultures of most newly formed pidgin communities. Its elements were generally not handed on from one pidgin to the next. Its spread from one such community to another, where that can be documented, depended on outsiders to the pidgin communities themselves. Hebrew/Targumic, on the other hand, is not only indigenous to Jewish communities but is sanctified and textified and is explicitly handed down from one generation to the other, thus manifesting both vertical continuity (from community to community) and horizontal continuity (from generation to generation). Pidgin/creole contexts represent, at best, an interruption in intragroup literacy, assuming that such had previously been attained by certain demographic constituents prior to the formation of any new pidgin community. If this interruption is repaired, such literacy is more than likely to be associated with the coterritorial correlate language rather than with the pidgin/creole itself. The Jewish case is more complex. Societal literacy in Hebrew/Targumic remains uninterrupted. Societal literacy in a new PEJL begins with the translation-calque, usually via glosses/concordances and/or translations that accompany the sanctified texts themselves. With respect to nontraditional genres, these may initially utilize the nonJewish correlate written in Hebrew letters and will only slowly approximate the spoken vernacular norm. Indeed, the latter norm will be adopted for traditional caique-variety texts only very slowly (if at all), possibly leading to the prolonged use of two written styles: one for traditional study/translation reading/writing and another for more secular reading/writing, both ostensibly for women and for males only semi-literate in Hebrew/Targumic, rather than for the more idealized male prototype (Weinreich 1980 [1973]), although in actuality, many men literate in leshon-hakodesh must have read them too (or even primarily), given their subject matter. 14 However, although many PEJLs do attain written functions, both in connection with traditional and in modern secular pursuits, as we have just noted, this functional elevation does not tend to elevate them attitudinally in their respective communities. If they are encountered


29

as written calque-translations, they are interpreted as distinctly junior partners ("servant girls") in sanctity-related matters (Heilman 1981). Their distinctly junior or accompanying status leaves them with an aura of dependency and inferiority here. If they are encountered in nontraditional secular garb and functions, these are hardly calculated to add to their status in the eyes of the Orthodox. As a result, their total literacy image - old though the association with literacy may be for Yavanic, Judezmo, Yahudic, and Yiddish - remains under a cloud and is sometimes even denounced or denied. Only Yiddish, with a continuous literacy tradition of roughly 1000 years, has partially overcome the built-in traditional biases that faced it. Nevertheless, even it required the development of a modern, secularnationalist community before that came to pass on a large scale, a development still widely unrecognized and unvalued in most traditional and in many Zionist/Hebraist circles. All in all, the achievement of traditional coliteracy, on the one hand, and of independent, all purpose modern literacy, on the other hand, by several PEJLs distinguishes the latter from pidgins/creoles, even though it generally affords them little distinction within their own speech communities. This state of affairs provides an important potential lesson for all who seek to elevate pidgin/creole languages to serious literacy functions. Such functions may be attained and yet the speech community's attitudes may remain generally negative or condescending, as heretofore. Just as in the PEJLs' case, where "real literacy" is assumed to be attained only in Hebrew/Targumic, so in the pidgin/creole case, the hovering presence and prestige of the coterritorial "big brother" correlate may be too much to overcome. Even migration to other parts of the globe has, for the most part, not enabled PEJLs to emerge from the penumbras that envelope them in the literacy area.15 How much more difficult must it be to attain this goal for pidgins/creoles, given their far less peripatetic histories.

Comparison on Stewartian attributes The provocatively subjective bases of evaluative reactions to languages are well revealed by Stewart's attributes (Stewart 1968). These attributes also nicely reveal the similarity with which PEJLs, on the one hand, and pidgins/creoles, on the other hand, are often regarded by the rank-and-file of their respective speech communities. Both are widely assumed to lack historicity (although this may be

30


manifestly untrue in both cases and even though, in conjunction with PEJLs, some of them may be as old as or older than the coterritoriai correlate languages with which they are generally invidiously compared), to lack autonomy, and to lack standardization. A drastic change with respect to their sociocultural and econotechnical fortunes (such as would derive from their speech community coming into control of major political power or control over scarce recources as happened in the case of Afrikaans) might lead to a reevaluation of these dimensions, but such reversals, based upon realistic factors, can be expected to be extremely few and far between. Given that both PEJLs and pidgins/creoles are also widely found to be wanting with respect to "purity" (the latter being a non-Stewartian dimension that is often of considerable importance to ordinary members and to elites alike), it should come as no surprise that vitality alone, when present, cannot overcome their total negative aura. In the case of most PEJLs today, even vitality is often questionable. As a result, their evaluative profile becomes indistinguishable from that which Stewart reserves for pidgins: minus vitality, minus historicity, minus autonomy and minus standardization, with minus purity thrown in for good measure. Reinterpretation can and does occur on all five of the above dimensions. However, reinterpretation comes slowly, if at all, where power constellations remain unchanged. Against those who granted Yiddish nothing but vitality, Nathan Birnbaum argued at the turn of the century (1906d), that such a view left Ashkenazi Jewry (whether Western or Eastern) in the anomalous position of having a "living language (Yiddish) and a dead real language (Hebrew)". Against those who wished to proclaim Yiddish as "a national Jewish language", Y.L. Perets argued that a national language is one that is both widely spoken and widely read by its constituency. In his view, Yiddish was a folk vernacular, because it was not widely read/written by its constituency. On the other hand, Hebrew too was not a national language of the Jewish people, according to Perets, but, rather a classical language, because it was not generally spoken. Indeed, Perets believed, at around the time of the 1908 Tshernovits Yiddish Language Conference, that Jews were in the anomalous position of being an ethnonational group without a truly national language. While the latter plaint has also been expressed by various pidgin/ creole circles, PEJLs are distinctive in this connection since they alone have a built-in classical rival within their own speech community, a rival who is fully accepted by all, whether spoken or not.


31

Conclusions The presence of a co-territorial correlate and source language (determinant) is the common linguistic situation of pidgins/creoles and PEJLs. They both reveal a constellation of powerlessness, naming quandries, negative self images and limited written functions, all of these circumstances being antecedents and consequences of perceived lacks of "purity" and autonomy. But there are also important differences between PEJLs and pidgins/creoles. PEJLs and pidgins/creoles differ in their genesis scenarios. They differ in their functional origins and in their functional mainstays. They differ in their co-literacy opportunities. They differ in that only PEJLs have a historically recurring and predictable intracultural relationship with a sanctified classical language and, therefore, manifest the recurring development of calque varieties with traditional read/written and spoken functions, functions which ultimately influence the linguistic nature of all PEJLs even in other, modern secular functions. As threatened species, PEJLs and most pidgins/creoles must either protectively withdraw from the modern world or learn to master functional corners of that world in which they can find and defend their own functional advantages. Some of their most constant users are also their worst enemies and that, indeed, is a difficult burden to live with. Notes *

Preparation of this paper was facilitated by the Netherlands Institute for Advances Study (NIAS), Wassenaar, The Netherlands, and by the Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, at both of which I spent parts of a recent sabbatical year. I am grateful to Joseph Chetrit, Michael Clyne, David Gold, Manfred Klarberg, Rakhmiel Peltz, Leonard Prager, and David Roskies for their critical comments on earlier drafts.

1.

Throughout this paper I use the expression "post-exilic Jewish languages" (abbreviated PEJLs) to signify Jewish languages originating in the diaspora after the destruciton of the Second Temple (68 C.E.). Although the assets and debits of this term have yet to be fully examined, it does stress a focus (place of emergence) and time frame that may prove useful for the present discussion and for others as well.

2.

Most of my examples and references pertain to Yiddish and Judezmo,

32

Y I D D I S H : T U R N I N G TO L I F E primarily because they have thus far received the bulk of sociolinguistic attention in the PEJLs field. Where I extrapolate or allude to other PEJLs than Yiddish or Judezmo, I do so on the basis of conversations either with native speaker informants and/or with a number of scholars who have gained first hand experience with these languages. Nevertheless, many of my extrapolations might best be regarded as hypotheses derived from Yiddish and Judezmo and in need of further testing insofar as other PEJLs are concerned.

3.

There is recent evidence, not yet systematically presented, that Jewish English is now influencing Jewish languages everywhere, even where it has not been the co-territorial or prior Jewish language. The influence of Jewish English often appears to be at the expense of Yiddish and/or Hebrew/Targumic.

4.

I will follow Weinreich (1980) and others and use the designation "Targumic" for the Jewish language also referred to as Aramaic, Judeo-Aramaic or Aramic.

5.

A less frequent constituent of Jewish languages consists of influences from other co-territorial Jewish languages, for example, Judezmo influences on Yiddish in "Old Yishuv" Palestine (that is, prior to the period of modern, Zionist settlement) or the mutual influences between Judezmo and Yahudic (Mugrabi) in Morocco (Chetrit 1985).

6.

In connection with both Yiddish and Judezmo there are also advocates and cultivators who are not concerned with the issue of Abstand and are more oriented towards accepting majority local usage. In the field of Judezmo studies, David Baracas should be mentioned among those favoring fidelity to Spanish. Bunis (1982), on the other hand, enumerates and describes several segments of a Judezmo speaking (and even writing) society that preferred varieties that were locally and Hebraically colored, rather than pursue the goal of "as Spanish as possible".

7.

While it is true that there are entire (free-standing) translations of the Bible into Ivre-taytsh, Ladino and the corresponding calque varieties of Yahudic and Yavanic, these versions began as aids to study or understanding of the leshon-hakodesh original and remind every user of the normative goal and expectation that the original be known and consulted. The calque transla tions often remain linguistically rather fixed, sometimes for centuries, even after this lack of modification tends to counteract their initial roles as study aides. In social psychology it is well known that "mechanisms become drives" (means become ends). In the PEJLs field, study calques often achieve semihallowed lives of their own, although they always pre-suppose and underscore the primary role of the original on the part of true cultural role-models.

8.

All writing systems naturally foster their own typical orthographic conventions. One such that should not be overlooked in the Jewish languages field is that of the silent alef at the beginning of words that start with vocalic  or і sounds. This is a very old and powerful visual convention, stemming from leshon-hakodesh, that is reintroduced into all written PEJLs that I have encountered. As for phonological change fostered by Jewish writing


33

conventions, I have in mind spelling pronunciations, that is, the tendency to pronounce new, strange, or foreign words the way the spelling implies, for example, pronouncing the second l in Lincoln, both in Yiddish and in Israeli Hebrew. 9.

I trust that it has been clear throughout that pursuits that I have termed "traditional" are those tied most directly to the study of hallowed texts, commentaries and guides. Accordingly, "non-traditional" pertains to various other topics and genres of reading and writing, e.g. chapbooks, Jewish histories, literary efforts (including journalism, poetry and prose), where the link to hallowed texts is either nonexistent or marginalized.

10.

The copresence of Laazic, Zarphatic and Italkic speakers in Loter and/or in other areas of very early Yiddish speech may well have added inter-Jewish group dynamics to the early distancing of Yiddish from co-territorial nonJewish Germanic varieties. The later and recurring copresence of Ashkenazic and Sefardic Jews in Amsterdam and in London (or, still later in the Balkans and in pre-Zionist Palestine) may also have contributed to the further distancing of Yiddish from German and ofJudezmo from Spanish. Each such instance highlights the social processes by means of which outside languages may, u n d e r certain social circumstances, be fashioned into distinctively/contrastively Jewish (or more distinctively Jewish) ones, not only due to Jewish/non Jewish but also due to Jewish group A/Jewish group  interactions.

11.

Werner Weinberg, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, is working on comments in the rabbinic literature concerning the loss of spoken leshonhakodesh and on the steps advocated by the rabbis in order to reestablish it as a vernacular so as to reap the benefits of greater piety and more advanced scholarship within Jewish society. David E. Fishman, Brandeis University, is working on medieval and early-modern rabbinic comments on the permissible halachic use of PEJLs.

12.

To those who would prefer to say that PEJLs are part of minhog (rabbinically unregulated custom) and not of din (rabbinically governed law) I would like to point out that David E. Fishman's data show that there were frequent dinim m 'ďrabonim (formal rabbinic pronouncements) about the use of PEJLs. The lack of Jewish high regard for their own post-exilic vernaculars does not necessarily imply colossal linguistic insecurity or self-depreciation. General consciousness of, let alone high regard for, vernaculars is a rather modern phenomenon (see Fishman 1972). Neither vernacular consciousness nor high regard are noticeable even today within Yiddish-maintaining Ultra-Orthodox speech communities, the members of which are noticeably quite distant from self-depreciation.

13.

As implied above in connection with women, the role of those Jews who least mastered Hebrew/Targumic needs to be given special (or at least greater than usual) consideration in the genesis of PEJLs, for they were least able to utilize and adapt the calque variety and, thereby, may have contributed less to the distancing of any new PEJL from its co-territorial correlate. On the other hand, their likelihood of being at the forefront of new, outside vernacular usage would depend on the nature ofJewish/non-Jewish contacts, that is, on

34

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE whether these contacts were primarily at the level of daily life of the masses (in work, buying/selling, residential propinquity) or at the more restricted level of spokesman-intermediaries-entrepreneurs. My understanding of premodern Jewish history leads me to assume far more of the latter than of the former and, therefore, to assume a trickling down process in which the language shift of the masses was generally slower than that of the speech networks of "change agents". The impact of the latter would have been greater on less literate men or on illiterate men and women (as far as Hebrew/Targumic is concerned) than on the rabbinic and more scholarly speech networks. Although the last must be assumed to be most change resistant, it is their accommodative change which is required for a new calque variety to come into being, the latter being the earliest "official legitimization" that PEJLs receive in premodern contexts. Thus, a continuum of usage, exposure and traditionalism within the Jewish community needs to be posited: (a) the pious and scholarly elite, most insulated and most fully associated with Hebrew/Targumic, the older Jewish vernacular and its calque variety, (b) the moderately Hebrew/Targumic-literate rank and file, who are most oriented to the usage of the foregoing but whose speech is also exposed to and influenced by the new vernacular, (c) the less (or non-) Hebrew/Targumic rank and file, whose speech is most exposed to and influenced by the new vernacular, and (d) the active change agents (often: a rival elite vis-à-vis the traditional scholarship/piety elite) who learn the new vernacular first, adopt it most and introduce it to the Jewish speech community at large. This triple gradation of traditional encapsulation, repertoire of usage and degree of contact with the winds of change must be examined if we are to better understand differential intracommunal contributions to the language shift process that is involved in the genesis of a new PEJL.

14.

This pattern of diversification of vernacular literacy is amply illustrated in Ashkenaz and also has its definite parallels in the rise of Western folk literacy. I advance it here as a hypothesis that may yet become documentable in PEJLs more generally, once their printed materials are subjected to more frequent and more focused sociolinguistic inquiry.

15.

The less than optimal views ofJews themselves towards PEJLs has apparently not denied several of these languages the designations 'Jewish" or "Judaism". However, there is no contradiction here, but, rather, a question of limits. It was commonly possible, at least for many members of the speech community, to speak more Jewishly and less Jewishly, involving more distancing or less distancing from the co-territorial non-Jewish correlate, as a type of repertoire variation, depending on the purpose pursued in interaction with particular interlocutors, topics, speech events, etcetera. When the more-Jewish ways of speaking also became widespread intracommunal vernaculars they also, simultaneously, became even more Jewish and more recognized as such on an intercommunal basis. The accompanying-caique functions are also possible clues to the "Judaism" appellation of a number of PEJLs. Nevertheless, notwithstanding these positive designations, which often competed with the negative designations with which we began our discussion, the question of limits and priorities arises. In the traditional view it is clear that leshon-


35

hakodesh receives unquestioned preference for all serious and independent traditional functions. These are the functions that count when one is viewed as intracommunally literate. As for the designation "Jewish", as a/the name for a PEJL, I see no reason why this must depend on contrastive relocation elsewhere. Note, in this connection, that the case of Italkic (Judio)is just such a self-designation, even where the PEJL remains co-territorial with its correlate and does not migrate elsewhere as did Yiddish and Judezmo.

"Nothing new under the sun": a case study of alternatives in language and ethnocultural identity Today, in almost all of the Western world (and in the ethnopolitically consolidated and econotechnically modernized world more generally), nothing seems more "natural" than the current linkage between a particular ethnocultural identity and its associated language. For Frenchmen, that language is French and for Spaniards it is Spanish. What could be more "natural"? However, by their very nature, cultures are primarily conventional rather than truly natural ar rangements and, therefore, even these links, apparently natural though they seem, need to be examined more carefully, perhaps even more naively, and such fundamental questions as "Was it always so?" and "Why, when or how did it become so ?" need to be raised. Such questions commonly reveal that what is considered "natural" today was not always considerd to be so, not only because of lack of awareness (even today there may be Frenchmen who are not conscious of French as a reflection of, a symbol of and a contributor to their identity), but because even those few who were originally aware of the functions of language in the above ways were themselves of different minds and purposes. That such alternative programs (and, therefore, alternative language-and-ethnicity linkages) exist is frequently recognized among specialists who have studied pre-modern ethnocultural configura tions. "Who are the Lue?" Mooreman asks (1965) and provides a host of different views both by outsiders (neighbors of those whom some call Lue) and by insiders (those who sometimes call themselves Lue), in which the ethnocultural designation, the language designation and the link between the two all show variation. Similar cases are more dif ficult to find in contemporary Europe, but they are not completely un known even there, particularly among some of its eastern and south ern Slavic groups (see, e.g., Magocsi 1978 on the Subcarpathian Rus). In less-developed and/or less-consolidated settings (and the U.S.A.

Reprinted with permission from The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival. Berlin: Mouton, 1985:77-103.

38


may well be one of the latter), instances such as these are much more common. All such cases, wherever they occur, lead us to be more sensitive to the possibility of earlier, less consolidated periods (or regions) in the development of ethnolinguistic identity even among those populations for whom current linkages have lasted for centuries, and, even more decidedly, to sensitize us to changes in ethnicity and in language and ethnicity linkages that are ongoing today (see, e.g., LePage and Tabouret-Keller 1982). Still rarer, however, is a case such as the one to be examined here, in which ethnocultural identity per se is well established, both by internal and by external definitions, but its "natural" vernacular language counterpart is still symbolically unfinalized and, therefore, subject to widely differing programmatic formulations. The case itself pertains to early 19th-century Eastern European Jewish society, but its problems are generalizable to the late modernization of other societies with intact sacro-classical traditions. In such societies (other major examples of which are the Greek case in Europe, the Islamic Arabic case in the Near East and North Africa, the Tamil case in South Asia and the Mandarin Chinese case in East Asia), diglossia between what are consensually viewed as "separate languages" has persisted long after its disappearance in Western Europe. In Western Europe, the typical diglossic pattern H/L began to be resolved in favor of the vernaculars even before the Reformation ended in the full triumph of the latter as symbols of national identity. This process began first in the Atlantic seacoast countries with massification of participation in commerce, industry and armed service. In Central and Eastern Europe, however, the domination of former or current sacroclassical languages for serious writing continued much longer so that German, Russian and finally Italian achieved full general recognition as vernaculars symbolic of national identity and worthy of governmental, literary and educated usage only by the 18th century. Thereafter in Europe, the pattern LH/LL (instead of former H/L) in which varieties of the former L are used for both formal/written and informal/spoken functions was denied only to minorities that lacked state apparatuses under their own control, a denial which implicitly recognized the dynamic as well as the symbolic nature of the language and ethnicity link (Fishman 1972a). For Jews and Greeks, however, no such resolution was possible for yet other reasons. Sacroclassical languages continued to reign supreme for them, both functionally and symbolically, and their vernaculars remained in the shadows on both accounts.

A CASE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES

39

The traditional Jewish vernacular roles H/L is not an adequate formulaic representation of the role ofJewish vernaculars in traditional Jewish society. Jewish vernaculars (Yavanic in Greece, Judezmo in Spain and then in the Balkans, Chuadit in Provense, Tsarfatic in France, Italkic in Italy, Yiddish in Germany and then in Eastern Europe, Yahudic in most Moslem lands) always had more than spoken vernacular functions. Indeed, they were regularly used for such sanctity-proximate functions as the oral, written (later printed) translation of prayers, oral (later printed) translation of Bible and of Talmud 2 and as the discourse language for the study of Talmud (Fishman 1981c). Note, however, that although these vernaculars were admitted into the pale of sanctity, they never functioned independently or exclusively in that pale. They were always merely co-present in the realm of sanctity as assisting, attending, serving vehicles rather than as primary or exclusive ones. Thus, even though the true societal allocation of languages to social functions in traditional Jewish communities was a complex one, 3 the vernacular alone was never in full sway in any H function. At the point at which our case begins, towards the end of the 18th century, several earlier attempts at promoting Yiddish, the then 900-year-old Central and Eastern European Jewish vernacular, to serious H functions had already failed.4 However, the spread of modern ideas and processes into Eastern Europe guaranteed that additional attempts would be made, resisted and defended. Not since the times of Aramaic had a Jewish vernacular been a major bone of interrabbinic Jewish contention. 5 With the coming of modernization in Eastern Europe, a century and a half of "vernacular debate" was launched in which the modernizers themselves were far from united as to the solutions that they advocated. Not only were various vernaculars advocated (Jewish as well as non-Jewish) but even Loshnkoydesh was advocated for modern purposes, oral as well as written.

The Haskole comes to Eastern Europe Like modernization more generally, vernacular awareness came to Jewish Eastern Europe from Germany in particular and from "Western Europe" more generally. Modernization as a diffuse whole was the goal of a movement known as haskole ("enlightenment"). Since it was an intellectual current more than a political one, it was

40


variously interpreted and had no real organizational apparatus. Its ideological/philosophical counterparts had already strongly impacted German Jewry by the time it began to influence Jewish intellectuals in the eastern Austro-Hungarian Empire (particularly in Galicia)6 and in the western Czarist Empire. Its spokesman and fountainhead in Germany had been Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), and many of its earliest protoganists in Eastern Europe had been his students during their younger years. However much they may have differed amongst themselves, they all tended to share three views: (a) modern knowledge and modern behaviour was bringing about major changes in the co-territorial societies that surrounded Jewish Eastern Europe, (b) as a result, it was urgent for Jewish society also to change in many ways, both internally as well as vis-à-vis the co-territorial societies, and (c) it was the responsibility of Jewish intellectuals to formulate, interpret and guide this change process for the maximum benefit of the Jewish people as a whole. These three views were so broad and nebulous that they did not differentiate between the parent haskole in Germany and its child, the haskole in Eastern Europe. In reality, however, both with respect to their programs and their consequences, the two haskoles differed markedly. Whereas the former aimed at sociocultural and political integration ofJews (redefined only as a religious group: "Germans of Moses' persuasion") into "society at large" and, therefore, rejected the notion of separate Jewish kehilas (community councils) or a separate Jewish vernacular (given that a separate Catholic vernacular or a Protestant vernacular would have seemed equally superfluous), the latter generally viewed Jews as a separate ethnocultural entity in need of political rights, on the one hand, and of economic, educational and cultural modernization on the other hand. However, the latter goals were not unambiguous vis-à-vis the need for separate governing community councils or for a separate vernacular (or, even if there were to be such, maintenance of their unique functions) and, accordingly, these and other related issues remained "on the agenda" and the Eastern haskole debated them bitterly and at seemingly interminable length. Insofar as the "language issue" was concerned, three major views arose: (i) that Yiddish could serve as the medium of early modernization but that it might very well be replaced later by Polish or another co-territorial vernacular, (ii) that Hebrew itself should optimally serve as the vehicle of modernization but that German might initially need to be used since it was the only "enlightened" language to which Jews had


41

ready access and (iii) that Yiddish alone was capable of integrating modernity and tradition in such a way that the new would fit harmoniously with the old. These three views received their earliest extensive formulation in Galicia in the first quarter of the 19th century by three bearers of enlightment ( = maskilim), M. Mendl Lefin-Satanover, Tuvye Feder and Yankev Shmuel іk. The clash between these three left echoes which reverberated clearly in the vernacular/cultural programs of Zionism, Bundism and Folkism, more-focused social, cultural and political movements that came into being before the century ended or soon thereafter. Menakhem Mendl Lefin-Satanover (1749-1826)8 Lefin-Satanover was rightly called "the father of the Galician fiaskole" since he encouraged many other Jewish intellectuals ("proto-elites", I have called them elsewhere, 1972d) to cultivate and to spread enlightenment among Eastern European Jews. Although he was an ordained rabbi and an acknowledged Talmudic master, he also studied mathematics and natural sciences, both in German and in French, and visited Berlin often so that he could converse with Mendelssohn (who considered Lefin-Satanover his most important "Polish" pupil) and with maskilim from the east as well as from the west. He was among the very first Galician Jewish intellectuals to express the view that it was not only permissible but incumbent upon Jews to study modern subjects if they were not only to become citizens of their respective countries but defenders and adapters of Jewish society in modern contexts. Indeed, Lefin-Satanover formulated a rather complete program for the intellectual and cultural improvement of Jewry. He submitted this plan - written in impeccable French - to the Polish Sejm. A further indication of Lefin-Satanover's own substantial interaction with non-Jewish society is certainly the fact that it was his friend and patron, Count Adam Czprtoryski (whose wife and children he tutored in various subjects and who had granted him a life-long stipend so that he could devote himself to scholarship and enlightenment) - a member of the Polish royal family - who had asked him to prepare such a plan for the Sejm's Committee on the Jewish Question. Lefin-Satanover's plan (1791/1792) called for the establishment of Polish public schools for Jewish youngsters. After their traditional "coming of age" (as 13 yearolds), Jewish boys were to be required to attend these schools so that

42


they could take courses in mathematics, natural sciences, modern agricultural methods, Polish history and customs as well as "rational Jewish subjects" (Maimonides, e.g.), all to be taught in Polish. The avowed purpose of these schools was to prepare graduates who would become modern communal leaders and leaders in the struggle against khasidism.9 Although Lefin-Satanover's plan did not elicit any great support in the Sejm - Poland itself underwent its second par tition in 1793 and its third in 1795 and the Polish nobility that served in the Sejm was presumably preoccupied with more pressing matters - his plan is adequately indicative of his goal: to combat mysticism, to foster rationalism and to bring Jews into touch with the modern world in general and with its Jewish counterparts in particular. Lefin-Satanover was not overly disturbed by the failure of his sweeping plan to elicit support. He embarked on less ambitious and more piecemeal "educational efforts". He translated into exception ally clear and simple Hebrew the French volume by S.A. Tisson, Avis au peuple sur sa santé (1761), calling it Refues ho-om (Cures of the People).10 He did the same for parts of Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac (Kheshbn banefesh, 1809). In both cases, he attracted a larger than usual readership for secular writings in Hebrew, not only because of interest in the material per se, but because he insisted on simple Hebrew, without flourishes, without biblical metaphors, end less asides, literary allusions, puns or any of the other stilted conven tions that had long dominated Hebrew writing, whether secular or religious. He obviously wanted his books to be read by ordinary folk.11 Nevertheless, no matter how hard Lefin-Satanover tried to write in a "simple, understandable and interesting" way - in order to meet his self-imposed obligation (as a maskil) to spread modern learn ing among the people, he finally realized that there was no way in which this goal could be attained as long as Hebrew was his vehicle of communication. Only through Yiddish, his mother tongue and that of all his readers, could he really reach everyone (men and women, old and young, rich and poor). Finally, he decided to do exactly that - to publish a serious book in Yiddish - regardless of the break with convention that such a step represented.

Lefin-Satanover's Bible: translations into Yiddish The idea to render selected parts of the Old Testament in Yiddish had come to Lefin-Satanover much earlier, during his visits to the famous


43

German-Jewish philosopher and modernizes Moses Mendelssohn, in Berlin, in the late 1770s and early 1780s. Mendelssohn himself had translated the Pentateuch and provided his own commentaries thereto (in 1783), both in High German, "in order that everyone might be able to understand it easily and quickly." Up until then, only Yiddish translations were available. These were entirely unacceptable to Mendelssohn for three reasons: (i) they were in Yiddish, (ii) they were in archaic Yiddish and (iii) they were inaccurate. For Mendelssohn, Yiddish was not only a hideous corruption of German (a view that he adopted from gentile contemporaries such as Goethe [Low 1979] and that he helped spread among Jews and gentiles alike), but an utterly objectionable barrier between German Jews and "other Germans", generally (Mendelssohn 1782). The fact that some of the contemporary Yiddish translations were poorly done (certainly so by Mendelssohn's sophisticated and critical standards) and that they were in an archaic calque variety that was almost as distant from the everyday Yiddish that German Jews spoke as it was from the standard German that Mendelssohn wished them to speak, only made his translation (published in Hebrew characters since the majority of Jews who could understand German could not read the adapted Latin characters [these being termed galkhes, i.e. "tontured script"!), all the more acceptable to those who did not share his reformist philosophy. However, if it was possible to translate the Bible into German so that German Jews could understand it easily and quickly, that was distinctly not a viable solution for the Galician and other Eastern European Jews whom Lefin-Satanover sought to reach. Over the centuries of residence in Slavic environments, their Yiddish had lost many of its earlier German features until it was, by Lefin-Satanover's time, far less mutually intercomprehensible with standard German than was the far more German Yiddish of Mendelssohn's public. Clearly, it was only via Yiddish that Lefin-Satanover could reach his widest public, whether for the purpose of making the Bible understandable to everyone or for the purposes of spreading knowledge, rationality and enlightenment more generally. LefinSatanover was always the rationalist in his approach to Yiddish. He referred to it as a vital instrument if he were to "bring culture and enlightenment to the Jewish population of Poland" (in a letter to his subsequently famous student Yoysef Perl, 1808). As it happened, Lefin-Satanover's translations were clear breaks with long established tradition not so much quantitatively (there had been many and much more extensive translations before his) as quali-

44


tatively and visually. He concentrated on five books of philosophy (Proverbs, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations), since he believed them to be particularly likely to move readers to think for themselves, to reflect and to ponder on their own. However, only one of these five saw the light of day during his lifetime (Proverbs, 1813, published in Tarnapol), and it created such a storm that he abandoned his plans to publish any of the others. What exactly was it that was so revolutionary about them? The revolutionary nature of Lefin-Satanover's translations Lefin's translations departed from the norm of Yiddish-in-print12 in three dramatically striking ways, all of which have to be considered programmatic rather than merely idiosyncratic or accidental. To begin with, his translation was printed in square Hebrew letters (oysiyes mereboes) i.e., in a typeface that had until then almost always been reserved for printing sanctified texts such as a prayer book, the Old Testament or Talmud. Although there had already been some minor precedent for setting aside the centuries-old distinctive type face for Yiddish (vaybertaytsh, it was called, i.e., the typeface used in Yiddish translations or popularizations ostensibly for women 13), the typeface thatLefinchose was definitely a break with a deeply ingrain ed and culturally consensual visual norm. To set aside that norm was to call attention to an implicit new status for Yiddish, an implicit in dependence of Yiddish from subservience to Loshn-koydesh; it was a re jection of the cultural assumption that only Loshn-koydesh could utilize oysiyes mereboes. It was a visual declaration of equality or even of accen tuation. Such a declaration had been made a century or more earlier by another rebel and had ended rather sadly in full capitulation (Stein 1970).14 After Lefin, however, the ice was broken and Yiddishin-print never again returned to its previous "segregated" typeface. However, Lefin's translation of Proverbs caused a storm at the textual level which greatly surpassed (and outlasted) any hackles that it raised at the visual level. Basically, this was due to the fact that Lefin also rejected the centuries-old linguistic-stylistic-substantive tradition with respect to Yiddish translations of hallowed texts. In accord with that tradition, Yiddish-in-print followed conventions established in Germany literally centuries earlier. As a result, it was twice removed from the spoken vernacular of Eastern Europe. All written (printed) language follows a convention of its own and is by no means a faithful


45

reflection of the language as popularly spoken. However, in the Yiddish case, perhaps because its serious written/printed functions were always rather tenuous and restricted, this distance was further magnified by the preservation of an archaic written norm. Further more, in accordance with that norm, the Yiddish employed was not only heavily impacted by German, both lexically and grammatically, but Hebraisms that were completely assimilated into Yiddish were never employed in translation of words of Loshn-koydesh origin. This convention, of course, further accentuated (artificially so) the Germanic nature of the translation and further distanced it from spoken Yiddish. Finally, at a more purely stylistic level, Yiddish trans lations of holy or sanctified writ were more than translations; they were also abbreviated commentaries. Since it was assumed that those who needed the translations were incapable of following the many learned rabbinic commentaries that had been written in Loshnkoydesh about every nuance of the original texts, the Yiddish translations constantly departed from the texts themselves in order to provide snatches of those commentaries. As a result, those Yiddish readers who really could not follow the Loshn-koydesh original at all could, at times, be quite unsure as to what in the translation was text and what was commentary, since the latter was often unidentified as such while being interwoven with the former. In one fell (but very deft, very sophisticated, very delicately orchestrated) literary swoop, Lefin abandoned all three of the above conventions. 15 His translation of Proverbs approximated popularly spoken Yiddish to such an extent that even today, 170 years later, it strikes the reader as somewhat overly "familiar", "informal" or "folksy", much more so, e.g., than does the superb modern Yiddish translation of the complete Old Testament by Yehoyesh (completed some 120 years after Lefin's work). However, not only did Lefin utilize slavisms and contractions galore (indeed, he may have purposely over-used them), all of them implying popular speech and all of them reinforcing the distance that modern Eastern European Yiddish had travelled over centuries from its Germanic origins, but he did not hesitate to translate Loshn-koydesh terms in the originals with their corresponding Loshn-koydesh equivalents in Yiddish as long as the latter were fully indiginized and widely employed. This, too, of course, accentuated the autonomy of Yiddish from its German (and non-Jewish) origins and stressed its distinctly Jewish nature. 16 Finally, Lefin's translation was precisely that and no more. There were no commentaries, no asides to help the reader, no paraphrasing

46


of diverse rabbinic insights over the centuries. There was only the translated text, beautifully, movingly, sensitively rendered. Whoever wanted more than that would have to study further, just as did those who had access to the original. Like any really competent translation, therefore, Lefin's work led the really serious reader back to the original rather than replacing it; it encouraged further independent study rather than implying that the reader could go no further. Although Lefin's motives are still subject to interpretation (some Yiddish scholars still refuse to attribute to him a truly positive attitude towards Yiddish),17 his conscientious approach to the task he had undertaken is beyond doubt. In one of his letters, he put it this way: ".. . to exert myself to approximate it [the Yiddish of his translation] to our language and to distance it from German . . . exactly as it is spoken nowadays among us . .. the language of our eastern Podolye." 18 It seems to me that such conscientiousness, such awareness of Ausbau,19 such sensitivity to the flavor of slavisms and hebraisms, im plies not only stylistic artistry but the furthering of a program of action in which Yiddish would exercise new symbolic functions. In his translations, Lefin was carrying forward his original plan submitted to the tottering Polish Sejm in 1791-92: a plan to fashion Jews into a more modern people, a people fully in touch with its own tradition but yet capable of adapting it, adding to it selectively by controlled contact with surrounding cultures, evaluating it (thinking it through) by means of more massive participation in these processes rather than merely by means of blind reliance on rabbinic authorities, on the one hand, or on foreign models - even highly regarded German models - on the other hand. Indeed, not only would we miss the sig nificance of Lefin were we to interpret his translation as a mere stylis tic achievement today, but we would be unable to explain the contro versy that immediately arose in connection with it then, when it appeared. It was viewed programmatically both by those who reviled it as well as by those who defended it. To do any less today would be tantamount to seeing things less clearly today, with the passage of time, than they were seen by the maskilim of that very day and age.

Tuvye Feder and the attack upon Lefin's translation Not only was Lefin's translation brutally criticized qua translation but its clearly-sensed promotion of Yiddish was rejected precisely on


47

those grounds. The self-proclaimed "leader of the opposition" faction of maskilim was Tuvye Gutman Feder (1760-1817), a wellknown grammarian, Old Testament scholar and, like most maskilim of that time, a dedicated follower of Mendelssohn. Although similar in background to Lefin, in many ways (Feder, too, was a Galitsianer, i.e., born and educated in Galitsiye, and was widely read in Western languages, particularly German), Feder was far less fortunate with respect to earning the wherewithal to feed, clothe and house his family and himself. Disinclined, as were also most maskilim, to earn his livelihood by means of serving as a rabbi of a particular community, and unable to receive support, as did Lefin, from any major benefactor so that he might be able to spend his life in quiet and productive scholarship, Feder and his family were constantly on the move in search of funds. Not only did he frequently have to stoop to such time-consuming but traditionally low-paying pursuits as scribe, reader (of the weekly lection), cantor and preacher, but he was forced, on occasion, to write flattering doggerel about wealthy Jewish as well as non-Jewish "personages" in the hope of some monetary reward. Accordingly, he acclaimed Czar Alexander I for his victory over Napoleon in a lengthy poem, Hatslokhes aleksander (The Triumph of Alexander), and was constantly on the look out for an opportunity to come to greater attention in some potentially rewarding connection. Although Lefin's translation of Proverbs provided him with a seemingly perfect chance to do just that, it also enabled him to express views that both he and other maskilim believed deeply and had subscribed to previously, albeit in lessfocused fashion. Indeed, Lefin's translation seems to have struck Feder as virtually a personal affront. Not only was he irked by its apparent advocacy of "common/vulgar Yiddish", but he was exasperated that a fellow maskil could so falsely interpret and so foully mishandle the mission of the haskole and the goals of its great leader, Moses Mendelssohn. In order to publicize his defense of the true haskole, as he interpreted it, Feder authored a lengthy and bitter attack on Lefin and on his work. Since he lacked the funds necessary to publish his work, he circulated it in manuscript form among other maskilim, in order both to publicize it as well as to raise the funds that would enable him to have it printed. The literary form of his attack, entitled Kol mekhatsetsim: sikhe beoylem haneshomes {Voice of the Archers: A Discussion in the World of the Spirits), was that of a heavenly trial in which maskilim of various earlier periods gathered to indict Lefin.

48

YIDDISH: T U R N I N G TO LIFE

T h e y charged - in Feder's characteristically i n t e m p e r a t e prose that Lefin's translation was full of filth a n d that it literally stank to high heaven. Whoever sees it runs away. It should be hacked to pieces. It should be burned in fire. Its name should never be recalled. The foul scroll, which the prematurely senile Lefin has penned . . . seeks only to find grace in the eyes of concubines and maidens/old maids and even they flee from it saying: "Are there not enough madmen without him?" T h e maskil Isaac Eichel, who h a d translated Proverbs into H i g h G e r m a n only some few decades before, charged Lefin with c o m m i t t i n g treason against Mendelssohn. " H e spits in the face of refined speakers; only the language of the coarse find grace in his eyes." This "vulgar language" is variously referred to as a mixture of all tongues, a gibberish, a monstrosity. N o w o n d e r t h e n that the heavenly court finally rules that Lefin's work must b e b u r n e d a n d its ashes discarded in a cesspool! Feder's hyperbole both confuses a n d lays bare quite a variety of p u r p o r t e d shortcomings insofar as Lefin's translation is concerned. O n e of the themes that almost all of Lefin's heavenly p r o s e c u t o r s stress is the p u r p o r t e d l y unaesthetic n a t u r e of Yiddish relative to either Loshn-koydesh, o n the o n e h a n d , or H i g h G e r m a n , o n the other. This view went considerably b e y o n d Mendelssohn's own dictum as to the so-called dwarfed a n d disfigured nature of Yiddish (interestingly enough, Mendelssohn himself was a hunchback) a n d referred to Lefin's well-known rejection of the florid phraseology a n d the high flown r h e t o r i c that typified the H e b r e w style of most other maskilim. Lefin h a d ridiculed that very style (known as melitse) as "impenetrable without prior oral explanation by the author." H e h a d consistently sought to avoid the melitse style from his very earliest writings in H e b r e w a n d h a d only e m b a r k e d o n his Yiddish translations when he was clearly convinced that even a simple a n d direct Hebrew was a barrier to comprehension that most Jews could n o t cross. T h u s , Lefin was a twofold enemy, since he was an o p p o n e n t to elegant, sophisticated usage even when he wrote Loshnkoydesh. Feder's stress o n elegance (in Loshn-koydesh if possible, b u t in High G e r m a n at the very least) was n o t merely an aesthetic whim. It reflected the conviction that only those who controlled a n d practiced the florid a n d p l a t i t u d i n o u s melitse style were worthy of intellectual leadership a m o n g Jews. It was n o t only Loshn-koydesh, therefore, that h a d to r e m a i n the symbolic language of Jewish


49

modernization (yes, Feder, too, was a champion of modernization; all of his grammatical and biblical analyses clearly identifying him as breaking with rabbinic scholarship and its traditional legalistic focus), but it had to be that variety of Loshn-koydesh that was furthest from what the ordinary Jew could possibly fathom. Lefin, on the other hand, had not only opted for as much transparency and nonelitism as possible in his Loshn-koydesh but had taken the next step, to ultimate transparency and non-elitism in print, namely, to contemporary spoken Yiddish per se. From Feder's point of view, Lefin and he stood polls apart even were they both to write in Loshnkoydesh; given, however, that Lefin had chosen to bring enlighten ment in Yiddish, "a language of darkness", he was clearly a renegade beyond the pale. In Feder's view, modernization would transform Jewish life without reaching the stage that Lefin has striven for from the outset: the stage in which each Jew had access to basic Jewish and modern sources and was capable of thinking these through himself without recourse to khasidic or other mystic obfuscation. Accordingly, Feder firmly believed that traditional Jewish diglossia required hardly any adjustments at all for the purposes of modernization. Loshn-koydesh would remain in its H position but would be used for both traditional and modern purposes. If its symbolic status as representing, embodying and fostering the highest Jewish intellectual order required any supplementation at all, then obviously this should come only from High German, the unchallenged language of modernization par excellence in all of Eastern and Central Europe. For Feder, Yiddish played no role at all in the symbolic order of Jewry. For Lefin Yiddish at least had an effective mission to perform, a utilitarian service to discharge. If Lefin came to Yiddish without any illusions as to its beauty, its dignity, or its traditional validity as a Jewish medium, nevertheless, as a pragmatist he wanted it to be used effectively, movingly, tellingly, as the major carrier (at least initially) of Jewish modernization.

Yankev Shmuelіk(1772-1831) and the defense of Yiddish Both Lefin and Feder had their followers and the dispute between them quickly engulfed the still rather small world of Eastern European maskilim, even though Feder's manuscript was no more

50


than just that and literally had to be passed around from hand to hand. However, it was quite clear that Lefin was by far the more highly regarded and better connected of the two, if only because of his longer and more distinguished record of intellectual contributions to haskole, the many students whom he had added to the ranks of the maskilim and his many wealthy patrons, Jewish as well as Polish (the latter making him a figure to be respected if not admired). As a result, many arose to defend him more out of rejection of Feder's untempered and irresponsible diatribe than out of any basic agreement with Lefin's program or the implicit role of Yiddish therein. However, his main defender, Yankev Shmuel і,  former student and long-time admirer of Lefin's, not only agreed with what Lefin had done but outdid him, particularly in his advocacy of Yiddish as a symbol of the very best in the Eastern European tradition. іk, too, like most other maskilim of the time and, most particularly, like Lefin, translated a considerable number of works from German, French and even English into Loshn-koydesh. Like Lefin, he was also greatly preoccupied with the need for "productivization" of the small town Jewish poor. Being independently wealthy (even more so than Lefin), he devoted a good bit of his time and money to encouraging Jews to enter agriculture and the artisan trades. He also supported many scholars and writers (as well as "would be" scholars and writers) - including Lefin himself during certain years - thereby enabling them to devote themselves uninterruptedly to their studies and writings and enabling him to become more fully aware of the gaps and contradictions in their thinking. This thorough familiarity ultimately contributed to his unique view among maskilim that haskole lacked involvement, lacked follow-through, indeed that it was "cerebral" to such a degree that it lacked warmth, feeling and "love for Jews as concrete people" as contrasted with "concern for Jews as an abstract problem". This stress on concrete and all-embracing love for Jews led іk ultimately to demand greater toleration and even admiration for khasidism. It was to khasidism that he bade the haskole look if it were ever to learn to do more than educate, criticize or scold Jews. A khasidic rabbi cared for his flock, helped them in time of need, comforted them in time of sorrow. іk saw no need to surrender these admirable traditional virtues in the process of modernization; least of all did he want to displace Jewish Gemeinschaft by a maskilic Gesellschaft (Tonnies 1957 [1887]). In 1815, some two years after Feder's manuscript had initially

A CASE STUDY O F ALTERNATIVES

51

b e c o m e known, Bik's reply, in the form of a lengthy letter, m a d e the same rounds, from h a n d to hand, a m o n g Eastern E u r o p e a n maskilim. Bik's defense of Yiddish constitutes the very h e a r t a n d core of his letter, clearly indicating o n c e again that much, m u c h m o r e t h a n p e r s o n a l animosities a n d stylistic preferences lay at the very f o u n d a t i o n of the d i s a g r e e m e n t between Lefin a n d Feder. I n d e e d , Bik's defense of Yiddish became the classic defense of that language, repeated by all its ideological champions (as distinct from its various pragmatic implementers) ever since. Bik's letter m a d e the following t h r e e major points: 1. Yiddish has been the language of Jewish traditional life for centuries. іk lists the names of the greatest a n d most revered sages of Central a n d Eastern European Jewry during the past many centuries and reminds F e d e r (and all o p p o n e n t s of Yiddish) that they all spoke Yiddish, taught their students in Yiddish a n d discussed a n d d e f e n d e d their Talmudic interpretations with other scholars in Yiddish. This being the case, іk argues, it is i n c u m b e n t u p o n F e d e r (and others) to respect this vernacular a n d even to h o n o r it. 20 F u r t h e r m o r e , іk adds, o t h e r O l d T e s t a m e n t translations in Yiddish have existed in appreciable n u m b e r s before, going back to the Mirkeves hamishne of 1534 a n d the ever p o p u l a r , revised a n d r e p r i n t e d P e n t a t e u c h for women, Tsene-urene (1628). These were all rightly admired and highly valued for s p r e a d i n g familiarity with the O l d T e s t a m e n t a m o n g ordinary, less e d u c a t e d m e n a n d w o m e n . T h e r e is n o reason, іk concludes, for Lefin's translation to be viewed any differently. Here, of course, іk sidesteps the issue of modernization a n d the possible role of Yiddish as symbolic of Jewish mastery of m o d e r n subjects, m o d e r n roles a n d m o d e r n responsibilities. M o d e r n challenges a n d m o d e r n solutions are questionable verities. іk, therefore, related Yiddish to the u n q u e s t i o n e d great n a m e s a n d books of the past. In this way, he assures its positive historicity against Feder's charges of c o r r u p t i o n a n d bastardization. 2. Other modernizing nationalities do not hesitate to utilize their vernaculars to improve the lot of the everyday man. By a r g u i n g via analogy with the peoples of Central a n d W e s t e r n E u r o p e - a n d thereby avoiding c o m p a r i s o n s with m a n y Eastern E u r o p e a n nationalities whose vernaculars were still generally u n r e c o g n i z e d for serious purposes, symbolic or pragmatic - іk turns the tables on Feder. T o deny Jews the use of Yiddish in the course of their m o d e r n i z a t i o n is to deny them a major avenue to knowledge which all m o d e r n nationalities of E u r o p e were clearly delighted to have. Via their vernaculars even

52


peasants have become literate and able to read and understand by themselves. Is this not something that Jews too should be encouraged to do, іk asks rhetorically. Therefore, іk concludes, instead of being exposed to criticism and ridicule, Lefin should really be congratulated and encouraged because works such as his (and more are needed!) spread knowledge and ethnic pride among the people at large. By discussing Lefin in a comparative framework vis-à-vis the great vernacular educators of the gentiles, іk utilizes a favourite debating tactic and intellectual stance of the haskole ("Oh, if we could only learn a lesson from the successful experience of the already modernized nationalities") against Feder and for Lefin and Yiddish. 3. Yiddish is no more linguistically inadequate than other vernaculars were at a comparable stage of modernization involvement Here іk specifically refers to other "mixed languages" (primarily to English) and other languages previously used primarily by "uneducated classes" (primarily German) and indicates that both of these languages succeeded fully in becoming "cultivated languages". Cultivated languages need not be made in heaven, іk says. Such languages are the by-products of generations of assiduous effort on the part of sages and writers who use them in order to communicate with each other and with the masses about new and important topics. As a result of such use by intellectuals, these languages, no matter how rough they may initially have been, become elegant, sensitive and refined instruments. The same can certainly occur to Yiddish. It is clear from the immediately above that іk envisioned what we now call language planning, both in its corpus planning and in its status planning aspects (Rubin and jernudd 1971, Fishman 1974a, Rubin et al. 1977). He recognized that all languages are initally rather ill-suited for societal functions that they have not hitherto discharged. He also recognizes that intellectuals change and adapt languages by putting them to new functions. With respect to Yiddish, he points to an area of responsibility that maskilim should assume rather than shirk. Bik's three point agenda vis-à-vis Yiddish - traditional cosanctity, modern utility, intellectual responsibility - clearly indicates that he surpassed his teacher Lefin in this respect. Lefin, unsurpassed stylist that he was and linguistic innovator that he was, rarely goes beyond pragmatic claims and practical plans in his view of Yiddish. іk raises Yiddish to the level of a symbolic verity: it is symbolic of the Jewish traditional past and present and, given responsible intellectual devotion, it can become symbolic of the modern Jewish future as well.


53

Dénouement: Personal and linguistic None of our heroes (or antiheroes) came to a particularly "happy ending". Feder, always in dire need of funds, permitted himself to be "bought off' by the money that іk and other friends of Lefin offered. Ostensibly this money was to make up for the deposit that Feder had already given to the printer in Berditshev for publishing Kol makhatsetsim. However, it seems doubtful that Feder had ever paid any printer anything, and the fact that he also never published his letter replying to іk (see Verses 1983 for the text of this letter, hitherto lost and recently discovered) and further attacking Lefin would seem to substantiate the interpretation that his personal need for money had a higher priority than his need to publicize his views. He died in 1820, barely five years later, a bitter and defeated man. Thirty-three years later, when Feder, Lefin andіkhad all long since gone on to their eternal rewards, Kol mekhatsetsim was finally published, more as a curiosity than for any intrinsic interest in it. Lefin fared somewhat better, but he never recovered from the anguish and embarrassment that he experienced due to Feder's attack. He never published any of his other Old Testament translations, although in 1873, almost 50 years after Lefin's death in 1825, his translation of Ecclesiastes was published. 21 Fragments of his translations of Psalms and Job, as well as the complete translation of his Lamentations, can be found in an archive in Jerusalem. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that Yiddish achieved either the full practical recognition that Lefin advocated or the full symbolic recognition that іk had recommended. 22 By then, modern secular Yiddish literature had begun to flower. On the other hand, Hebraism and Zionism had become well established as, in part, profound anti-Yiddish movements. While it cannot be said with any certainty that they were directly influenced by Fedeťs thinking, their rejection of Yiddish and enthronement of Hebrew often utilized many of his arguments. Indeed, echoes of the great debate of 1813-1815 linger on to this very day. Ultimately, external forces (Nazism, Communism and democratic assimilation) became the greatest enemies of Yiddish. However, internally, within the Jewish fold, the symbolic value of Yiddish often continues to be argued pro and con. It has remained an internally conflicted language and those who value it most are once again (since post-holocaust days) engaged primarily in an internal argument with others with whom they share a common ethnocultural identity. The parties to this argument share

54


a common ethno-religious identity and yet differ as to the language(s) which symbolize(s) that identity for them. Conclusions a. Substantive The dissolution of a diglossia situation that has endured for centuries under the impact of modern massification processes has most usually involved the elevation of L. The variety hitherto employed primarily for everyday verbal rounds, informality and intimacy is functionally elevated and symbolically promoted to more dignified and status-related pursuits and identities. So it was with the demotion of Latin and the promotion of the vernaculars in the long process of Western European modernization. In this process, vernaculars triumphed as a result of changed power relationships, not only on a social class basis ("the masses and bourgeosie" vs. the "traditional elites" involving church, throne and gentry) but also on a regional/ethnocultural basis. Had Cataluna, Friesland, Wales and Provence been the integrative centers for consolidating and modernizing Spain, The Netherlands, Great Britain and France, Catalan, Frisian, Welsh and Occitan might have become the vernaculars symbolic ("naturally so") of those new econotechnical and ethnocultural national (as distinct from regional or subnational) constellations. However, the fact that vernaculars have so generally triumphed - both functionally and symbolically - upon the dissolution of diglossia, does not mean that it was or is inevitably so. Indeed, generally speaking, provernacular ideologies were rather late in establishing themselves. The process of doing so was doubly, perhaps even excruciatingly, difficult where the H and its sanctified traditions were fully indigenized and where econotechnical consolidation and modernization were long delayed. In Greece, in Ashkenazi Jewry, in Italy, in Russia - and later in the Islamic sphere - serious efforts were undertaken to combine modernization with vernacularization of the H. Only in Russia were these efforts discontinued in a decisive way at a sufficiently early point so that modernization and the state apparatus became substantially identified with the vernacular in early modern times. In the other


55

locales, vernaculars have either triumphed in much delayed or vacillating fashion (Greece, Italy), or they have never fully triumphed at all (Ashkenazi Jewry and the Arabo-Islamic sphere). Indeed, by the time controlled and attenuated modernization was attained in most of the latter instances, the adherents of the traditionally symbolic Hs were frequently able to adapt them sufficiently for new functions so that it was the sanctified Hs rather than the plebeian Ls that became symbolic of both modern identity and continuity with the past. The case under discussion reveals the typically labile nature of the language and ethnicity identity link in early modern circumstances. Each of our three "heroes" possessed the same mother tongue and yet had markedly different views as to its symbolic significance for the purposes of modernization and its attendant social identity formation. Similarly, each of our three "heroes" was fully and identically "identified" ethnoculturally. Furthermore, each was a modernizer, in his own eyes, in the eyes of colleagues, in the eyes of their everyday coethnics and in the eyes of co-territorial non-Jews. Indeed, in many ways, they were highly similar and, nevertheless, their views of their shared traditional H, of their shared folk vernacular, of their shared co-territorial vernacular and of their shared language of wider communication differed widely. Thus, although it may well be inevitable for language in general to become symbolic of modern ethnocultural identity — after all, what better symbol system than language do we possess to convey and foster such identity? - it is far from inevitable that any particular language (or variety) will become symbolic for any particular ethnocultural identity. Ethnocultural identities are composites of continuity and fortuitous historical fortune. Germanic populations have been romanized, Celtic populations have been de-Celticized, Amerindian populations have been hispanicized and the resulting ethnocultural identities have, in time, "felt good", natural and authentic. Similarly, any one of the three options represented by our heroes could have triumphed and have fostered its own authentic identity. They each represented a fine-tuning of ethnocultural identity (a modernization thereof) in a context in which basic ethnocultural identity has long been established and was by no means in doubt. However, even finetunings can be difficult and disputatious and can lead in different language and identity directions. The fact that one or another triumphs only means that the others are less fortunate. The winner was not necessarily more authentic ab initio. The loser was not necess-

56


arily less so. Any stable language and ethnocultural identity link ultimately comes to seem natural, "worked out". Another, quite unlike it, would also have ultimately felt just as natural and just as authentic, had it emerged victorious. The cases of extremely delayed (or nonexistent) vernacular symbolic promotion - delayed in all instances well beyond entry into significant modern identity and often beyond politically independent econotechnical control may well have certain features in common. One of these would seem to be unsubordinated indigenous classicals (and their accompanying elites) with overriding religious significance. Where religion has not only NOT been separated from the rest of culture, but, indeed, still serves to integrate the whole, to provide it with its elites/caretakers and to provide one and all with the major status rewards that society proffers, external H languages often come to be initial channels of secular modernization. In the ensuing struggles between the indigenous classicals and the external Hs (each with their respective elites) the vernaculars become "poor thirds", particularly when the classicals themselves undergo modernization for econotechnical purposes. Under such circumstances (e.g., in the Arabic world, in Greece, in China, in Somalia), the vernaculars cannot even claim sole pride of indigenousness, which they could do if the external Hs were to appear to emerge victorious. In each of these cases ethnic identity may not be at all in doubt (or in dispute) but its accompanying written vernacular may be long (or permanently) submerged. While the case of Yiddish vs Hebrew (Loshn-koydesh, later: Ivrit) vs German/Polish (later: other co-territorial vernaculars) also definitely has its own particularistic characteristics, it would seem to share (and to suggest) many general sociolinguistic circumstances of far broader interest, particularly the difficulty of displacing an entrenched indigenous elite that ultimately adapts its classical for moderniz ation purposes. Another substantive point that this study raises pertains to modernization per se as both a problem for and an aspect of contemporary ethnocultural identity. Such identity comes about not only as a clarification or consolidation vis-à-vis external alternatives but, importantly, also as a clarification and consolidation vis-à-vis various internal alternatives (alternatives within the same ethnocultural constellation) as well. Both types of alternatives are frequently differentiated in terms of the degree or content of their modernization, i.e., of their combination of authenticity (unmarked


57

"own" aspects) and modernization (initially "foreign" aspects), a combination which is quintessential for all nationalist movements. For some insiders and during some periods of time such a combination is viewed as impossible, as incommensurable, as tantamount to being both Protestant and Catholic simultaneously. However, not only is even the latter possible (as some recent research on language and ethnic identity among adolescents in Northern Ireland reveals), but syncretism is a far greater principle of nonideological daily life than either intellectuals or elites care to recognize. Ultimately, the issue becomes not whether but what or how much of the outside to admit into the inside, how much of the new (and once-foreign) to indigenize, to synthesize, to incorporate into the preexisting and phenomenologically "authentic" tradition. Modern ethnic identity includes many hitherto foreign/modern ingredients that may once have appeared disjointed and contentious but that have now been digested and authenticized nevertheless. The "purification" movements that arise before this process is completed should remind us that the outcome is neither easy nor preordained with respect to any particular modern import. The foregoing point would seem to flow into the next (and last): "objectively small differences" may yet have subjectively huge consequences and, indeed, be experienced by insiders as objectively huge. Fully shared highest order preferences do not foreclose significantly different lower order preferences. Indeed, once highest order preferences are shared (as they were among the three protagonists on whom this paper is focused) there would seem to be no other outlet for human creativity (or is it combativity) than in connection with lower order preferences and, accordingly, the latter too easily become rallying cries for ethnocultural/philosophical value-differences pertaining to "the future of the people", the ideal society and, therefore, the ideal identity as well. No matter how in consequentially small the differences may seem to be to "objective outsiders", there is always (in language or in culture more generally) further differentiation between social networks (not to mention individual differences), both between and within higher order groups, and, therefore, further opportunity to ideologize, to mobilize and to exacerbate on the basis of such differentiation. "Objective similarity" is obviously of more minor significance than the subjective interpretation of social differentiation and of the power possibilities or rivalries with which such differentiation is readily associated. Once differentations become ideologized, and

58


have their own elites to interpret, defend and cultivate them, they can continue virtually interminably (or until one party or another emerges as the definite victor in very physical and material terms). At the earliest stages, when few "members" are as yet conscious of the differences and of the interpretations later given to them, a large number of final solutions may be possible and are certainly available. However, such flexibility is counteracted by the very elites that exploit the differences that always exist, lower order differences though they may (seem to) be. After the internal struggle is over and it may last for generations if not for centuries - the authenticity for which men, women and children live and die is at hand (at least temporarily). "Authenticity" is the winning alternative; what was once one among many alternative differentiation-constellations is finally popularly understood (and elitistically defined) as "the only way" (i.e., as no alternative at all), as God given, as authentic, as really and truly the only possible ethnocultural identity for the group in question. b. Methodological I do not really mean to separate substance from method but do so here so that the latter can more easily be given the attention that is its due. The study of language and culture relationships is, in large part, a struggle against parochialism and ethnocentrism masquerading as universalism. However, as a topic area long productively dominated by anthropologists, there is some danger that fieldwork and ethnography by Westerners working in non-Western settings may, consciously or unconsciously, take on the aura of a universal supermethod. Perhaps one of the contributions of this paper may be that it calls into question such methodological parochialism and ethnocentrisms. If so, it attempts to do so in several respects. It stresses the study of historical cases, utilizing standard historical primary data (manuscripts, letters, diaries of a bygone age), neither accessible to ethnographic study nor to survey research nor experimentation. While it is no longer generally necessary to do, it may bear repeating in an area where little research has heretofore used this method, that "actors" or "members" who can no longer be observed can still be cautiously studied - and hypotheses concerning them advanced and tested - on the basis of extant historical materials. Like every other method of social research, this one


59

has its very definite limitations (the individual researcher's interpretation of fortuitously preserved - and therefore incomplete - records), but again like every other method, it has produced a small number of clearly first-rate works. We would certainly all be poorer without the historical studies of Weber, Freud and Erikson, among many others. Methodological imperialism is not only ethnocentric (and, therefore unbecoming for the study of language and culture) but it would make us all poorer in the process. This paper also raises (or at least heightens) the issue of whether the researcher (the observer) must always be of a different ethnoreligious identity than that which pertains to the subject population (the observed). Much social research following a variety of methodological preferences (rather than historical research alone) calls this shibboleth into question and even the study of language and culture, in its most recent urban and applied ramifications, has also begun to do so. There are, of course, great risks when observer and observed share ethnoreligious or any other important aspects of identity: lack of detachment, lack of perspective, lack of broadly contrastive framework. We are certainly well aware of the fact that ethnic movements (as well as social class movements, religious movements, political movements and intellectual movements) can lead (and have led) to seriously biased and purposively invidious research. While such caricatures and miscarriages of social research must clearly be unmasked, disowned and discredited, the risks that they pose must not blind us to the assets of much research that is conducted by observers who share many central aspects of social identity with their subjects. Such shared identity may carry with it huge amounts of detailed knowledge that can never be equalled or acquired by outsiders. If such knowledge can be objectified and if the research utilizing it is accompanied by high levels of motivation as well, then the resulting combination may be extremely worthwhile in highly generalizable respects. While it may be true that only Freud was able to psychoanalyze himself, countless extremely worthwhile historical, sociological, literary and psychological studies have been done by researchers who have grown up and been trained in the very contexts that they have then undertaken to study. Finally, although this methodological point shows the indivisibility between "methodology" and "substance" even more than do the others, this paper seeks to remind us that elites (spokesmen, leaders, intellectuals) and proto elites are worthy of study. It seems to me that this is particularly so in connection with

60


research on modern ethnic identity. Modern society is characterized by the massification of participation in industrial, educational, political and military operations. This massification is orchestrated and rationalized by elites who not only act as conduits of innovation but as the planners, managers and polarizers of sociocultural identity for the masses. In modern society, even more than in earlier periods of social development, elites are the major actors in the ongoing drama of sociocultural change and of identity consolidation and change. Elites speak to/write to the masses and reach them via modern identity-forming media, often on a fairly continual basis. Thus, rather than study only the nameless, most impersonal actors and most pervasive institutions that are involved in the identity formation and reformation process, we must also study elites per se if we are to understand why and how modern sociocultural identity takes a certain turn or polarizes on a certain issue. It is idle, I think, to pursue the question of which is more important, the mass or the leaders, the nameless or the named, the widespread ways and values or the goals, purposes, consciousness and conflictedness of elites. The two are in constant interaction, all the more so in modern society, and both must be studied if a complete picture of modern sociocultural identity, including ethnic identity, is to appear. To fail to do so because the study of elites lies outside the purview of a certain disciplinary or methodological camp is to become a captive rather than a master of disciplines and methods alike, thereby delaying rather than advancing the shedding of light on ethnic identity processes in the modern world.

Notes 1.

Provense (three syllables) is an area similar to but not identical with Provence. Provense, like all Jewish culture areas, is defined by the boundaries of its distinctive regional adaptation of Jewish rites and traditions. Similar references to Jewish languages of Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, etc., are merely convenient shorthand expressions for Jewish culture areas that predate any of the foregoing political designations. In each case, a Jewish vernacular was coterminous with a particular rite and set of customs, as validated by its local/regional rabbinic authorities. Although the latter also strove to function within the fold of supra-regional Jewish conventions, local/regional rites and customs were, nevertheless, always considered ultimately binding whenever the two (the local/regional and the supraregional) were in disagreement. For a review of all circum-Mediterranean


61

Jewish vernaculars (since the decline of vernacular Hebrew) in the framework of their own rites and customs, see Weinreich 1980 [1973]. 2.

Talmud - A vast compilation of what was originally the unwritten Oral Law, the Talmud is the accepted final arbiter and legal code for Orthodox Jews. Its two divisions are the Mishne or text of the Oral Law (in Hebrew) and the Gemore (in Aramic), which supplements and comments upon it. Separate compilations were produced in Palestine (5th century C.E.) and in Babylonia (6th century C.E.), with the latter coming to be authoritative in view of its greater length and completeness.

3.

RR:LK/jvc + RW:LK + RS:jvh SR:jv, + SW:LK/jv9, + DS:jv3 (RR = religious reading (study) and prayer LK = Loshn-koydesh (Biblical/Talmudic/Medieval Hebrew/Aramaic) jvc = Jewish vernacular caique for word-by-word translation of RR in such a fashion as to remain as close as possible to the grammar of the LK original RW = religious writing (e.g., rabbinic responsa) RS = religious spoken interaction (e.g., Talmudic discourse pertaining to LK texts) jvh = Jewish vernacular "high", i.e., as spoken in learned discourse SR = secular reading (entertainment or practical reading) JV1 = written Jewish vernacular in secular literature SW = secular writing jv2 = written Jewish vernacular in letters, diaries DS = daily speech jv 3 = the variety of minimally sanctified verbal interaction) Note the meagre presence ofJewish vernaculars in Η-related functions and the meager presence of Loshn-koydesh in L-related functions.

4.

The most noteworthy earlier failure along these lines was that of Arn b'r Shmuel of Hergershausen, approximately a century earlier than the point at which our first "hero's" temerity became widely known in "enlightened circles". Arn b'r Shmuel composed and had a unique prayerbook (Liblekhe tfile 1709) printed, which consisted both of his Yiddish translations of parts of the traditional prayerbook and certain chapters of Psalms, as well as of Yiddish prayers of supplications that he himself had composed for specific recurring occasions (e.g., "a beautiful prayer to ask that man and wife live together affectionately"). Although his intentions were to enable simple folk to understand more fully and feel their prayers (rather than to only semiunderstand and semifeel them as was - he believed - necessarily the case when they were in Loshn-koydesh), his "heretical prayerbook" was banned by local rabbinic authorities. "Several generations later, in 1830, in the attic in the house of study of Arn b'r Shmuel's native town, hundreds of copies of this confiscated book were found" (Tsinberg 1943 [1975], v.6, 256-259 [v. 7, 225-227]). See footnote 12 below. Note: the Ashkenazi (Yiddish) pronunciation of Loshn-koydesh terms and titles is the basis of the transliteration employed in this paper.

62


5.

Aramic (technically Judeo-Aramaic, since various varieties of Aramaic were employed throughout the Near East and, subsequently, further east up to and including Tibet) was not always accepted as on a par with Hebrew, notwithstanding the fact that major portions of the books of Daniel and Ezra are written in this language. It is clear that the majority of all Jews spoke Aramic from the earliest days of the Second Temple and that countless sanctified traditional writings and prayers were composed in this language or in a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew. Nevertheless, the Talmud Yerushalmi reveals (Sotah 49) that many sages were opposed to Aramaic and demanded that Hebrew be spoken, whereas others defended its use (Sotah 7). However, ultimately the genetic similarity between the two languages, the fact that Aramie persisted as a Jewish vernacular for some 1400 years (from the 5th century B.C.E. to the 9th century C.E.), and the final fact that so much of rabbinic authority continued to be recorded in that language (even down to modern times) won out and the two together (Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic) were dubbed Loshn-koydesh, the holy tongue, and became fused in popular thought, even as they were in function and in structure.

6.

Today a region in southeastern Poland and in the northwestern Ukraine, Galicia was part of Poland during the latter Middle Ages. During the first partition of Poland (1772), most of it was transferred to Hapsburg rule and on subsequent partitions the area under Hapsburg (Austro-Hungarian) rule was extended. (Between the two World Wars, it was again primarily under Polish rule but since the end of the Second World War, it is once more divided between Poland and the Ukrainian S.S.R.). Because of its exposure to more Western, modern and liberal Austro-Hungarian policies, Galicia became a gateway for the diffusion of modern studies and ideologies into Jewish Eastern Europe. Thus, "the Galician enlightenment" is considered the dawn of modern Western ideologies among Eastern European Jews and, more generally, galitsianer came to be viewed as a culture type (sophisticated, wily, capable of flattering and hoodwinking more traditional folk in order to get their way) by Eastern European Jews from other regions. For abundant further details see Magocsi 1983.

7.

In accord with traditional usage, the name should properly be transliterated Levin. However, Lefin himself wrote it with the equivalent of an/in Hebrew letters, probably because he associated the Hebrew/Yiddish grapheme for v with its German equivalent. Since the German ν was pronounced as an/, he therefore wrote his name with a fey in Hebrew and Yiddish. In more recent articles, the tendency to refer to him as Levin seems to be gaining the upper hand. 1 have retained Lefin's own usage here in order to indicate how farreaching was the influence of German-sponsored modernization.

8.

My account of Lefin, Feder and іk depends heavily on the major Yiddish, English and Hebrew sources, e.g., Tsinberg 1943 [1975], Levine 1974, and Shmeruk 1963, 1971. I have also used Vaynlez 1931, Cooper 1978, Versus 1938, Haberman 1932 and various other sources secondarily, e.g., the English materials in the 10-volume Encyclopedia Judaica (1970).

9.

Khasidism (also transliterated Hasidism or Hasidism): movement founded in Poland in the 18th century in reaction to the academic formalism of rabbinic


63

Judaism. By stressing the mercy of God, encouraging joyous religious expression through song and dance and deemphasizing the centrality of traditional study, it spread rapidly among the poor and uneducated. Although pronounced a heresy in 1781, it became and remains a notable force in Orthodoxy. 10.

Lefin's translation (Refues ho'om 1794) was actually the second translation of Tissoťs volume for Jewish readers. It had already been translated/paraphrased into Yiddish by Moyshe Markuze, a contemporary of Lefin, in 1790. Although Markuze's rendition (Oyzer yisroel) may be considered the first book to approximate spoken Eastern Yiddish, it was, nevertheless, heavily colored by stylistic remnants and influences derived from German and from Western Yiddish, on the one hand, and by anti-khasidic asides and implications, on the other hand. In many respects, Lefin's translation was an improvement over Markuze's: it was cetainly closer to the original and contained no interpolations or editorializing by the translator. On the other hand, it was in Loshn-koydesh, rather than in Yiddish, so that popular as it became, it could not penetrate deeply into the lay public. Later, Lefin combined the advantages of both translations when he too switched to Yiddish but remained true to the originals that he translated without inserting into them opinions of his own.

11.

Women generally received no formal Hebrew education and could not be expected to understand even a simple Hebrew text on their own. Boys were taught (in schools under communal auspices) to recite prayers and ritual benedictions in Hebrew and, if their parents could afford to keep them in school beyond that point (ages 5-6), also to read the (Hebrew) Pentateuch and translate it into Yiddish and, ultimately, to study the Judeo-Aramaic Talmud and its classical commentaries and to argue their fine points in Yiddish. None of these texts, however, prepared them to read secular material on relatively modern matters, and, in addition, the latter type of reading matter was often prohibited or at least discouraged by rabbinic authorities.

12.

So widespread is the popular assumption that Yiddish was traditionally utilized only for oral functions (oral translation or text, oral argumentation of text and face-to-face intimacy or daily routine) that a minor aside here concerning the ancient lineage of Yiddish-in-print may be in order. Yiddishin-print traces back to early 16th century northern Italy, that is, to very close to the invention of movable type (circa 1437) and possibly, therefore, to before the convention of Loshn-koydesh-in-print. Prior to the appearance of Yiddish-in-print, utilization of Yiddish-in-manuscript was well established with extant manuscripts now being traceable back to the 13th century (Weinreich 1980). By and large, Yiddish-in-print consisted either of secular writings (poems, stories, novels) of an entertainment nature, on the one hand, or of translations (often word by word) of prayerbook and Old Testament text on the other hand, through to the 19th century, at which point a much more diversified repertoire of secular Yiddish-in-print comes into being, including an extensive practical, educational and ideological literature. By the late 19th century, scientific scholarship publication in Yiddish also becomes common.

13.

I write "obstensibly for women" in order to indicate that many of the Yiddish

64

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE publications in vaybertaytsh were not only also read by men but that some of them were primarily intended for men. The fly-leaf rationale "written in simple Yiddish so as to be understandable to women and girls" was often no more than camouflage in order to avoid the wrath of rabbinic authorities who zealously protected (and directly benefited from) the diglossic tradition in accord with which Yiddish was not used in other than an auxiliary (translating, popularizing) function insofar as serious publications, particularly those related to the sanctified topics or pursuits for which rabbinic ordination was considered necessary, were concerned.

14.

Arn b'r Shmuel of Hergershausen's Liblekhe tfile (1709) had also been set in oysiyes mereboes, a fact which might well have contributed to its being banned and confiscated by the rabbinic authorities of the time. See note 4, above.

15.

For a close comparison of Lefin's translation with those published before him and with those then in vogue, as well as with the modern translation by Yehoyesh (1941), see Shmeruk 1964 (Yiddish) and 1981 (Hebrew).

16.

For a thorough-going review of the various literary "dialects" of 19th-century Yiddish, from those most distant from the spoken language of Eastern Europe to those most faithful to spoken speech, see Roskies 1974. For a modern restatement and implementation of the view that Yiddish should be consciously de-Germanized and moved "away from German", see Weinreich 1938 [1975].

17.

Shmeruk, in particular, is dubious as to Lefin's motives and tends to attribute the latter's style to literary virtuosity rather than to ideological or programmatic goals. Others (e.g., Mark 1956) interpret Lefin in more consciously pro-Yiddish terms. Shmeruk is undoubtedly correct in reminding us of several anti-Yiddish comments in Lefin's earlier writings. Lefin may well have gone through several phases in his attitude towards Yiddish, but it seems clear to me that while working on his translations, his views were overwhelmingly positive, particularly for a maskil of his day and age. Other maskilim, too, had to swallow their initial pride and to use Yiddish to get their ideas across to the average Jew, but Lefin was one of the first to do so and to display unusual satisfaction and warmth (rather than just virtuosity) in the process. For continued maskilic reluctance in this connection down to the end of the century, see Miron 1973.

18.

Lefin's reference to "our eastern Podolye" is interesting both linguistically and geographically. His choice of words here, "mizrekh podolye shelonu", is made up of two hebraisms and one slavism. Although the first hebraism (mizrekh = east) and the slavism (podolye = Podolia, a somewhat more easterly Galician region largely under Czarist rule after 1793) are unsubstitutable in Yiddish today, the last hebraism (shelonu = our) is not normally employed. Its use, instead of the more normal undzer (of Germanic stock) gives the entire phrase a very striking and decidedly non-Germanic flavor. The region referred to in this fashion can be interpreted either as the area in which Lefin himself resided, at the eastern-most point of the AustroHungarian/Polish border, where both states met with the lands occupied in 1793 by Czarist Russia, or as referring to the region farther east in Czarist


65

Russia per se, where the impact of German on Yiddish was even less than in Galicia. 19.

Ausbau, literally "building out" or "building away", applies to the process of consciously distancing a weaker language from another that is functionally stronger, competitive with the weaker and genetically close to it. Via Ausbau, the weaker is rendered progressively more dissimilar from the stronger so that it cannot readily be viewed as a dialect of the latter but will appear fully independent of it. Ausbau is contrasted with Abstand, wherein two languages are naturally so dissimilar that neither can be taken as a dialect of the other (Kloss 1967). While the interdialectal diversity of Yiddish (no greater than that of Dutch or Swedish, e.g.) added some urgency to the codification of its modern written standard (as was also the case for Dutch, Swedish, etc.) its genetic similarity to German remained an "issue" - both among adherents and opponents - even after this standardization had been achieved.

20. іk is the first in what subsequently became quite a long list of very prestigious Orthodox spokesmen to praise Yiddish and to point out its merits as a vehicle and shield, or defender, of tradition. For such statements by the Khsam Soyfer of Pressburg (17621839), see Weinreich 1980, p. 283. For such statements by Nosn Birnboym in the 30s of this century and by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in very recent days, see Fishman 1981a, vii-viii and 160. 21.

Lefin spent the rest of his life working on a new translation/edition of the Guide for the Perplexed, originally written in Judeo-Arabic by Maimonides (1135-1204), the greatest Jewish philosopher of all times, and never again entered the arena of public debate or of pro-Yiddish activism. The fact that he spent his last decade entirely engrossed in a volume seeking to synthesize religion and rational philosophy certainly implies some loss of certainty that enlightenment programs of action alone could solve "the Jewish problem". Lefin's champion, іk, died at the age of 59 in a cholera epidemic in Brod, having become infected while tending to the needs of the sick and hungry. He, at least, remained an involved activist to the end, giving his life in daily exertion for his fellows rather than in labor over one manuscript or another. In 1833, two years after Bik's demise (he was the last of the three to die, although he was also the youngest at the time of his death), his letter to Feder, and Feder's hitherto-unpublished reply were finally published in the maskilic journal Keren hemed. The only importance that can be ascribed to this otherwise esoteric posthumous publication is that it made Bik's strong and clear views available to pro-Yiddish maskilim of the latter part of the century. The major figure among them, Y.M. Lifshits, quoted it in its entirety in 1863 in connection with his effort to convince maskilim in the Czarist Empire that Yiddish was the only language via which they could reach, educate and dignify the mass of Russian-Polish Jewry.

22.

Modern symbolic and practical dignification came with the adoption of a proYiddish (and pro-Jewish secular cultural) resolution by the Jewish Workers Bund of Russia, Poland and Lithuania and with the First World Conference for the Yiddish Language in Tshernovits, both in the first decade of the 20th century. The former is analyzed in Hertz 1969 and the latter in a paper of mine (1980b). Assigning any symbolic priority to Yiddish, but particularly the

66

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE extreme view that Yiddish alone was of modern ethnocultural significance, came to be termed Yiddishism. While Yiddishism never became a mass movement in and of itself, it heavily influenced all left-wing Jewish ideologies (including left-wing Labor Zionism, not to mention Jewish anarchism, socialism and communism). These sought a complete change of authority systems within the Jewish fold. Yiddishism influenced modern Jewish secularism as a whole, reconceptualizing Jews as a modern "nationality" rather than a "religion" (Gutman 1976). For a Yiddish-secular rejection of the purely linguistic stress of extreme Yiddishism, see Lerer 1940. For a review of the architects of Yiddishism (not all of whom were Yiddishists in the extreme sense of the word), see Goldsmith 1976.

Language interests in Israel today Shprakhikeyt in hayntikn Yisroyel Hebrew in Israel faces no substantial functional competition from Yiddish but is exposed to daily pressure from English, both in terms of linguistic interference and in terms of higher status and power relationships. English also has a considerable number of governmental and academic functions and has become the primary means of communication with diaspora Jewry. The constant and growing use of Yiddish in Ultra-Orthodox circles is generally being overlooked by secular Yiddishists, preoccupied as the latter are with ephemeral conferences, publications and literary events. Judezmo and Mugrabi are the next two most spoken Jewish vernaculars and both have improved their functional and organizational base as a result of the recent "Sefardi revolt".

LANGUAGE INTERESTS IN ISRAEL TODAY

Reprinted with permission from Afn Shvel 252,1983. 5-8.

69

70

YIDDISH: TURNINGTOLIFE

LANGUAGE INTERESTS IN ISRAEL TODAY

71

II

Yiddish in America

Introduction Birth of a voting bloc: Candidates pay court to Hasidic and Orthodox Jews A citywide screening committee of more than 70 Jewish organizations, mostly Hasidic and Orthodox, has been formed to judge the mayoral candidates at a breakfast meeting on May 21 and give one a formal endorsement . . . New York's Hasidic groups also influenced Israeli elections last November. Without even leaving Brooklyn, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, the leader of the Lubavitcher Hasidim, lent his support to one of Israel's Orthodox parties, Agudat Israel. "We are going to be playing an important role", said Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a conservative Democrat from Borough Park, who is one of the main organizers of the group, known as the United Jewish Coalition. "A coalition of this kind, with the kind of race we're going to have, could make the difference of who is mayor. We're not just going to endorse; we're going to spend a lot of money to spread the word, a lot of it in the Yiddish press." . . . Nearly all of the Hasidim shun television as an immoral force, thus negating (its) political advertising. The major media influence is the Yiddish-language daily (sic!) newspaper "Algemeiner Journal". The New York Times, May 2,1989, pp. Bl, B4 T h e above news-item is doubly or triply ironic. W h o , a m o n g specialists in American Studies, would have expected a major voting block still to be functioning in Yiddish in the U.S.A. in 1989? W h o , a m o n g Yiddishists at the o u t b r e a k of W o r l d W a r II, would have expected the constituency of such a voting block, were o n e to exist, to b e Ultra-Orthodox? W h o , a m o n g O r t h o d o x leaders, would have expected America to b e c o m e the major h o m e of Ultra-Orthodoxy and, therefore, of Yiddish (outside of Israel), America, whose very existence was still d o u b t e d by the O r t h o d o x just some two centuries ago, because its existence w e n t totally u n m e n t i o n e d in holy writ? Even N a t h a n Birnbaum, in the midst of his Yiddishist stage a n d less t h a n a decade away from his own " r e t u r n " to O r t h o d o x y , who was so unusual precisely because he was so capable of foreseeing so

76


much of the positive future of American Jewry, could not foresee what has come to pass in this connection. American Jewry has not only become the financial and the political muscle and backbone of world Jewry (much more so than Israel), but it has also become a major cultural force on the world Jewish scene as well (although in the latter respect Israeli primacy must still be acknowledged). Since the major cultural growth of American Jewry has occurred after World War II, it necessarily occurred after the major flourishing of secular Yiddishism was over. The numerous supplementary Yiddish secular schools, the large and variegated periodical press and the endless stream of books, the numerous local and traveling Yiddish theatres and choruses, the summer camps for children and adults, these were already largely matters of the past by the time a seemingly endless array of major publications (many of them translations from Yiddish and Hebrew) began to appear in English and to become a constant feature of the American Jewish scene. The relatively minor stream of secular pro-Hebrew efforts dried up even more rapidly and with much less notoriety. No one said: "Look, Hebrew is dying!", because, first of all, Hebrew has never really lived as a language of everyday life in America and, second, Hebrew had obviously just acquired a natural home for itself in Israel. Yiddish, on the other hand, had recently lost its natural home in Eastern Europe and its fading in America too, as far as modern, secular life was concerned, was interpreted as implying far more than did the fading of almost all other immigrant languages that were its contemporaries. The latter, like Hebrew, has homelands to fall back upon and to be replenished from whenever circumstances would lead to new immigration to the Golden Land. Yiddish no longer has a reservoir to draw upon and its fading in the USA denoted a language in dire straits, or so it seemed to those to whom the Ultra-Orthodox world was a closed book. Except for Ultra-Orthodoxy, American Jewry is now obviously, overwhelmingly and almost exclusively English speaking. This fact is not only of utmost importance in its own right, i.e., for understanding the dynamics of American Jewry per se, but it also provides the rationale and the driving force behind the anglification of world Jewry, at least in terms of English as a Jewish lingua franca and, increasingly, as a Jewish second language. This fact also robs both Yiddish and Modern Hebrew of most of their possible functions, prospects and vitality in the American context. Although a huge proportion of American Jews have "nothing but respect for Yiddish", that is far from sufficient for the language to remain even

BIRTH OF A VOTING BLOC

77

in its former vernacular functions. Many young American Jews mayadmire the creative Yiddishistic secularism of the past, but they do so as one admires a family heirloom, i.e. only on special occasions, and without the intention of converting it into an aspect of one's own daily life. What Yiddish in America lacks, outside of Ultra-Orthodox circles, is not so much a raison d'être as a bounded life-style of its own at the home-neighborhood-community level. Ideologies are generally of reliable and total interest only to small circles of intellectuals. Bounded life-styles encompass the mass of ordinary men, women and children in all aspects of their everyday lives. Even more: bounded life-styles relate their languages to the very heart of the intergenerational transmission system. Theatres, movies, radio-t.v. programs and poetry readings in a language are certainly not to be disregarded, but they do not form mother tongues nearly as much as they reflect them. They do not automatically feed back to the socialization of the next generation, particularly not on the life of a minority whose language is already utilized only by a minority of that minority. Exposure to secular Yiddish - in college courses, in theater presentations, in song recitals, in readings of translations and at commemorative lectures - is both too little and too late to revernacularize it, regardless of the intellectual and entertainment merits of such exposure. Exposure to Ultra-Orthodox Yiddish comes early and intensively and, regardless of its association with what the modern, secular mind can only regard as a "closed system" that is impervious to new ideas, it remains part and parcel of those very family-neighborhood-community pursuits that are synonymous with intergenerational transmissibility. No wonder then, that Yiddish in the former context, for all of its esthetic and intellectual variety, ingenuity and refinement, is now fated to remain the language of a small and intergenerationally non-continuous coterie of devotees, each generation of which will scramble to find its own intellectual heirs, whereas the continuity of Yiddish in the latter context is limited only by the birthrate of its members, since each member's own children are his or her heirs. In addition to its natural growth, via intergenerational demographic processes, American Ultra-Orthodoxy has also grown via attracting new followers from among English-speaking American Jews. These baley-tshuve (penitent returnees) have often formed small English-speaking enclaves within Ultra-Orthodox society, but they have even more generally learned enough Yiddish to be able to

78


converse with their neighbors, with their rabbis, with their children's teachers, and, above all, to understand the sermons and lessons of their rabbis and to engage in the obligatory group-study of appropriate texts, engaged in separately by men and by women, which characterizes Ultra-Orthodox life. Thus, many Ultra-Orthodox groups (not all, of course) reveal many non-native but quite fluent speakers of Yiddish, a phenomenon which was generally unknown in the U.S.A. before World War II. America is also clearly an indication that the question of intergenerational continuity need not be the only question that preoccupies us in connection with Yiddish. Few non-Jewish cultures and life styles have been as impacted by Yiddish as have those of urban America, this impact fanning out across the country from the hub-city of New York. New York without Yiddish would obviously not be itself, not even now when the Black, Hispanic and the Oriental impacts on its commercial and gastronomic life are so intense. A nationwide spread of hispanicisms and Koreanisms, via the entertainment and communication media (the stage, television, the movies) and via the garment industry and the labor unions, or via their functional substitutes, would need to take place before a comparable development occurred in connection with them to what occurred in connection with the impact of Yiddish on American English. It is no wonder then, that linguists speak of "Yiddish movement" in connection with topicalizations such as "money I've got, friends I've got, but happy I'm not!", constructions which most native speakers of English throughout America take to be entirely correct, or as completely acceptable "New Yorkisms", at worst. The impact of American English on Yiddish has been, if anything, even more noticeable, lexically, phonologically and grammatically. This is true among both sexes and in all age groups even in Ultra-Orthodox circles. Fifty years of unschooled Yiddish in America easily reveals as many or more Anglicisms and English influences than did hundreds of years of Eastern European residence vis-à-vis Russianism, Polonisms, etc., in the Yiddish of the corresponding regions. Clearly the contact between Yiddish speakers and non-Jewish English-speakers, on the one hand, and between Yiddish speakers and Jewish English-speakers, on the other hand, has been an intensive and even an intimate one, whether in school, work, play or commerce, and obviously most of the UltraOrthodox have not been exceptions to this rule, particularly insofar as work and commerce are concerned, but also in conjunction with

BIRTH OF A VOTING BLOC

79

governmental affairs and a variety of entertainment and consumergoods options and interactions. The same social processes that have brought about these influences have also, obviously, led to strains in conjunction with the continued vernacular use of Yiddish in some Ultra-Orthodox circles. We will have more to say about these strains in the introductory remarks to Part III of this book. Nevertheless, the future course of Yiddish in America is not yet settled, neither linguistically nor sociolinguistically. The unparalleled freedom, social mobility and participatory involvement of Yiddish speakers in all aspects of American life would require a very self-disciplined and self-regulatory community if its vernacular were to be successfully retained on an intergenerational basis. Only segments of Ultra-Orthodoxy seem to be able to maintain the social boundaries that are required on the part of minorities for retaining a vernacular language of their own in open society. But this does not mean that Yiddish will necessarily disappear among all other Jews, indeed, the vast majority of Jews in the U.S.A. Positive attitudes toward Yiddish now seem to be very widespread among American Jews, particularly those who are younger, who never spoke it themselves and whose only direct experiences with it are associated with grandparents or the elderly in general. However, positive though passive attitudes are an important sociolinguistic fact of endangered-language life. If properly activated such attitudes can be translated into financial support for the efforts of language activists, into a modicum of language learning at tertiary level courses (there are such at over 50 colleges and universities in the U.S.A.) and at post-college courses for adults, and into occasional attendance at programs in which Yiddish songs, readings and dramatic performances are suitably accompanied by English translations. This huge reservoir of goodwill also funnels a small number of individuals into the ranks of culturally creative and linguistically puristic secular "Yiddishists" who manage to learn the language to perfection and whose dedication to it leads them to write, to sing, to produce theatrical pieces and to publish in Yiddish. The small groups of this nature that exist today (not only in the U.S.A., but also in France, England, Canada, Australia, Belgium and in Israel) certainly seem sufficiently firm to last for a generation. Thereafter, since interest groups are not intergenerationally continuous or transmissible in the same direct way that families-neighborhoods-communities are, the general Zeitgeist of attitudes and opinions vis-à-vis Yiddish will once again

80


need to be depended upon if replacement elites of similar mastery, dedication and creativity are forthcoming from secular and other non-Ultra-Orthodox circles in the 21st century. This - and the transmissibility in a good part (a demographically growing part) of the Ultra-Orthodox sector - certainly does not seem to be too much to hope for in America.

Yiddish in America

I. Early socio-cultural roles As is the case with many other cultural-linguistic minorities in America, some familiarity with the pre-American historical and cultural contexts in which the Yiddish language developed is pre requisite for an understanding of the fortunes and prospects of Yiddish in American-Jewish life today. Although there are many distinctive trends and countertrends in the socio-cultural histories of various Yiddish-speaking communities, there has also been sufficient similarity in the within-group and between-group experiences of Yiddish speakers during the past thousand years for a small number of constant factors to repeatedly influence the position and the vitality of Yiddish - whether we are dealing with America today or with Eastern Europe yesterday. The earliest beginnings of Yiddish date back to roughly the 11th century from the point of view of time, and to the middle Rhine basin, from the point of view of geography. As is the case with all languages for which sufficient early data exists, Yiddish began as a fusion language (Weinreich, M., 1959b, 103, 563-570). In the case of Yiddish the major early constituents consisted of Middle High German, Romance and Hebrew elements, since it began as the language of Jews who were in large part recently derived from French of other Romance language territories. That Yiddish arose at all is testimony to three facts: a. Jews lived in sufficient social and psychological proximity to their non-Jewish neighbors - notwithstanding all the differences and circumstances that separated them - to attain familiarity with the language current in their environment. b. However, Jews settling in the Rhine region brought with them certain pre-Germanic speech habits (phonetic, lexic, and syntactic)

Reprinted with permission. Bloomington, Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics. 1965.

82


that immediately rendered their German somewhat different from that of their non-Jewish neighbors.  Finally, Jews also brought with them certain religious cultural habits that were either not encodable in the language of the nonJewish environment, or were not as unambiguously or felicitously encodable in that language. In addition, some German equivalents had Christological overtones and were, therefore, unacceptable to Jewish speakers. As a result, many pre-Germanic terms were retained in the German variant utilized by Jewish speakers, 1 particularly for the purposes of within-group communications. These terms were largely of Hebrew origin, although a number of "traditionalized" words of Romance origin were also retained (Weinreich, M., 1953, 1954). This combination of factors - intensive interaction with the non-Jewish environment against a background of major religious and cultural differences - has quite consistently remained part of all contexts in which Yiddish has grown and changed in the thousand years of its existence. The above socio-cultural factors were also accompanied by two very basic psychological ones that must constantly be kept in mind when considering the position and viability of Yiddish at any given time. Yiddish speakers represented a socio-cultural grouping not in control of an independent national-territorial unit. Although Yiddish speakers have frequently constituted the vast majority of Jews within given geographical boundaries, they themselves have rarely, if ever, possessed full control of the official politicaleducational-legal machinery whereby languages can become maximally entrenched and safeguarded. Yiddish has been the officially powerless diaspora language of an officially powerless diaspora people. Although ultimately spoken over a huge expanse, there was never a territory where its speakers were not exposed to daily linguistic and cultural pressures from speakers of strategically more powerful languages. Awareness of this "weakness" with respect to external relations and influences has always been a factor coloring the attitude of many Yiddish speakers toward their language. On the other hand, Yiddish has also rarely held full sway in connection with Jewish internal affairs. The very religious and cultural differences which required the presence of a Hebraic component from the very beginning of Yiddish also implied that Yiddish could not fully substitute for Hebrew as the language of hallowed texts, traditions, and intellectual creativity. Having

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

83

achieved an elaborate code of values and behaviors in one language (Hebrew), and having given that language a special place of honor in that set of values and behaviors, no other language could attain a similarly exhalted position as long as the original code was maintained. Awareness of this "weakness" with respect to internal relations has further influenced the attitudes of many Yiddish speakers towards their language. From its beginnings as a product of the peculiar cultural proximity and cultural distance which marked Ashkenazic Jewry in Western Europe, Yiddish has accompanied the proud and tragic procession of the Ashkenazim, first, through what is now South western and Central Germany, Bavaria, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, then from the thirteenth century on, through Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, the Ukraine and Rumania; and, finally, since the nineteenth century, to North and South America, Israel, Australia and immigration centres throughout the world. As a result, Yiddish became inextricably intertwined in every historical, cultural and social experience of Ashkenazic Jewry during a millenium of literate existence. Because even the very earliest Yiddish speaking males were literate (certainly in Hebrew and at times, also in local Jewish variants of Romance and German), written records are available of Earliest Yiddish (-1250) and of Old Yiddish (1250-1500). From sources such as these, from much more plentiful sources during the periods of Middle Yiddish (1500-1750) and Modern Yiddish (1750 - ),2 as well as from Hebrew and non-Jewish references to Yiddish throughout its existence, it seems clear that up to the latter part of the nineteenth century, Yiddish functioned primarily in the following contexts: a. As the vernacular - in one period or another - of all Ashkenazic social groupings. This claim must be understood in the light of both linguistic and socio-linguistic change. Dialectal differences appeared and became territorially established, distinguishing the Yiddish of Prague (Western) from that of Warsaw (Middle), of Vilna (Northeastern) or of Berdichev (Southeastern). Simultaneously with the dialectal differentiation and the eastward relocation of the majority of Ashkenazim, the original western territories largely drifted away from Yiddish, so that by the middle of the nineteenth century only remnants of Western Yiddish survived in isolated corners of Holland, Alsace, Switzerland, Western Hungary and Slovakia. Nevertheless, during the periods of its ascendancy, Yiddish, as the vernacular, was spoken by both men and women, by both rich

84


and poor, by both scholars and illiterates, by merchants and artisans. However, its speakers varied both in the degree of their proficiency in other languages and in their intimacy with other societies and, therefore, in their attitudes towards Yiddish, as well as in their interference from other languages while speaking Yiddish. b. As the vehicle of entertainment literature. The oldest extant masterpieces of Yiddish Literature - Shmuel Bukh, Bovo Bukh, and Maase Bukh - indicate an early designation of the language as appropriate for "publications" or other widespread communications in a lighter vein than the classical hallowed texts, commentaries, and learned religious guides for which Hebrew alone was regarded as appropriate. This is the forerunner of the association between Yiddish and "secular" publications or occasions that was posited by a later age. This type of association for the vernacular was not unlike that prevalent in other European populations among whom the vernacular was assigned to more mundane and profane uses than the "classical" languages associated with Church, Throne and "Culture". However, in the other populations some variant of the vernacular was ultimately elevated to a point where it was differentiated from other regional or class variants which had no similar status associations nor national functions. In the case of Yiddish (as contrasted with Hebrew) this worldwide process of substitution and elevation was never fully accomplished. . As the vehicle of popular religious education or indoctrination among those segments of the population that had never mastered sufficient Hebrew to peruse the standard texts or curricula. 3 Jewish communities carried with them the ideal of universal public education, dedication to the mastery of basic Hebrew texts (usually via oral instruction, commentary and translation into Yiddish) but this ideal was often incompletely realized. Women in general and the poorer classes in particular, commonly learned only enough Hebrew to laboriously but uncomprehendingly follow the Hebrew prayer book. Many depended on memory entirely to participate in religious services or rituals. For this audience of women and simple folk, a homiletic, didactic and narrative religious literature in Yiddish was developed (Freehof 1923). Many of its staples went through countless editions and remained popular for generations if not centuries. Thus, the Tsene Urene, a popular version of Biblical tales, first appeared at the beginning of the 17th century and was still being reprinted in the 20th. Prayer books also appeared with Yiddish marginal translations (and in a few rare cases, in full Yiddish versions)

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

85

and commentaries. All in all, this was a distinctly plebeian religious literature intended only for those who were too uneducated to follow more involved and more elevated discourses that were available in Hebrew. Talmudic students and scholars carried on their face-to-face inquiries into the most demanding Hebraic-Aramaic texts in scholarly Yiddish. However, theirs was largely (although not entirely) an oral tradition, since in their eyes Hebrew alone was a fit vehicle for their written comments. As the earliest period - from the point of view of sociolinguistic analysis - drew to a close in the mid-nineteenth century, Yiddish had already gained a few devoted protagonists who con sciously viewed it in an ideological context, whether in conjunction with mass-enlightenment ("Europeanization"), nationalism, religious pietism, or other sophisticated symbolic systems.4 A few attempts at serious artistic writing in Yiddish had been made, as had a few efforts to translate sections of the Bible, to publish weeklies and other periodicals, and to initiate Yiddish repertory theatre groups. Never theless, all of these efforts remained rudimentary and unrelated to each other until fairly close to the end of the nineteenth century. At that point, many of these efforts came together and Yiddish began to function in a number of hitherto unparalleled social roles. This metamorphosis coincided with the period of ever-increasing Eastern European Jewish immigration to the United States. II. New social roles for Yiddish:1861-1914 Toward the end of the nineteenth century increasing numbers of Eastern European Jews came into greater contact with general European as well as with more specifically regional ideological and cultural developments. This should not be interpreted as implying that Eastern European Jews had previously lived in intellectual isolation from their neighbors and from European thought. Careful studies of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews reveal this to be as untrue in the intellectual realm as it was in the worlds of commerce and finance. Nevertheless, the period here under review was one in which an obvious quickening of intellectual and cultural fertilization occurred. The underlying reasons for this quickening must be sought in both the Jewish and the non-Jewish communities. In this period increasing numbers of Eastern European Jews were caught up in accelerated industrialization and urbanization of

86


what had, in earlier days, been almost exclusively backward, peasant societies. 1861 marks the liberation of Russia's serfs. It also marks the beginning of a revitalization ofJewish life in Eastern Europe. More and more Jews moved from isolated villages and small towns to larger towns and cities. This dislocation and relocation not only weakened their ties with traditional Jewish practices and ideologies but also exposed them to new and stronger ideological and cultural pressures from their non-Jewish surroundings. Urban life frequently brought with it increased contact with the languages of the coterritorial populations even though it often also brought more rigid physical separation between Jews and non-Jews than had been the case in the little villages. The large towns meant exposure to political ideologies, to anti-religious or non-religious ideologies, to nationalistic ideologies, to reformistlc ideologies in the realms of public education, health, and hygiene, etc. In each of these connections some Jews joined or helped form organizations and groupings which crossed religious or national lines. Others joined or helped form exclusively Jewish organizations which espoused definite goals in each of the above-mentioned areas of endeavor. Yiddish had a role to play in each of these contexts and in some of them Yiddish itself was a topic of programmatic concern. It was in this period that the first major periodicals in Yiddish began regular publication. Modern Yiddish authors and playwrights appeared in large numbers and laid the foundations of a literature of unusual scope. The Russian census of 1897 unmistakably reported a greater proportion of Yiddish speakers than had ever before been officially recorded at the national level in the history of Yiddish. During this period a definite cleavage came into being between religious and secular ideologies and organizations. Although the secular sector was itself internally diversified with respect to many general and Jewish ideological issues, its common characteristic was a Jewish self-definition along "national" (ethnic) 5 - linguisticcultural lines rather than along lines of traditional religious belief and practice. In a sense, secular ideologies represented a departure from traditional Jewish self-concepts but yet not a peripheralization ofJewish self-concepts to the individuals involved. Jews who came to identify themselves as "secular" thought of themselves in terms of other national-ethnic groupings (Ukranians, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians - Jews) rather than in terms of other religious groupings (Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Uniate - Jews). In addition, many Jewish secularist ideologies contained territorial components,

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

87

whether these were in terms of a return to ancestral Palestine (Zionists), some other territorial reconcentrations (Territorialists), or cultural-political autonomy in current diaspora centers (Bundists, Sejmists, Folkists, etc.). Both the general paradigm of secular selfidentification (Ukranians, Poles - Jews) as well as the territorial variants within the general paradigm highlighted the role of a "national" language (Mark 1962, Pinson 1958). Some secularist groups came to consider Yiddish as the "national" Jewish language; others merely considered it as a "national" Jewish language 6 (along with Hebrew and, possibly, Judesmo ), while still others bitterly opposed any honorific "national" recognition of Yiddish, since this might imply a displacement of Hebrew. All in all, the new secular ideologies heightened the language-and-group consciousness of millions and enabled them more easily and constructively to make the potentially disruptive transition from traditional small-town and rural to urban existence, from a "little" to a "great" tradition. However, in the long run, the impact of the latter processes was stronger and more lasting than that of the secular nationalism per se. In the period before the First World War, absolutistic and reactionary governmental control in Eastern Europe prohibited or rendered difficult the maximal utilization of Yiddish on behalf of "nationaľ'-secular ideologies. Not only were the spokesmen for these ideologies - almost without exception - "guilty" of democratic selfgoverning sympathies (if not of socialist, anarchist or other radical sympathies) but the Habsburgs and the Tsars were generally oriented toward the forced assimilation of "foreign elements". Thus, no Jewish secular schools could come into existence and the number as well as the contents of periodicals and books were strictly controlled. Nevertheless, a substantial press and literature did develop (both clandestinely and openly); a large number of writers, journalists, poets and other intellectuals came to employ Yiddish as a vehicle of conscious "national" importance; modern educational, theatrical, and even scholarly work in Yiddish did get underway; and the language problem or language conflict (between Yiddish and Hebrew or between Yiddish and Russian or Polish) became a definite item on the agenda ofJewish intellectuals. Since this was also the period of greatest Jewish immigration to America, it is obvious that many Jews coming to this country - whether intellectuals or not - brought with them some exposure to secular-"nationalist" thinking, and as such, either an active advocacy of Yiddish, a philosophy ofJewish existence in which Yiddish had a well defined

88


role to play, or, at the very least, some awareness of the "language issue" surrounding Yiddish. During this same period, the role of Yiddish in Eastern European religious and traditional circles changed much less dramatically. Yiddish continued to be the language of daily life and of Biblical and Talmudic instruction and scholarly disputation. A number of orthodox newspapers and periodicals began to be published in Yiddish and a number of popular didactic books on Jewish religious themes appeared, as did a small but more serious moralistic literature. All in all, the ideological-philosophical foment in Jewish secular circles evoked only defensive-protective reactions in religious circles. As a result, no religiously centered ideologies were formulated in which Yiddish was assigned a particular role. Yiddish remained the constant and unconscious vehicle of religious life at all levels other than the written scholarly and the liturgical. It is more proper to consider it as having been the vernacular of the religiously oriented Eastern European masses rather than the language of their formal religious acts or expressions. The religious counterparts of secular political groups were much less interested in the language issue as such, since Yiddish was "obviously" the language of daily life and of formal instruction in classical texts. As such, it was an important vehicle of orthodox indoctrination and enculturation, but hardly a matter of supreme value in and of itself, as it had already come to be in certain secular "nationalist" circles. It is easy to overlook the huge and seemingly motionless orthodox sea and to fix one's views largely on the more dramatic and impetuous secular-"nationalist" ideological islands during this period. Certainly, the major stimuli for the refinement, cultivation, and elevation of Yiddish did not come directly from orthodox circles. Nevertheless, for our purposes, it is of great importance to realize that most Eastern European Jews coming to America during this period, were either untouched or only superficially touched by modern Jewish "nationaľ'-secular thinking. Subsequently, when secular-"nationalist" ideologies found little basic environmental encouragement in America, it was all the more natural for most American Jews to gravitate toward less conscious and less prestigeful roles for Yiddish and toward less retentivist behaviour in connection with it. Before turning to a detailed presentation of the formal ideological, organizational and associational consequences of "national"-secularist Yiddishism, it may prove useful to pause for a

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

89

brief theoretical summation of what this revolution in Jewish life and language attitudes involved. Modern European history reveals the elevation of one vernacular after another from a position of exclusive integration with "little" ethnic traditions to a position of integration with "high" cultures and "great" national traditions. This process was accompanied by greatly heightened creativity in the vernaculars, particularly in those variants that came to be accepted as "standard", as well as by the protection of these "standards" by governmental institutions and by intellectual and social elites. The undisputed sway of the vernaculars usually involved the displacement of one elite by another, of one set of values by another and of one "high" culture by another. However, the dignification of the vernacular not only required years, if not generations, of struggle between contending elites for political, social and cultural hegemony, but also required generations of national indoctrination of the peasantry and of the urban lower classes that had carried the vernacular for countless generations without consciously dignifying it. The initially de-ethnifying impact of urbanization and of nationalism was finally overcome by the transmuted ethnicity of the new "high" culture and of its consciously transmitted traditions. One of these transmuted traditions was the exaltation of the national standard language. However, in the case of Yiddish among Eastern European Jews this familiar process was only partly and incompletely replicated. The usual distinctions between ethnicity and religion, between "little" tradition and "great" tradition, between vernacular and superposed language and between communal tradition (ethnicity) and transmuted tradition (nationalism) do not hold up nearly as well in the Jewish case as in the case of the other Eastern European peoples who increasingly fell under the sway of nationalistic ideals in the latter part of the 19th century. Nevertheless, it is still instructive to note that before the advent of "national" secularistic Yiddishism Yiddish was generally considered inferior to the superposed Hebrew and was protected more by Jewish ethnicity than by Jewish religion, by "little" tradition than by "great" tradition, and by communal tradition than by transmuted (ideological) tradition. Secularistic Yiddishism rejected religion and sought to place Yiddish in the center of urban "great" tradition and of ideologically transmuted ethnicity (nationalism). However, Jewish "national" secularism and Yiddishism lacked the coercive power gained by other rising nationalisms and their vernaculars. In ad-

90


dition, mass immigration and mass annihilation deprived it of its major population base. Finally, it had to oppose a much longer tradition of ethno-religious "high" culture as well as a competing Hebrew-oriented secular nationalism (Zionism). As a result, it is easy to see why its impact could merely be brief and superficial although it constituted a major cultural revolution in modern Jewish history. Had it been granted another generation or two it might have consolidated its gains. As it was, its undeniable creativity at the level of national "high" culture was forced to rest upon a population which was both too small, too dislocated, too unseasoned ideologically and culturally, and too exposed to counter-influences from highly industrialized, prestigious and de-ethnicized coterritorial populations. III. Yiddish in America: 1880-1914 During the period under discussion, the fortunes and roles of Yiddish in America closely paralleled those just sketched with respect to Eastern Europe. In religious or religiously oriented, in Hebraist, and even in "unaffiliated" circles of fairly recent Eastern European origin, Yiddish was very widely employed, but without any particular value being ascribed to it. However, in Yiddish secular"nationalist" circles language consciousness was rapidly becoming much greater and language-development as well as languageretention efforts, much more intensive and organized. Of course, Yiddish in America did face problems somewhat different from those of its speakers in Eastern Europe, namely, the problems of immigrant status (Rischin 1962), more complete dislocation from long established locales and folk-patterns including basic family and inter-generational patterns - and, finally, the absence of fully parallel communal institutions. Nevertheless, notwithstanding these many limiting factors, the intensity of Jewish cultural interests and the social-material needs ofJewish immigrants were such that a number of imposing organized efforts were launched - via Yiddish and on behalf of Yiddish - many of which continue to function to this very day. Nationwide Jewish organizations were formed, with branches in all cities of larger concentration, with Yiddish as the "official" or as the "natural" vehicle of all activities even when no ideological

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

91

grounds were advanced for its use. In many instances, these organizations were both the ideological and the operational extensions of political-cultural organizations in Eastern Europe. However, as organizations of destitute and insecure immigrants they also served "fraternal", "benevolent" and "mutual aid" functions unrelated to their original (Eastern European) ideological-philo sophical commitments. The membership of such organizations rose constantly during these years. These same organizations served their various ideological commitments by sponsoring periodical publications, lecture series and adult education programs, camps and supplementary schools for children and adolescents and even theatrical and choral groups. In their cultural programs a more conscious valuation of Yiddish (either in opposition to Hebrew or in concert with it) was visible. "Yiddishism" as a secular-"nationalist" philosophy of Jewish existence was transplanted from Eastern Europe and found steadfast adherents - as well as opponents - on American soil. Small groups of intellectuals, journalists, and literati developed a variegated and increasingly sophisticated Yiddish literature and press, with poetry, literary criticism, novels and dramas, history, social commentary, and most other modern themes and genres represented. The constant influx of new immigrants kept the Yiddish theatre, lecture and concert halls filled, and provided eager readers for the continually growing number of Yiddish dailies, journals and books. The elaboration of European-derived and European-centered philosophies and ideologies received considerable attention in secular "national" circles and a huge Yiddish didactic literature concerned with such topics, as well as with general subject matter in the natural and social sciences, was produced and eagerly consumed. 8 A large number of translations of "modern classics" of world literature (primarily Russian, German, French, English) also appeared at this time and were eagerly purchased by immigrants with a hunger for culture. Paradoxically, these same organizations, intellectuals and media contributed to the Americanization and anglification of the immigrants whose interest in American citizenship and in English language mastery they also sought to satisfy, In addition to organized efforts on behalf of or via Yiddish conducted by Jewish organizations and agencies, it is also important to point out that non-Jewish agencies and organizations also had frequent recourse to Yiddish in this period. Thus, labor organizations

92


and political parties that were certainly not specifically Jewish in purpose (although their leadership and membership may have been largely or noticeably Jewish) also addressed their appeals to actual or prospective Jewish members or supporters via Yiddish lectures and publications even when they basically viewed Yiddish as a stumbling block on the road to the formation of a supra-national proletariat or more tractable electorate. All in all, therefore, this was a period of great activity and creativity in Yiddish - the first such period in the history of American Jewry. Nevertheless, very little of this activity was directly oriented toward establishing a permanent and self-perpetuating Yiddish-speaking base for American Jewish cultural expression or group-functioning. For most, Yiddish provided a temporary pathway to English, to Americanization, to adjustment to American life and problems. At most, Yiddish provided a link with the "old country", with family and friends still there, with countrymen now here, and with the ideological and philosophical differences that existed in Eastern European Jewish life. Even where Yiddish was expressly valued and cultivated as a major instrument ofJewish survival, this was most often thought of in Eastern European "nationaľ'-minority terms rather than in terms of the American environment and it particularities. On the other hand, Jewish religious circles continued to depend on Yiddish and to utilize it without specifically providing for it in ideology or underscoring it in practice. Finally, the bulk of "unaffiliated Jews" (a product of rapid urbanization, Westernization, and own-group estrangement as well as immigrant alienation) were touched neither by secular-"nationalist" creativity in Yiddish nor by religious continuity through Yiddish. For them, Yiddish implied only a poor English accent, a limitation on advancement, a corrupt tongue of the unlettered and ill-mannered. Thus, for the language activist, this period had overtones of great promise as well as undertones of great disappointment.

IV. Yiddish in Eastern Europe since 1914 The period here under review witnessed the highest attainments of Yiddish in terms of social-legal position and in terms of cultural role. It also witnessed the annihilation of European Yiddish and its speakers at the hands of totalitarian regimes. The post-war ascent to new heights begins with the Russian

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

93

Revolution and with the Versailles and Trianon Treaties. In all three instances new states came into being in which Yiddish was established as the legally recognized language of the Jewish ethnic"national" group. As the official language of this group in all of its public institutions, Yiddish was qualified to receive public support and public recognition. As a result of such provisions, Yiddish rose above its earlier position as the vernacular of a minority that had no governmental-"national" machinery under its control to become the language of governmentally supported higher education, of scientific institutes, of government (subsidized) publishing houses, of court proceedings, and of official governmental documents even including paper currency. Under the short-lived Kerensky government, Jews were enabled to obtain the fullest recognition for Yiddish as the official language of Russian Jewry. Although the Leninist-Stalinist line on the question of national languages was always somewhat contradictory and involved, the early Bolshevik attitudes toward Yiddish - in a secular if not a "national" context were also largely favorable. During the 20s, Yiddish secular culture blossomed in the Soviet Union. The central and local governments supported an extensive Yiddish press and many publishing houses, as well as Yiddish schools (from the elementary level through to Yiddish chairs and departments at the college-university level). Yiddish theatres, Yiddish research institutes specializing in philosophical-literary-historical studies, organizations of Yiddish writers, etc.9 As the Soviet regime consolidated its power, the general attitude toward minority languages changed and the late 20s and 30s witnessed not only the official enthronement of the Stalinist slogan "national in form, socialist in content," but also purges of non-conformist intellectual leaders. Yiddish schools were increasingly closed, almost all publications were discontinued, and interest in Yiddish was openly stifled during the 30s. By the time World War II began, all Yiddish schools had been closed and the number of publications drastically reduced. Soviet involvement in the Second World War brought a brief official reprieve for certain Yiddish activities of a rallying and propagandistic nature. However, these too were discontinued by 1948, i.e., as soon as a semblance of normalcy had been restored. In 1952, almost all leading Yiddish writers, poets and intellectuals were brutally liquidated. Since then, Yiddish cultural expression in the Soviet Union has been very meagre and the little that exists (one journal, one newspaper and intermittent books and public performances) is carefully doled out

94


for the appeasement of foreign critics and local consciences, although as many as half a million Jews still dared to claim Yiddish as their mother tongue in the census of 1959. Thus, in a matter of a quarter century, Yiddish rose to its highest heights - as a carrier of "high" culture in all of its social and political ramifications - only to be genocidally curtailed. Yiddish experienced a comparable development and denouement in non-Soviet Eastern Europe during this same period. The Versailles and Trianon Treaties and, even more importantly, the spirit of Wilson's "Fourteen Points", held out the bright promise of cultural and political rights for ethnic minorities. The newly established Polish, Baltic and Rumanian governments extended many of these rights to their Jewish citizens as well as to other minorities. However, during the twenties these rights were abrogated (partially on anti-minority and partially on anti-socialist grounds) just as quickly as the new governments felt able to do so. Nevertheless - the Jewish communities in these several countries enthusiastically supported an intensive and variegated Jewish cultural life with their own means, even in the face of governmental obstructionism. Once again we find the full array of schools (Kazhdan 1955), publications, theatres, libraries, scholarly and research organizations, youth groups, political organizations, etc. Most of these were under secular"nationalist" auspices - most frequently with a socialist orientation - although Zionist, territorialist, autonomist and non-political culturist orientations were also represented in varying degrees. Although a Jewish intelligentsia utilizing the state languages (i.e. Polish, Rumanian, etc.) also existed, such groups were relatively small and only superficially related to the Jewish communities surrounding them. Similarly, pro-Hebrew activities (forbidden in the Soviet Union from the very outset) also found their adherents, particularly in Zionist circles. Nevertheless, although a number of schools, theatre groups, publications and organizations functioned in Hebrew, none but the schools ever attained the mass following enjoyed by their Yiddish counterparts. In the Baltic States and in eastern Poland Yiddish gained acceptance in Jewish social circles where previously Polish, Russian or German had been spoken. This unusual phenomenon came about as a result of the confluence of two trends: on one hand, ideological anti-assimilationism and heightening of "national" feeling amongJews,and on the other hand, the anti-Russian and pro-self-sufficiency sentiments of the newly created states. Even orthodox circles became more conscious of

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

95

Yiddish in their schools, their publications, and - particularly - in their communal efforts, although Yiddish never attained the symbolic status, never received the explicit devotion, and never became the rallying ground in religious circles that it did in the secular "nationalist" world. If religious Jews in Poland felt a kinship to Eastern European Jews in America and in other centers of emigration, it was, primarily, on religious-observational grounds. For secular-"nationalist" Jews, this kinship was behaviorally evident through the use of the Yiddish language. The Nazi massacre annihilated six million Jews, most of whom were Yiddish speaking. The post-war Jewish communities in Poland (the Baltic States being under direct Soviet rule) currently receive governmental support for a number of schools, publications, theatre groups and other institutions of cultural self-maintenance. This is also true, but to a much lesser degree, in Rumania. However, the total Jewish population in these countries is far too small (and decreasing with continued emigration to Israel), and their cultural productivity too sparse to have any marked impact on the cultural status of Yiddish in other parts of the world where large numbers of former Eastern European Jews or their offspring now live. After a thousand years of growth and development, Yiddish now finds itself without the European heartland that gave birth to it and nurtured it. Yiddish "colonies" in the United States, Israel, Canada, South America, and throughout the world must now seek ways and means of linguistic-cultural survival without transfusions from "the old country" and in drastically different sociopsychological circumstances than they have ever faced before. V. Yiddish in America since 1914 Three circumstances have been of major importance in guiding the fortunes of Yiddish in America during this period. The first of these was the practical cessation of further immigration from Eastern Europe. The second of these was the progressive integration of former immigrants and their children into general American life (Glazer 1954,1956; Lestchinsky 1955; Rosen 1958; Rosenthal 1958). The third was the annihilation of Eastern European Jewry. As a result of these phenomena, the position of Yiddish became much weaker than that of most other immigrant languages in America (Fishman 1964b), although Yiddish devotees attained many import-

96


ant objectives during this period. That the inexorable march of time has increasingly eroded these accomplishments is less to be marveled at than either the original magnitude or the intensity of devotion that inspired them. They provide food for thought in connection with the general problem as to what mobilized cultural minorities might accomplish given more favorable circumstances.

A. The secular sector 1. Educational efforts a. Although the first Yiddish secular schools in the United States were organized before the First World War, it was in the 20s and 30s that their major numerical growth occurred (Mark 1946, Niger 1940, Yefrokin 1955). A number of splinter groups organized and supported schools for varying brief periods of time. Ultimately, however, three ideological-organizational variants became well established and these continue to function to this very day. The largest network of Yiddish secular schools is that maintained by the Workmen's Circle (Arbeter Ring). These schools were founded with a very dedicated socialist orientation which has become somewhat attenuated (in a New Dealish-Liberal Party direction) over the years. At the same time, these schools have moved some distance from their original anti-clericalist position toward a more tradition-tolerating view (Młotek 1954, Niger 1940) which stresses the ethnic-historical component of many traditional Jewish observances. The schools of the Jewish National Workers Alliance (Farband) are now more accurately referred to as Hebrew-Yiddish schools. Originally socialist-zionist in orientation, the first component has been largely de-emphasized over the years and the second one increasing emphasized. As a result, Hebrew - included in the curriculum from the very outset - has gained increased emphasis, whereas Yiddish has been steadily de-emphasized in most schools of this group. These schools have steadily had a traditional orientation, albeit in secular terms. The third school network is maintained by the Sholem Aleichem Folk Institute - now largely limited to New York City and environs. 10 This grouping has never manifested any partisan Jewish or general political coloration, athough it expresses sympathies both

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

97

to Israel and to social justice. It has pursued an increasingly traditional bent, although Yiddish is certainly dominant over Hebrew in its curriculum. 11 In all of the above instances, the schools maintained are largely and increasingly in the New York area, a few others are in other Middle Atlantic states, while only a very few remain in larger cities in other parts of the country (Yefrokin 1955). (See Table 1). Almost all of the schools are supplementary (i.e. weekday afternoon) in nature and at the elementary education level. A few kindergarten-nurseries and a very few high schools also exist as does one Hebrew-Yiddish all-day school and a teachers seminary supported jointly by all three secular school organizations. Recent years have witnessed the establishment of Yiddish secular "One Day (Sunday) Schools" in a few very suburban communities with "transportation problems", as contrasted with the schools meeting three or five afternoons per week which are still typical in large city Jewish neighborhoods. In all of these schools Yiddish still has proletarian (or at least liberal-laborite) and ethnic-secular overtones from the past. Nevertheless, as American Jewry has developed away from its proletarian origins, and as "nationals-secular ideology has either failed to capture the fancy of American Jewry or to correspond to its view of American realities, Yiddish schools have been moved to seek other emphases. The destruction of Eastern European Jewry has in part - served to underscore Yiddish as a link with the past and, Table 1. Yiddish secular schools in the United States. (Number of schools and their enrollment) 1945 1946 1949 1950 1952 1955 1956 1958 1960 Number of Schools* Enrollment: Total** New York** New York City and suburbs*** Girls of Total (%)

146

130 133 99 6123 6680 5825 3827 3144 4494

3343 54

94

123 113 4430 4631 3491 3198

3391 54

98

2983 55

* From registration-advertising lists (mostly weekday afternoon, some Sunday schools). ** From data collected by the American Association for Jewish Education. *** From data collected by the Jewish Education Committee of New York.

98


therefore, as a link with Jewish traditions. However, the traditionalization of Yiddish secular education has also been derived from the greater emphasis on a religiously legitimized Jewry in America, and on a growing conviction that an unreconstructed secular Jewishness (in the absence of an ethnic "apartness" which none espouse) cannot maintain itself. The Yiddish secular educational scene has become the major vantage point from which secularism as a philosophy of Jewish creative existence in the diaspora is reviewed (Goodman 1952; Lehrer 1927, 1936, 1961; Novak 1935; Pomerantz 1948). For many teachers, schools board members and parents, secularism still has much the same appeal as of old. Its "national-" cultural emphases are considered more enlightened, more progressive and more honest than the "pseudo-religious revival" that has purportedly gripped America since the second World War. As a result, there are many who still demand a curriculum which pays primary attention to Yiddish language, Yiddish literature, and a modern, secular"nationalist" interpretation of holidays, history, and world events. However, there are others who are disenchanted with an unreconstructed secular-"national" Weltanschauung and who claim that such an approach does not correspond to the realities of American Jewish life (Mark 1946). They indicate that on the one hand, non-Jews in America define Jews only as a religious grouping (Herbert 1955). On the other hand, American Jews seem most frequently and most comfortably to define themselves in these same terms - regardless of the intensity of their own religious convictions or the regularity of their own observances. At the same time there seems to be little interest in or understanding of the creative "national" ideologies of Eastern Europe out of which Jewish secular"national" thought originally developed. Certainly there is no interest in the aggressive (sometimes spiteful) "anti-clericalism" which characterized Yiddish-socialist secularism in its earliest period of breaking with the "dark forces" of Jewish ("religious") traditionalism. Secularism has "toned down", but in doing so it has merely become less radical or distinctive rather than more popular or creative. Other linguistic minorities are thought to rarely seek a "national" future in America whereas they frequently do seem to pursue their linguistic-cultural self-maintenance aspirations within a religious framework legitimized by America's dedication to religious diversity and religious freedom (Sherman 1955). Finally, the within-the-fold critics ofJewish secularism are concerned that the

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

99

Yiddishist-secularist approach does not really prepare the young for participation in an ongoing Jewish milieu in view of the many changes that have taken place in American Jewish life since the days of mass immigration. As a result of these several criticisms, many erstwhile Yiddish secularists favor greater traditional emphases (Bible, Hebrew, prayers and traditional holidays and family celebrations, etc.) in the curricula of Yiddish secular schools. This is exactly the direction in which all of these schools have developed to a greater or lesser degree - particularly in the past 10-15 years. As Yiddish secular education has drawn somewhat closer to other types of American Jewish education, and as the pupils of Yiddish schools have increasingly come from English speaking homes and enter an Anglo Jewish environment after graduation, it has become increasingly difficult to functionally relate Yiddish secular schooling to either ideological or behavioral uniqueness. The language as such continues to constitute the hallmark of these schools in the world of American Jewish education. However, the language is actually related more to a web of sentiments and memories of the teachers and school board members than it is to any viable culture into which children are or can be socialized. As long as the older generation of teachers and schoolmen continue to labor on their behalf, the schools will continue to account for some 3% of American Jewish children receiving a Jewish education (Dushkin 1959). American Jewish parents are largely uninterested in the ideological subtleties distinguishing one Jewish school curriculum from the other. As long as Yiddish schools are near at hand (and this pre-supposes their ability to follow the population shift from city to suburb) some children will be sent to them. Their parents will be delighted with the Yiddish phrases, poems and songs the children recite, with the Yiddish stories they learn to read, and with the Yiddish compositions they struggle to write (although many of these parents would be equally delighted if their children came home with Hebrew phrases and with prayers instead). If Yiddish will hardly become a living language of the third generation family as a result of attendance at such schools, these schools do help keep alive a nodding acquaintance with the language and a sentimental attachment to it. In addition, of course, children learn much more than Yiddish in a Yiddish school since instruction in history, customs and holidays, Bible, Hebrew, and current events are also important constituents of most curricula. Thus, although Yiddish secular schools become fewer - particularly outside of New York - it is not

100


because they are rejected, but rather because secular-culturist Jewish life has neither a strong organizational basis nor an ideologicalpsychological spark that registers with American born Jewry.12 Yiddish is now rarely considered to be the despicable jargon that first and second generation opponents were wont to decry. Although attitudes toward it (in general American as well as in Jewish circles) are now much more widely sympathetic - it is rarely considered something vital, something worth living and dying for, nor something worth even being excited about - except among a steadily diminishing breed of old-timers who once dreamt the dream of Jewish secular-"national" existence in Eastern Europe and for whom Yiddish is not only of ideological significance but is part and parcel of their own life style. b. At the same time that Yiddish secular schools are slowly diminishing in number and influence, Yiddish has blossomed forth in a number of institutions of higher general education. During the past fifteen to twenty years the dedicated protagonists of Yiddish have succeeded in introducing academic courses in Yiddish language, literature and folklore at the City College of the City University of New York, Brooklyn College (Adult Education Division), the New School for Social Research, Columbia University and Brandeis University. At the foregoing institutions Yiddish programs of study seem to be on a more or less stable footing. In addition, intermittent courses in Yiddish have also been taught at Boston University, Wayne State University, Roosevelt University, the University of California at Los Angeles, and the Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes in New York.13 The most recent capstone to these efforts has been the movement to offer Yiddish instruction in those senior and junior high schools of New York City in which sufficient numbers of students express interest in the language. The funds and the leadership on which all of these efforts depend are, once more, the result of secular-culturist-"nationalist" dedication, for the very same individuals who support the Yiddish secular schools, the cultural organizations, the specialized Yiddish periodicals and bookpublishing ventures, are also the ones who organize the courses, endow the academic chairs and help recruit the students for Yiddish studies in American institutions of general education. 14 It is hard to overemphasize the contribution to Yiddishsecularist morale that has resulted from their recent "successes'' in Academe. Although the total number of students involved can

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

101

hardly be more than a few hundred per year, the status gain is felt to be quite considerable. The language of the poor and the powerless, the language of the homeless and the despised, the language that was itself so frequently abused and unappreciated - that language is now being taught at a number of America's best colleges and universities. The importance of this accomplishment is heightened not only by the traditional respect for higher learning, but by the fact that this accomplishment is likened unto a child conceived and born in old-age. At the very time when Yiddish continues to recede from its former position as the major language of American and worldJewry, after inconceivable losses at the hands of brown and red totalitarianism, at that very time it is welcomed into the halls of learning to be studied and appreciated by scholars and their students. If this triumph can be attained when the ranks of the faithful have been so thinned and weakened, then certainly there is a mystic fire to Yiddish, then obviously Yiddish is allied with eternity, then there is no telling what future success may be ahead for those whose devotion knows no bounds. 15 2. Press and literature a. The American Yiddish press never consisted of as many separate daily periodic publications as did the American-German press or the presses of various other large ethnic groups (Glatshteyn et al. 1945). This was, in part, a result of the great geographic concentration of American Jewry in the New York area and in a very few other large cities. As with other groups, a number of small provincial publications did arise. However, these were few in number and relatively poor in content in comparison to their New York counterpart. "Province" Jews constantly looked to New York as the Jewish spiritual-cultural capital - "the Jerusalem of America". Most of them had passed through New York on arrival in America. Many had lived there for a short while; most had friends and relatives there; many hoped to return there, if only "for the children's sake". As a result, it is not surprising that Yiddish-speaking Jewry in the "provinces" quickly showed a preference for New York Yiddish dailies and periodicals over those published locally. New York dailies were quick to set up regional offices. Regional editions were (and still are) published that provide some coverage of local Jewish and general news in addition to the content of the New York edition. Certainly, New York has always been the center of Yiddish cultural

102


existence in America. It not only had the millions of readers to support a large-scale Yiddish press, but also the advertisers eager for Jewish customers and the writers (journalists, essayists, poets, novelists, dramatists - for all of these have always been part and parcel of the Yiddish press) that provide it with content and with orientation. Unlike the Yiddish secular schools, the Yiddish press particularly the daily press - has largely been neither secular nor Yiddishist (Fishman and Fishman 1959). The daily press addressed itself to the masses of Jewish immigrants and not only to the intellectuals and sophisticates for whom "national"-secularism and Yiddishism were recognizable ideologies. The "masses" were religiously oriented (even if non-observant) rather than secularist. The "masses" looked upon Yiddish as a comfortable vehicle rather than a priceless treasure. Although the daily press was largely conducted by secularists 16 with a refined mastery of Yiddish, neither secularism nor respect for Yiddish were judged to have the mass appeal that the Yiddish press required for its sustenance and profit. Thus, much of the daily press came to employ - if not to champion - "potato-Yiddish", a mixture of Yiddish and English not unlike the speech of the unlettered immigrants, 17 rather than the more careful and cultured variants of Yiddish that some of its contributors employed in their journal articles and books for a much more select circle of readers. The American Yiddish press also adhered to an antiquated Germanized orthography of the nineteenth century much after this orthography had been modified or completely revised in practically all other Yiddish publications throughout the world. However, one must be careful not to paint too backward a picture. The daily press also regularly published good poetry and fine novels; it published much material on American history and problems (Sokes 1923); it published popular scientific writings; it published serious analyses ofJewish affairs; it regularly devoted space to literary reviews and criticisms. Thus the daily press was quite varied in content, combining newspaper and journal features on a regular basis (Glatshteyn 1945; Soltes 1923). The Yiddish press served in lieu of formal schooling; it was often the only education medium and the major Americanizing vehicle available to the Eastern European Jewish immigrant. The Yiddish press served many causes. Nevertheless it is probably correct to say that with the exception of a few militants, the Yiddish press, as such, long refused to champion one cause - namely, the cause of Yiddish linguistic

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

103

loyalty and linguistic consciousness in America. Whereas socialism, Zionism, communism, religiosity, Americanization and even anticlericalism have been officially championed at various times, Yiddishism has received support only from individual writers on select occasions and never became the offical policy of any daily. Today, the American Yiddish daily press has been reduced to three publications (Fishman 1960). The oldest and largest of these, the Jewish Daily Forward, carries a name that seems much more German today (Forverts) than was the case three score years ago and which harkens back to its militant socialist, anti-clerical, anti-Zionist, folk-educationist origins. Today the Forverts is a much more moderate publication: New Dealish, pro-Zionist, and almost traditionalistic in its outlook. Although somewhat ponderous in tone and content, it still commands a mass following. The only real competitor that the Forverts has is the Jewish DayMorning Journal (Tog, Morgn-Zhurnal). The Tog has always been Zionist-"nationalist" in orientation as opposed to the originally socialist-cosmopolitanist bent of the Forverts. Since acquiring the Morgn-Zhurnal, the Tog has also acquired very definite religioustraditionalist content as well. In addition to maintaining its original circle of readers, it is now the only daily that a segment of Yiddishspeaking Orthodox Jewry feels close to. Unlike the Forverts, the Tog, Morgn-Zhurnal is privately owned and often seems more venturesome and alert to reader interest. Finally, there is the communist Morgn-Frayhayt. It has patiently followed all of the fortunes of the meandering party line and neither the Stalin-Hitler pact nor the more recent annihilation of Yiddish literature in Soviet Russia has caused it to question its basic allegiance. Nevertheless, such blatant repudiations of Jewish sensitivities and loyalties - not to mention the current anti-Israel and anti-Jewish policies of the Soviet Union - could not but result in a precipitous falling off of readers and contributors. Today, the Morgn-Freiheit is a narrow sectarian tabloid with very little appeal outside of immediate party circles. (See Table 2.) The daily Yiddish press depends almost entirely upon the immigrant generation for its readers and subscribers - not to mention its journalists and other writers. Graduates of Yiddish secular schools have not, by and large, become readers of the Yiddish press - no more than have the graduates of intensive Orthodox schools in which Yiddish has frequently remained the language of Talmudic instruction. Thus, the long range existence of the daily

2

2

4 140,900

4 140,900 2

2 21,300

21,300 6

6

60,700 8 13,700 74,400 8

3

3

16,800

16,800

48,900

4

2

2

1

1 1

1

40,000

40,000

14 1 15

20 3 23

4 1 5

4 1 5

48,900

1960 In Middle Atlantic States Rest of US Total

5 217,300 6 1 21,200 2 6 238,500 8

3

4

5 1 6


86,000

2

3

11 5 16

86,000

2

6 4 10


6 334,600 2 3 89,800 1 9 424,400 3

13 7 20

a. Yiddish periodical press in America* (entirely in Yiddish) 1930 In Middle Atlantic States 6 6 419,900 5 3 132,200 2 1 37,800 Rest of US 5 4 138,900 2 2 46,300 Total 11 10 558,800 7 5 178,500 2 1 37,800

Dailies

9 179,000

9 179,000

14 366,900 2 34,900 16 401,800

8 420,600 3 89,800 11 510,400

10 589,900 6 185,200 16 755,100

Total Weekly, SemiMonthly, Semi- Bi-Mo, Quarterly Ann. or Irreg. or Tri-Wkly. Mo. or Tri-Wkly. or Semi-Ann. To with Circula To with Circula To with Circula To- with Circula- To- with Circula To- with Circulatal info. tion tal info. tion tal info. tion tal info. tion tal info. tion tal info. tion

Table 2. The American Yiddish and Anglo Jewish Press

104 YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE

1960 LRP In Middle Atlantic States 4 4 166,000 3 Rest of US 1 Total 5 4 166,000 3 b. Yiddish press in America (mixed 1930 In Middle Atlantic States 1 1 2,400 6 Rest of US 3 Total 1 1 2,400 9 1940 In Middle Atlantic States 5 Rest of US 2 Total 7 1950 In Middle Atlantic States 1 Rest of US 2 Total 3 1960 In Middle Atlantic States 1 Rest of US Total 1 25,900

12,100 12,000 24,100

17,700 12,300 30,000

1,500 5,200 6,700

4 1 5

3 1 4

1 1 2

30,000 33,000

1

1

30,000

4

1

1

2

1

4

33,000

6 4 10

9 4 13

2

2

1 1 2

3 3 6

6 2 8

63,000

63,000

1,500 5,200 6,700

17,700 15,400 33,100

21,500 13,000 34,500

4,000 21 18 239,200 1 4,000 22 18 239,200

1

1

1

2

3,100 3,100

7,000 1,000 8,000

1

1

2 4 6

2 2

1 1 2

9,300

9,300

1 2 3

1 2 1

2 1 3

4

6

3 34,000 7 6 25,900 6 [English-Yiddish] publications).

7

4

34,000

6

3

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

105

Weekly, Semior Tri-Wkly. Monthly, Semi- Bi-Mo, Quarterly Mo. or Tri-Wkly or Semi-Ann.

Ann. or Irreg.

Total

tal info.

tion

tal info.

tion

1

1

1

1

1 1



20 36 56

6,800 12 35 6,800 47 99,900 79,600 179,500

10 248,600 26 354,800 36 603,400

7 13 20

6 8 14

4 6 10

1 1 2

5 5 10

2 3 5

1 1 2

tal info.

73,200 114,500 187,700

7,300 70,400 77,700

33,000 4,200 37,200

tion

4

4

1

1

4

4

3 1 4

4

4

tal info.

3,800

3,800

38,200

38,200

tion

tal info.

tion

10 16 26

6

5

30 16 45 31 75 47

20 42 62

6

5

tal info.

325,600 469,300 794,900

114,000 150,000 264,000

71,200 4,200 75,400

tion

To with Circula To with Circula To with Circula To- with Circula To- with Circula To- with Circula

Dailies

 Anglo-Jewish press in America (English publications)

1960 LRP In Middle Atlantic States Rest of US Total

Table 2


1

1

1

1

15 36 51

13 36 49

51,000 20 40 51,000 60

13 14 27

14 250,500 21 30 426,900 19 44 677,400 40

11 243,200 27 401,700 38 644,900

15 265,100 13 21 146,500 13 36 411,600 26

603,500 304,400 907,900

518,400 260,900 779,300

20 344,000 4 11,700 24 335,700

5 258,200

8

43,000 37,000 80,000

5 258,200

2 1 3

8

4 1 5

18 672,200 22 16 514,600 5 34 1,186,800 27

9 9 18

7 7 14

4 4

4

1

1

4

1

1

26 1,119,900 36 706,100 62 1,826,000

25 877,500 29 444,400 54 1,321,900

8,200 62 56 1,274,900 60 50 953,200 8,200 122 106 2,228,100

15,000 35 50 15,000 85

38 54 92

* Data from Foreign Language Press Lists, American Council for Nationalities Service, New York and from Ayer's Dictionary, supplemented and corrected by L.R.P. data. For the Hebrew press, see footnote 28.

■ Total

1960 LRP In Middle Atlantic States Rest of US

1960 In Middle Atlantic States Rest of US ι Total


YIDDISH IN AMERICA

107

108


Yiddish press seems somewhat dubious. Nevertheless, as long as it continues, the Yiddish daily press is a vital symbol of the mass basis of Yiddish - in fact it is the last remaining symbol of this kind. It has never been Yiddishist, but recently it has performed the important function of constantly informing its readers of the recognition that Yiddish has obtained via translations into other languages and via recognition by colleges and universities. This news is rarely available in the general press and by highlighting it, the Yiddish press has served to strengthen its own foundations by reassuring its readers that their language has prestige value and is recognized by "others". b. Outside of the daily Yiddish press, there has existed a not inconsiderable world of Yiddish journals and books. Except for the period of mass-immigration Yiddish journals and books never had a mass-readership like that achieved by the daily press - although it should be noted that journals and newspapers alike were (and are) read by more readers than their circulation figures alone would indicate. The Yiddish journal and book have usually depended upon the more sophisticated reader, whether self-educated or formally educated. Yiddish books and journals have been more puristic and conscientious in linguistic matters, and less concerned with financial success in relation to ideological matters. Thus, both Yiddishism and secular-"nationalism" have had and still have their proponents in the world of American Yiddish journals and books. Although constantly withdrawing in a painful battle of attrition, this world continues at a high level of literacy and intellectual merit to fashion and interpret "high" culture for the few who can appreciate it (Shtarkman 1957). Yiddish journals present their readers with essays on current Jewish and general affairs in America and throughout the world, poetry, literary criticism, ideological-philosophical analyses ofJewish political and social-cultural movements, historical and memoristic accounts of Jewish life in Eastern Europe, social-scientific papers, children's literature, etc. Yiddish books are topically just as diversified as are the journals, although the American reader would probably comment on the relatively large number of books of poetry and memoirs and the paucity of books on technical-scientific matters. Whereas, most journals are organizational publications, most Yiddish books are private publications of their authors assisted by a group of friends and associates formed into a committee. Even those books ostensibly published by one or another of the half dozen or so

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

109

publishing houses now functioning are often privately financed by the authors and their patrons. Most books are published in one or two thousand copies and are distributed by the authors themselves (or their "committees") and by the publishing houses. The daily and periodic press carry frequent notices and advertisements concerning the appearance of new books. The Yiddish book-market is affected by many of the difficulties which have beset book-reading and book-buying in the general American hard-book market in recent years. In addition, the Yiddish book-market has always existed on a limited numerical base and that base has constantly become even more restricted. Although the paucity of children's books has implications which are quite clear, the overall number of Yiddish books published by American Yiddish authors has fallen off only slightly in the past fifteen years (see Table 4). This may be due to the fact that books written by AmericanYiddish authors also enjoy sales in Israel, Latin America, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Western Europe. As a result, Yiddish books of real merit will certainly continue to be published in America for many years to come. In addition, many American Yiddish authors publish their books in other countries (particularly in Argentina and Israel) where printing costs are much lower. These books, too, must be included as part of the creative world of American Yiddish literature. The proportion of such books has increased in recent years and is likely to increase further with the passage of time.  American Yiddish literature - particularly Yiddish poetry - is American in many ways (Mark 1950, Minkoff 1955, Ravitch 1945). Most of the journalists, essayists, novelists and poets that constitute the American Yiddish literary world arrived in this country as young men and women (Reyzin 1926-1930). Their major literary and intellectual development occurred after their arrival on American shores and under the strong influence of general American education and general American literary developments. Yiddish poetry has had particularly intimate relations with the schools, trends, and points of view in American poetry (Weinreich, U. 1957). American Yiddish literati not only have their own writers guild (Y.L. Peretz shrayber fareyn) but they also have their own section in the international PEN (Poets, Essayists, Novelists) organization and maintain relations with men of letters of all countries in this manner. The productivity of American Yiddish writers is encouraged by

20

1899

61

Totals, by literary fields (%)

Median year of birth

Median age as of 1960

63

1897

23

100

59

1901

9

100

63

1897

33

100

2

7

17

74

61

1899

4

100

62

1898

8

100

19

-

-

25

56

44

56

8

-

65

1895

2

100

63

1897

100

100**

2

26

-

-

63

100%

* Data derived from volumes 1-4 of Biographical Dictionary of Modern Yiddish Literature, New York, Congress for Jewish Culture, 1956,1958,1960 (Niger et al. 1956-1962). ** rounded to nearest integer.

100**

-

-

2

1920-

Percentage(%)

16

13

7

1910-1919

42

22

39

42

History, Journalism Literary Criticism, Translations Totals, by Education, Decade Memoirs Linguistics Children's Literature

1900-1909

65

Poetry, Drama

51

Fiction

-1899

Decade of Birth

Table 3. Age distribution of 209 living American-Yiddish authors* (by primary literary fields)


76 (13 Abroad) 17

77 (7 Abroad) 9

86(0 Abroad)

0

Total

% published abroad

35

75 (26 Abroad)***

5 (2 Israel, 1 France)

4

9 (1 Argentina)

* Data for 1945, 1950 and 1955 obtained from listings in TheJewish Book Annual (Joffe 1936). Data for 1960 obtained from records kept by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. ** Items in parentheses are included in thefigurespreceding them. *** The Central Yiddish Cultural Organization (CYCO) reported that 126 Yiddish books were published throughout the world in 1960. The total reported for 1959 was 125. The total reported for 1961 was 148, of which 47 were published in the U.S.A., 34 in Israel, 32 in Argentina, 10 in Poland, 9 in France, and the remaining 16 in eight other countries. See Forverts, January 13, 1963.

9

18

16

Political, organizational and current events

2

9 (1 Argentina)

8

Education and pedagogy

2 (1 Mexico)

4

3

9

Children's literature

25 (5 Argentina, 4 Israel, 1 Mexico)

15 (4 Argentina, 1 Israel)

18(3 Argentina)

15

History, biography and memoirs

12(3 Argentina, 1 Mexico)

6 (1 Canada)

8

Literary history and criticism


18(1 Argentina)

14 (1 Argentina)

19

Poetry, drama, art


1960

16(3 Argentina)

1955

9 (1 Argentina**)

1950

11

1945

Year ofPublication

Fiction

Type of literature

Table 4. Number of Yiddish booh published by American-Yiddish authors* (five-year intervals: 1945-1960).

YIDDISH IN AMERICA 111

112


a number of annual prizes sponsored by various endowed funds and cultural organizations. In addition, more and more Yiddish works are finding their way into English translation and, as a result, into anthologies and journals that reach large numbers of Jewish and non-Jewish readers who would otherwise never have heard of them. The resulting recognition and publicity are usually far greater than that experienced by these writers as a result of their original Yiddish publications. Although there is probably no one among them today (not even Bashevis Singer) who has achieved as much recognition in the "outside world" as did Sholem Asch in former years, there are nevertheless, quite a number of real stature. In translation, their works will certainly be recognized as major contributions to American literary life and thought. Unlike Sholem Asch, few, if any, of these writers write with the thought of ultimate translation. Their devotion to Yiddish is complete and their artistry is the more perfect for it. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that most of them are in their 60s now, (see Table 3)18 and their most creative years may well be behind them. 3. Yiddish theatre For several reasons there was greater delay in the development of theatre in Jewish cultures than in most other European cultures. Abraham Goldfaden - the "father of Yiddish theatre" - must, therefore, be recognized as a revolutionary figure rather than merely as an innovator. Thanks to his efforts Yiddish theatre became widely popular toward the end of the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the difficulties placed in its path by hostile regimes. However, prior to the First World War Yiddish theatre in Eastern Europe consisted mainly of wandering troupes that put on operettas and other light entertainment from make-shift stages in towns and villages throughout the Czarist Pale of Settlement, in the Jewish districts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and in the Rumanian Kingdom. By contrast, a much more professionalized Yiddish theatre had already begun to develop in American immigration centers. In New York, Philadelphia and other cities, several companies played throughout the year to packed houses while others "traveled the circuit" to Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, etc. with similar success. In New York, an entire district of the East Side became associated in "the popular mind" with Yiddish theatre; this was Second Avenue. Second Avenue was "the Yiddish Broadway" - but

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

113

it was much more than that. Not only were several Yiddish theatres in operation there, but on or near Second Avenue there were also many Jewish restaurants and "literary cafes", many Yiddish-Hebrew book stores, a shopping district specializing in Jewish foods and in other items of special interest to Jewish customers, publication offices, or ganizational offices, meeting rooms, and - the backbone behind all of this - for blocks in all directions, the tenements that housed the Jewish masses and their schools, their synagogues, their shops. Thus, Second Avenue was not merely "the Yiddish Broadway" but the Broad way of the Yiddish East Side, the "great white way" of the most massive immigrant district that American-Jewish history ever witnessed. In theatrical circles "Second Avenue" not only stood for Yiddish theatre linguistically, but it also stood for Yiddish theatre stylistically and temperamentally (Lipsky 1962). Second Avenue theatre meant a theatre for the masses; a theatre with hearty laughter and deep pathos; a theatre with overtones of social criticism; a theatre with bold, heavy strokes; a theatre that made up for whatever it lacked in subtlety and artistry by deepness of feeling and gamut of emotions. It should not be forgotten, however, that Second Avenue was also the home of several theatres dedicated to the presentation of a very select repertoire in accord with the most impeccable artistic standards (Bernari 1961-62). Nevertheless, such theatres were more on Second Avenue than of Second Avenue. 19 However, regardless of which type of Second Avenue theatre we may have in mind, Second Avenue is no more (Wakefield 1959). The geographical dispersion of the Jewish population (to the point that the East Side has become largely Negro and Puerto Rican), the natural decline in the number of Yiddish speakers and the increased age and limited physical mobility of those that remain, not to mention the advanced age of the actors themselves as well as the rising costs of theatrical productions - all of these in concert - conspired to bring the legitimate Yiddish stage in New York to the brink of extinction in the 1950s (Table 5). The few Yiddish theatres that had previously existed in the "provinces" had, by then, long since ceased to function. Formerly, New York troupes had carried Yiddish theatre from coast to coast for more than two score years - and "wandering stars" had once more become commonplace in provincial Yiddish theatre circles. However, with the practical discontinuation of legitimate Yiddish theatre in New York, there is now practically no Yiddish theatre anywhere outside of New York either. Nevertheless, even at this late date, the flame of American-

2 15

5 22

59

1901

8 35 42 16 100

250

53

1902

12 32 40 15 100

1960

300

48

1902

12 33 39 15 100

1955

* Data derived from Lexicon of the Yiddish Theatre, Z. Zylberzveig (1960,1959) and newspaper listings. ** Data supplied by Hebrew Actors Union (Yiddish Theatrical Alliance), New York.

Estimated membership of Hebrew Actors Union Number of Yiddish Theatres in New York Length of N.Y. Theatre season (in weeks)

44

1901

14 35 37 14 100

Appeared in Yiddish performances during: 1945 1950

Other information on the Yiddish theatre**

Median Age (as of year in column heading)

Median Year of Birth

-1890 1891 - 1900 1901-1910 1911Total(%)

Year of birth

Table 5 Age distribution ofprofessional American-Yiddish actors*


YIDDISH IN

AMERICA

115

Yiddish theatre is far from extinguished. A number of small semiprofessional and professional troupes are still functioning, giving performances on weekends and holidays. These troupes have less concern for vehicles that will attract the masses. They attract a small following of relatively sophisticated devotees. Their plays are drawn either from classical Yiddish literature or are expressly prepared for them on the basis of more recent Yiddish novels and dramas. Such groups function in New York, Chicago and a few other cities. Although they are few in number and their total influence is small, their work is frequently of a high quality and experimental in form. Quantitatively, they represent a precipitous drop from the Second Avenue theatre of yesteryear. Qualitatively, they often represent quite an advance beyond much that was sought after on Second Avenue. Both the remaining actors and their remaining public are gratified that through their combined efforts, the Yiddish theatre was recently able to celebrate its one hundredth anniversary. 4. Yiddish radio. Yiddish radio programs seem to have enjoyed their greatest follow ing from the mid-thirties through to the conclusion of the Second World War. This was also the period of greatest impact of radio on the general American public. Yiddish programs were generally broadcast over low-power stations which specialized in non-English language broadcasts for an immediate metropolitan audience. Yiddish broadcasting has always been marked by a great variety of programs: news and news analyses, music (vocal and instrumental, modern and liturgical), drama (in the soap-opera tradition), humor, sermons and sermonettes on family problems and daily experiences, holiday celebrations, interpretations of traditional practices, etc. During the war years, the American Yiddish radio frequently succeeded in providing programs of interest for three generations of listeners. Since that time its audience has narrowed radically to the generation of grandparents. In that generation it still has a large and loyal following for whom it provides entertainment and topics of discussion in a manner unequalled by other media of mass communication. During the past few years the Yiddish radio has held its own quite successfully. (See Table 6) 5. Yiddish cultural organizations. Culture is an elusive and nebulous affair and there are very few

116


Table 6. The Yiddish radio in America.* Number of Stations Number of stations in New York City Number outside of New York City Total Number

1956

1958

1960

5 41 46

2 29 31

2 31 33

(2)27.5 (29) 1.8 (31) 4.5

(2)27.0 (29) 1.2 (31) 4.2

Average number of hours of broadcasting per week Average in New York City (5)22.2** Average outside of New York City (23) 2.4 Total average (28) 6.0

* Data from Radio Broadcasting Lists, American Council for Nationalities Service, New York, from Broadcasting Yearbook, and from Language Resources Project. ** Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of stations for which data on hours of broadcasting per week are available.

formally constituted structures established on its behalf. In Yiddish secular circles "culture" refers to anything expressed through Yiddish, whether this be literature, song, theatre, education, or research (Niger 1955). The dance and the visual arts are less commonly included in the general rubric of culture because they are linguistically neutral forms of expression. a. The Yiddish cultural organization with the broadest programmatic base is the World Congress for Jewish Culture. This organization was founded after the end of the Second World War. Its rallying cry was that imaginative and well organized efforts of world-wide proportions were necessary to salvage Yiddish and Yiddish culture from the severe losses suffered at the hands of the Nazis. The Congress was planned as a non-political "united front" in which individuals from diverse parties and organizations might work harmoniously on behalf of the one supreme loyalty that united them all: Yiddish. However from the very first, communist organizations and their sympathizers were excluded. 20 It also soon became evident that most Zionists affiliated with the Congress (organizationally or individually) did not fully relate to Yiddish as to a clearly superordinate goal. Finally, the mass of non-Yiddish Jewish organizations and individuals did not become affiliated with the Congress at all. As a result, the major financial and programmatic burden of the Congress has been borne by the non-ZionistYiddishist-Culturist-Liberalist groups and individuals who were most outspoken on behalf of Yiddish culture even before the formation of the Congress.

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

117

The Congress adopted maximalist goals in all of the various cultural areas, linguistic as well as non-linguistic. However, financial limitations have restricted it to the publication of books and journals, awarding literary prizes, sponsoring a weekly radio program, sponsoring lectures on cultural topics (including the arts), and issuing statements to the Jewish and general press on Yiddish cultural affairs (such as the Soviet restrictions on Yiddish or the initial Israeli disregard for Yiddish in press coverage of the Eichman trial). The Congress cannot materially assist other organizations in the pursuit of Yiddish cultural endeavors since it is itself dependent on others for its own operation. Nevertheless, the Congress exists as a valuable symbol of the supra-party claims of Yiddish and of its organized international stature. 21 b. Another such symbol, at a different level of functioning, is the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. Founded in Vilna (then Poland) in 1925 as the "Yiddish Scientific Institute - YIVO", it soon came to symbolize the highest intellectual aspirations of Yiddish-speaking communities in Eastern Europe and throughout the world. It quickly established divisions in Berlin and in New York, as well as small groups of "friends" in most major cities of immigration. Through its sections on philology, history and economics, and psychology and education, it sponsored studies, published journals, convened conferences and trained scientists-to-be. YIVO was definitely a central cog in the post-war development of Yiddish cultural and intellectual activity since it epitomized a combination of the very highest linguistic, scholarly, and national aspirations. During and after the Second World War, the YIVO managed to transplant some of its personnel and much of its library and archives to New York. Here, however, the entire secular-"national" and cultural front was much less interested in Jewish scholarship, and Yiddish itself was largely relegated to a secondary positon in Jewish values. As a result, the YIVO has regressed to conducting library and archival activities, with intermittent scientific publications, conferences and exhibitions to the extent that its meager budget permits. The process whereby its once central training and research functions for the Jewish community have been abandoned has been a most painful one for the YIVO - precisely because of the prominence of its former intellectual and symbolic functions. Even after Jewish communities in Eastern Europe were resigned to the fact that their 'peace-treaty privileges" and immunities were to be denied them,

118


they never resigned from the will to maintain a separate intellectualcultural existence. Autonomy of mind and spirit were even more important than legal autonomy and for such autonomy historians, linguists, social scientists, and literary scholars were obviously needed. Who was to train the intellectual elite of an autonomistic Jewish community - an elite that would view itself as the guardian and champion of the cultural treasures which the masses possessed but could not themselves protect and develop? Certainly the State universities could not be trusted to develop such a Jewish elite neither with respect to the requisite knowledge nor with respect to the requisite attitudes. The YIVO alone was the agency that could be entrusted with this subtle and central role. The masses lavished upon the YIVO that which they had in abundance: love, respect, encouragement. The semi-skilled workman in a provincial town felt ennobled when he acted as a zamier (a "collector") for the YIVO sending it lists of local Yiddish terminology for various trades; he felt himself a participant in a "national" drama, a participant in the rational development of modern Jewish autonomism on a high intellectual-scholarly level. Yiddish was the major protagonist in this folk-drama even if it was also only one of an extensive ensemble of characters. By the time the YIVO established itself in America, the basic ingredients for such a drama were lacking. Instead of being the recognized symbol of cultural autonomism guided by disciplined intelligence, the YIVO became one more Jewish organization scrambling for a share of the annual philanthropic contributions of Jewish individuals, organizations, and community welfare funds. With participationism rather than autonomism the pervading ideal of American-Jewish life, and with religion rather than ethnicity the pervading self-view, the need for an institution to prepare a linguistically and attitudinally differentiable Jewish intelligentsia became ever harder to explain. Although English translations of its scientific publications attained considerable acclaim in American academic circles, the Jewish community was by and large not impressed by erudite publications on topics concerning which it lacked both intellectual and attitudinal preparation. Thus, the YIVO found itself respected everywhere but in its own backyard, its financial position becoming ever more precarious and its program of activities - ever more restricted. In 1955, it officially changed its English name from "Yiddish Scientific Institute - YIVO" to YIVO Institute for Jewish Research", thus eliminating the tell-tale linguistic

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

119

reference. There is no sign that this move has eased its financial position, but it is definitely indicative that those publicly expousing maximalist views with respect to Yiddish can receive scant comfort from the YIVO. It is hard to say whether the YIVO currently defines its role in terms of any specific responsibilities for the maintenance of Yiddish in America, although its past accomplishments on behalf of "standard Yiddish" (including the continued publication of Yidishe shprakh, a journal devoted to the problems of standard Yiddish, now in its 25th year) are truly monumental. Certainly, it does not advocate any particular brand of linguistic-cultural autonomism for American Jewry. Furthermore, there do not seem to be any groups within American Jewry that view the YIVO (or another scientific society) as a necessary instrument for accomplishing their specific ideological goals. c. Two Jewish fraternal organizations have been particularly active in support of a variety of Yiddish cultural efforts for half a century or more: the Workmen's Circle (Arbeter Ring) and the Jewish National Workers Alliance (Farband). As mentioned earlier, each of these organizations supports a network of supplementary schools in which Yiddish is taught. Each also supports summer camps for children and adults in which some Yiddish instruction and some Yiddish entertainment are part of the general program of activities. Each is engaged in adult educational work encompassing publications, lectures, choruses, etc. In this work - particularly that part of it which is addressed to the older generation - Yiddish figures quite prominently. Currently, Yiddish activities lead a less complicated existence in the Workmen's Circle than in the Farband, since no counterpressures in favor of modern Hebrew are involved. As the Workmen's Circle has come to play down its earlier socialist-cosmopolitan views, Jewish concerns have come into greater prominence in its programs. Furthermore, the "nationaľ'-secular orientation of the 30s has been at least somewhat softened with traditionalism (even though it has not been officially abandoned by any means). Yiddish is no longer referred to in advertisements for new members as the Jewish "national" language, nor are Jews referred to in "national" ethnic terms, nor is religion and tradition debunked. Nevertheless, Yiddish is still viewed as the tie to Jews throughout the world and the key to the immediate past of most American Jews. On the other hand, the demands of organizational life require a constant functional

120


emphasis on English - even if this is not "ideologically" justified. Older Yiddish speaking members die off and the continuation of the organization requires the energetic formation of new English speaking branches, the publication of English periodicals, the sponsorship of English programs, etc. Thus, for the Workmen's Circle, the transition from Yiddish to English is now on the order of a normal generational process. There is no articulated ideological opposition to Yiddish in the Workmen's Circle. The children of older members have themselves frequently become members. They understand Yiddish even if they do not use it in their own households, and even if they are not ideologically committed to Yiddish. Yiddish will continue to be taught in the Workmen's Circle schools as long as there are teachers who can teach it and the Workmen's Circle will maintain its schools as long as a spark of secular Jewishness is present in its leadership. d. The position of Yiddish in the Farband is much more complicated. The same generational developments obtain as in the case of the Workmen's Circle. In addition, however, deproletarianization has resulted in a proportionally greater emphasis on the Zionist component of Labor-Zionism. Since the appearance of the State of Israel, the pressures for Hebrew in the Farband have mounted continually - both among older and younger members. The fact that the major Israeli political party - the Mapai - is ideologically and organizationally related to the Forband also represents a source of pressure in favor of Hebrew and in opposition to Yiddish. As a result of all these pressures, there are now a few Forband schools in which Yiddish instruction has disappeared entirely. There are others in which it is still grudgingly taught to a minimal degree. Finally, it is frequently accorded secondary status even in those schools still giving appreciable time to it. There are a number of Hebrew speaking branches in the Forband and the weekly Yiddish journal of the organization is seeking to establish a Hebrew section. Yiddish in the Farband functions in the context of an ideological and organizational expectation that Hebrew is and will be the major language ofJewish intellectual and "national" independence. e. Throughout the USA there are also a number of local Jewish organizations involved in continuous exertions on behalf of Yiddish. Each of these, in its own area, commands the loyalties of a number of activists, attracts the sympathies of a number of more peripheral members, and exerts some influence on a larger or smaller circle of

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

121

spectators from afar. In New York, there is the Sholem Aleichem Folk Institute and its schools, summer camp, children's journal, and publishing house. In Philadelphia, there is the Yiddish Culture Organization with its lectures, children's theatre-studio, prizes for students showing proficiency in Yiddish studies, and support for Yiddish courses in the local Y's, college Hillel's, and Jewish teachertraining institute. In Los Angeles, there is the Yiddish Culture Club with its fine library, its annual journal, its lecture and holiday celebration series, and its support for local authors and their publication ventures. There are similar local groups - often of a supra-political nature - in Chicago, in Detroit, and in other larger cities, not to mention the local branch and schools of national organizations. Yiddish devotees aren't "getting any younger" but they are an amazingly energetic and hardy lot and, as with "true believers" elsewhere, their world is an orderly and meaningful one even though so many of their prophecies have failed. 6. TheJewish labor movement. The period of mass Jewish immigration into the United States coincided with the period of major American industrialization and, therefore, with the period of major growth in the American labor movement (Tcherikover 1961). Because Jews were concentrated only in a very few cities and in a very few industries and trades within these cities certain unions and other labor organizations were predominantly Jewish. As a result, the internal organizational activities of these unions - as well as their efforts to gain the sympathy and support of the general Jewish population - were long conducted predominantly in Yiddish (Menes 1955a). In many cases, the use of Yiddish by the Jewish unions was a completely functional and ideologically uncomplicated phenomenon. It did not connote any particular valuation of Yiddish nor any particular identification with Jewish movements, parties or in-group goals of any kind. On the other hand, many Jewish unionists - both among the leadership as well as among the rank and file - had been initiated into the world of labor concerns in the "Old Country" where Jewish unions were identified with Jewish-socialist parties and with Yiddish "national"secularist Weltanschauungen (Menes 1955b). Although the "Old World" Jewish "nationalist" goals never achieved official acceptance in American Jewish labor circles, they, nevertheless, flitted about as recognizable though unspoken elements of the atmosphere of these

122


circles. As a result, the Yiddish of labor mass-meetings, of labor publications, and of labor evening-schools and lecture series was often evocative of younger days and fonder dreams than those which hard and cold American realities could long sustain. Certainly, Jewish unionism in America never became a bastion of Yiddish and Yiddishism as it had in Europe (Reich 1955, Sherman 1955). On the contrary, Jewish unionism educated and Americanized hundreds of thousands of Jewish bread-winners - to the extent that the Rooseveltian Revolution may be viewed both as the climax of Jewish unionism as well as the beginning of its end (Herberg 1952). Little by little, Italians, then Negroes, then Puerto Ricans replaced the vanishing Jewish proletarian in the erstwhile Jewish unions - until only the Union leadership remained in Jewish hands. Yiddish slowly but surely ceased to have functional value in the "Jewish unions" and at the present time is no more than a curious vestigial reminder of former days. 7. Generational patterns. Various individual and family patterns in Yiddish secular circles demonstrate the marked language concerns that continue to typify the group even after the frequency and range of language usage has been much curtailed. Among first generation secularists, Yiddish remains an object of adoration and a "cause" associated with fond memories (Bez 1962). An elderly 22 first generation husband and wife, who arrived in the USA before the First World War, may now frequently speak English to each other, may follow the popular American press, radio, television and motion-picture worlds, may speak English to their children - now young adults - and to their grand-children, and may largely speak English to their age-peers of similar organizational and orientational background. Nevertheless, the same couple will remain active members of the board of a Yiddish secular school; they will attend Yiddish concerts and lectures; they will contribute to Yiddish cultural organizations; they will purchase a Yiddish daily, and perhaps, subscribe to a Yiddish periodical; they will purchase a few Yiddish books each year, and they will be extremely gratified by any public indication of recognition for Yiddish. They do not expect their own children to speak Yiddish to each other or to them - except in special circumstances calling for secrecy or display of endearment. Nevertheless, they do expect their children to send the grand-

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

123

children to a Yiddish secular school, if this can be at all conveniently arranged, so that the grandchildren may learn the rudiments of Yiddish reading, writing and recognition. Having left Eastern Europe before Yiddish won full public recognition as a vehicle of culture and education, and having devoted their early years in America to the struggle for economic survival, their own Yiddish was never fully perfected (they view "literary" standard Yiddish with a mixture of awe and suspicion rather than as a standard for their own personal use) and their own education never formally constituted. The growth of Yiddish culture and of cultural Yiddish in their own lifetime is a matter of awe as well as of pride to them. Yiddish represents their closest approximation to personal continuity and to intellectual exposure. Although secularism never fully developed, either as a philosophy or as a pattern of American Jewish living, the synagogue and Jewish religious-traditional usages have never fully regained primacy or effortless acceptance in their lives. Yiddish remains as a tie to a small world of friends and of organizational activity and purposefulness, where every additional hand is valued even if it be old and infirm (Goodman 1952). The second generation's involvement with Yiddish is largely dependent on the nature of the marriage partner. If the mate is not also a product of a Yiddish secular home-school-camp environment, then the post-marital contact with Yiddish is likely to be extremely superficial. Proletarian-secularism is likely to fare somewhat better - at least to the point of resisting synagogue-conformism and other forms of middle-classism. Yiddish school attendance for one's children is likely to remain an important goal - unless the mate has a strong contrary ideological predisposition. Other than in these few respects, their involvement in the general American Jewish world of personal-intellectual-political-community affairs is overtly indistinguishable. When the marriage partner is also of Yiddish-secular extraction, identification with the Yiddish-cultural world is likely to be stronger, if only attitudinally. On the other hand, even within this group, families in which Yiddish is still the language of substantial parental or parent-child interaction are so rare as to be museum pieces attracting special attention. Nevertheless, Yiddish facility gained in childhood - though usually dormant - is still substantial; interest in Yiddish schooling is likely to be stonger; association with other former graduates of Yiddish secular schools is likely to be more frequent, and attendance at Yiddish cultural events - although

124


rare - is not unheard of. Yiddish journals and Yiddish books are rarely known to this sub-group - but Yiddish camps and Yiddish records are much more familiar items. Intellectually, this group is aware of the role that Yiddish played in the lives of their parents and in the life of recent Eastern European Jewry. The group is aware of literary Yiddish, and that masters of poetry and prose have created outstanding works in Yiddish. It is also aware that their own elderly parents are carrying the difficult burden of financial and organizational support for the entire Yiddish cultural edifice in America. Nevertheless, the group rarely lends a wholehearted hand in this connection - except as their own children's Yiddish schools and camps may be involved. It is difficult to say that this group is uninterested and unconcerned with the welfare of Yiddish. It would be wrong to say that Yiddish has played no role in their total intellectual and Jewish development. It would be false to imply that they have no warm feeling or no loyalty toward the language. Nevertheless, unlike their parents, they did not grow up in a predominantly Jewish world, and Yiddish Jewish concerns constitute but a fraction of their total concerns with themselves and with society. Yiddish is good and fine "in its place", but its place is rather limited functionally to in-group ceremonies, reminiscences, humor, intimate endearances, and organizational nods. Nevertheless, they have a problem - both with Yiddish and with secularism. They are "too rational" or "too skeptical" to accept the "supernaturalism" of Jewish religious traditions. They are baffled by their desire to express "ethnic" Jewishness in a "modern" way. They cling to Yiddish attitudinally more than behaviorally since it represents the Jewishness they know best even if it does not provide a full-blown philosophy or guide for their Jewish existence. A third generation is now attaining maturity within the world of Yiddish secular schools and related organizations. For these youngsters - many of whom are now completing high school and entering college - the vibrant period of Eastern European secular Yiddishism is something twice removed. That world itself no longer exists except as text-books can give it pale embodiment. In addition, the grandparents who represent a physical-emotional link to this vanished world are themselves passing away. Thus, their parents and teachers constitute their only exposure to Yiddish in an ideological setting and even this exposure is limited by the current philosophical impoverishment that Yiddish secularism faces. Their parents may have been raised in Yiddish-speaking immigrant neighborhoods,

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

125

where little children babbled in Yiddish and where even the Irish cop on the beat had to pick up a few essential words of the language. However, the third generation never experienced a natural Yiddish environment - not even of the relatively fleeting immigrant neighborhood variety. Its active facility in Yiddish is quite limited although its comprehension level is still substantial. This generation vaguely recognizes that its own Jewish context is atypical when compared with that of most other American Jewish youngsters, but it is at a loss to either explain or justify this atypicalness. Neither the proletarianism, nor the secularism, nor the Yiddishistic "national ism" of their grandparents have remained as viable folk-patterns in America (Gordon 1959). Nevertheless, sectarian echoes of these patterns do remain and it is with these echoes - muted and not fully intelligible - that the third secularist generation lives. B. The non-secular sectors 1. Yiddish in the "middle range" sector. Between the extremes of Yiddish speaking secularism on one side and Yiddish speaking Orthodoxy on the other, there is the middle range of American Jewry accounting for over 90 percent of the total American Jewish population. The "middle range" includes those nominally Conservative (Lehman 1953), those nominally Reformed (Anon 1953), as well as that great mass euphemistically referred to as "unaffiliated" and "nominally Orthodox". Neither Conservatism nor Reformism represents an ideology at the common membership level in the same sense that Secularism did or that Orthodoxy does. Neither represents a coherent Weltanschauung, nor a detailed and integrated system of daily commandments embracing all of life, both at the personal and the inter-personal levels. The most noteworthy difference between them and non-affiliation is the isolated act of maintenance of synagogue membership. This act in itself is commonly void of religious or ideological significance, coming as it does largely as a result of conformity pressures, "joining" tendencies, social needs and aspirations, and convenience factors. The "middle range" synagogue represents a partial answer to the dilemma of remaining Jewish faced by millions of American Jews who lack any direction except a vague desire to "be Jewish". In this sense, the "middle range" sector also encompasses a large segment of American

126


Orthodoxy which is constituted along quite similar lines. The "middle range" sector of American Jewry is uncomplicatedly Jewish and, simultaneously, unabashedly marginal in its Jewish commitments. Being a Jew implies socializing mostly with Jews, living in Jewish middle class neighborhoods, savoring Jewish delicacies, contributing on occasion to Jewish causes, viewing anti-semitism and reaction with alarm, and attending a synagogue with the minimal frequency consistent with respectability. This amalgam of middle class comfortability, college education for one's children, political and social liberalism, organizational hyper-activity, and Babbittry with respect to all things Jewish is thoroughly Americanized in language, in self-definition, and in aspiration (Duker 1954, Dushkin and Engelman 1959, Fishman 1960, Goldberg 1955, 1957, Kramerand and Leventman 1961). To the extent that intellectualism has permeated this sector's way of life, it has brought with it a smug disassociation from Jewish ritual, Jewish folk-ways, and Jewish folkcontent - either on the grounds of anti-parochialism or of rational analysis. The "middle range" has passed through a number of recognizably different attitudes toward Yiddish. To the first American-bred "middle range" generation, Yiddish was a badge of shame. It was the indelible indicator of lowly immigrant status or of immigrant parentage. Yiddish was the "jargon" of the ignorant. It was the "non-grammatical" vehicle of those too blighted even to be aware of grammar - much less to be concerned with it. It was the bastard tongue that had grown by accretion in the various lands through which its unwelcome speakers had wandered. It was the despoiler of American accents. It was an unseemly blemish to be covered over with quickly acquired garments of greater prestige. And yet it continued to be spoken by one's parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents, by storekeepers behind the counter and by customers in front of it, by politicians before election day, by labor organisers, by radio announcers, by old men and women on park benches, by actors and comedians. It lived in spite of all reason and necessity, and it even crept into one's own speech, one's own endearing phrases. When driven out through the door it crept back in through the window; it was horrible and lovely, lowly and invaluable, foreign and harsh - yet as close and comforting as mother. Yiddish was all these things, even when spoken incorrectly with maximal interference from English (Joffe 1936,1943, Mencken 1960). It belonged to no one and yet it was everywhere (Cahmann 1952, Glazer 1956).

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

127

The following generation was sufficiently secure to look upon Yiddish with greater humor and good nature. As sons and daughters of immigrants attained better schooling, better jobs and better housing than their parents had enjoyed, as their accents remained unblemished and their heads uncluttered with "immigrant nonsense", the ways of the old folks could not help but seem to be a little funny (Glazer 1954, 1955). Yiddish stood for all the faux pas of the immigrant generation in its helpless fumblings and gropings for adjustment. It stood for outlandish customs. It stood for strong language and cutting sarcasm and earthy humor and pithy wisdom. It stood for reminiscences and memories of a time sufficiently distant that its cutting edges could be overlooked and embellished with impunity. Yiddish represented not only the hapless immigrant but the helpless petit bourgeoise on his way up. Yiddish was a reminder of one's own superiority, one's own progress, one's own refinement in comparison with the previous generation. Yiddish was bagel and lox and ribald ditties for those who more regularly savored steak and Gershwin tunes. Yiddish was to be enjoyed in the manner of a spectator sport. Corrupted though they were, Yiddish and its hand-maiden, Yinglish, were a very fine vaudeville team. The second generation learned to laugh at Yiddish rather than merely to shudder at the mere sound of it. The third generation with even greater detachment - learned that it deserved respect (Hansen 1952). Yiddish was no longer spoken in the parks, nor in the stores, nor at union meetings. The third generation has not always soaked up enough Yiddish to even follow Yiddish jokes or YiddishYinglish songs (Gans 1953). No longer were Yiddish grandparents in generous supply. Nor were the immigrant years well remembered their insecurity, their embarrassment, their sweat shops had all taken on story book overtones. Even the transition period was safely behind. One's grandparents could now be looked upon as hard working and enterprising pursuers of democracy. In addition, there had been a Second World War and a monster named Hitler had wiped out six million "co-religionists" and destroyed their language and culture. Translations from the Yiddish began to appear in the little magazines of the literary avant garde. Anglo-Jewish periodicals also printed such translations, together with biographies of Yiddish litterateurs. A Conservative assembly passed a resolution on the great cultutal significance of Yiddish and - ten years later temporarily introduced two Yiddish courses into the curriculum of its central adult educational courses in New York. At the graduation

128


exercises of the major Reform rabbinical seminary, a major Yiddish poet and dramatist was awarded an honorary doctorate, and, several years later, the Conservative seminary evened the score. It was generally conceded to be "too bad" that one had learned little or no Yiddish from one's parents, "too bad" that the language was dying out, "too bad" that one had so little time to learn "another language" upon reaching adulthood, "too bad" that junior's Hebrew School didn't teach any Yiddish, and "too bad" that his saxophone lessons didn't leave him any time for private Yiddish lessons. Yiddish was rumored to be very picturesque and expressive - but "of course, Hebrew is the official language of the State of Israel". Comfortable middle-class, suburban life just did not seem to be a proper environment - or was it a "too proper" environment - for Yiddish (Gordon 1959). Never before did Yiddish have so much popular "theoretical" prestige, and so little of a popular functional role. Of course, the more respectful climate of the age strengthens the convictions of Yiddishists that they have always been right. The fact that a major Jewish organization with a nationwide membership and with predominantly "defense" and civil rights interests recently released a long-playing language album (and an accompanying text) for adult home-study was interpreted as "a straw in the wind". Some laid plans for new ventures - new continents could still be conquered. However, the "true believers" are generally too few and too weak for major undertakings and the surrounding atmosphere is merely one of respect in the presence of the critically ill rather than of enthusiasm at the prospect of massive blood transfusions to keep the patient alive and well. Thus, there is little to say about Yiddish among those social groupings that constitute 90 percent of American Jewry. Two generations ago their grandparents lived in small, impoverished, medieval Eastern European towns and villages, surrounded by a hostile and illiterate peasant sea and persecuted by reactionary and authoritarian regimes. Yiddish then was normally an unnoticed ingredient in a Jewish world that stressed piety, learning, family solidarity and sobriety, values which were simultaneously cohesive internally and protective externally. Within the brief span of fifty years that world has literally disappeared and its former residents have been catapulted from the sixteenth to the twentieth century (Duker 1954, Teller 1957, Weinryb 1957). Their occupational distribution is among the most advantageous in the country. Seventy percent of their college-age children are in college in a country

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

129

where the nationwide average is still only 40 p e r c e n t after a decade of r a p i d growth (Shosteck 1957). T h e i r cultural values have served t h e m a n d their a d o p t e d country well (Duker 1950, Gans 1956, Hurvitz 1958, Sklare 1958). As for Yiddish - it a n d traditional piety have b o t h b e e n a b a n d o n e d together with most o t h e r substantive vestiges of "old country" life. Given the pervasive changes in social structure, in family patterns, a n d in the s u r r o u n d i n g cultural milieu experienced by this group, it is hardly surprising that something as ideologically and culturally unaccentuated as Yiddish should largely have disappeared (Lehrer 1959, see also Table 7). It is p e r h a p s m o r e surprising to note that it has left the d e e p emotional traces that are still discernible (Fishman 1958/1959, 1960d). Its p r i m a r y secular"nationalist" base - in any activist sense - r e m a i n s its greatest strength a n d its greatest weakness (Davidowicz 1962). As Yiddish b e c o m e s ever weaker a n d m o r e marginal in American Jewish life, there are r e c u r r i n g pleas to strengthen it a n d to save it. T h e r e are also those who seek to a p p o r t i o n the blame for its d i s a p p e a r a n c e between the masses a n d the intellectuals. In a recent c o l u m n in a Yiddish daily, the p o e t Y. Glatshteyn wrote as follows: One might say that the blame can be attributed both to writers and to readers. The reader provided the Yiddish writer neither with terra firma for his language nor with conviction in its permanence. In addition, the reader immediately deprived the writer of any contact with the American born generation. The children were withdrawn from the writer's purview with such finality, with such obviousness, that the writer never even dared hope that he might speak to them. The writer never even dreamed or had the ambition that the younger generation might savor his words. In spite of this atmosphere, writers elevated Yiddish to the highest heights, as if to protect themselves from mediocrity, as if to escape thereby from the constant funereal echoes of disintegration. In reality, it is one of the greatest puzzles. From the very outset tens of thousands of readers read a language with the thought that they must be weaned from it. Frequently, the sure sign of a "better" neighborhood was a gradual but constant estrangement from Yiddish. Certain neighborhoods quickly raised the flag announcing that they were "Yiddishreyn" (cleansed of Yiddish). In "new" neighborhoods mothers, fathers and children escaped from Yiddish together. In the "old" neighborhoods, that seemed to be so full ofJewish life, parents still deigned to accept Yiddish for their own few remaining years. However, they protected their children against contamination from themselves (the parents) and from the words on their own lips.

3,300,0001

-

4,228,0002

-

—

-

1,222,658

1930

35

5,011,0003

1,751,100 100

52,980 3

773,680 44

924,400 53

1940

17

5,559,0004

964,605 100

39,000* 4

422,000* 44

503,605 52

1960

* Language Resources Project estimates. See J.A. Fishman and J. Hofman "Non-English mother tongues in the United States of America". 1. American Jewish Yearbook estimates for 1918. 2. American Jewish Yearbook estimates for 1927. 3. Based upon American Jewish Yearbook estimates for 1937 of 4,831,186. 4. Based upon American Jewish Yearbook estimates for 1959 of 5,531,500.

Yiddish mother tongue as percentage of estimated Jewish population - %

Estimated size of American Jewish population -

Total claiming Yiddish mother tongue %

American born of American born parents %

951,793

1,091,820

Foreign born %

American born of Foreign born parents %

1920

Population

Table 7. Census data on Yiddish mother tongue among American Jews (1920-1960).


YIDDISH IN AMERICA

131

No other people has ever squandered it national treasures in the way that Jews have done by resigning from Yiddish. Yiddish always possessed this rare gift. Whenever one abandoned Yiddish one abandoned much more than a language. 23 Glatshteyn is u n d o u b t e d l y right in sensing the antipathies of the i m m i g r a n t generation. However, Jewish imigrants were n o t at all atypical in the implicit and explicit rejection of their m o t h e r tongue after arriving in the U n i t e d States. At most, they may have reacted m o r e precipitously t h a n did o t h e r immigrants, with a greater eagerness to free themselves a n d their children from what they considered to be the b u r d e n of social rejection, persecution, poverty a n d eternal estrangement. Most of t h e m b r o u g h t with t h e m n o particular awareness of Yiddish as an essential Jewish treasure. They were n o t reluctant to sacrifice Yiddish as well as m u c h else of Jewish significance if in d o i n g so they perceived themselves as attaining security, comfort, a n d acceptance. 2. Ultra-Orthodoxy and Yiddish. Since the majority of O r t h o d o x Jews are behaviorally a n d attitudinally indistinguishable from o t h e r "middle r a n g e " varieties of A m e r i c a n Jewry, a n u m b e r of writers have taken to designating those Jews who take their orthodoxy seriously as "Ultra-Orthodox", even t h o u g h those to w h o m this label is a p p l i e d never refer to themselves in this m a n n e r . However, even Ultra-Orthodoxy is n o t the undifferentiated front that outsiders frequently assume it to be. W h e n viewed from the p o i n t of view of Yiddish language attitudes a n d behaviors, the U l t r a - O r t h o d o x s p e c t r u m breaks into two separate clusters: (a) U l t r a - O r t h o d o x Jews who value Yiddish primarily as a means of gaining access to advanced traditional Jewish studies a n d (b) U l t r a - O r t h o d o x Jews who also value Yiddish as a means of separation from the non-Jewish a n d non-religious aspects of general A m e r i c a n as well as A m e r i c a n - J e w i s h life. Most UltraO r t h o d o x Jews in America today either subscribe to or stand substantially closer to position (a), above, t h a n to position (b), the Hasidic position. a. Although non-Hasidic American Ultra-Orthodox youth is still ap preciative of a Yiddish s e r m o n or of a Yiddish expression (Kranzler 1961), its major avenue of active recourse to Yiddish is in the realm of T a l m u d i c study. T h r e e facts are of i m p o r t a n c e in this connection: (i) Intensive study of the T a l m u d is a sine qua n o n of Ultra-Orthodox

132


education. Without mastery of the Talmud, one must be considered as having received an elementary education at best, since it is only via the Talmud that one is introduced to the complexities of orthodox Jewish law and its regulation of every aspect of individual and group life; (ii) Until recently, the centers of Talmudic study were in Eastern Europe where it has become traditional over a span of centuries to teach Talmud in Yiddish and to dispute and interpret its fine points in that language; (iii) A majority of the current masters of the Talmud capable of instructing advanced students in this intricate field are, therefore, themselves from Eastern Europe and, as a result, accustomed to teach and to study the Talmud in Yiddish. Those of their students who do not initially know Yiddish often study it in anticipation of their Talmudic inquiries and become quite expert in at least this facet of Yiddish during their years of Talmudic study. Rarely and decreasingly is Yiddish studied "for its own sake" - or even for the sake of letter writing and newspaper reading - in the afternoon or all-day schools supported by this sector. It may seem ironical that the very sector that consistently refused to make a fetish of a language which is regarded as an unnoteworthy aspect of the work-a-day Jewish world, should wind up clinging to that language so tenaciously as a key to involved HebrewAramic legal tracts and the commentaries upon them. Such, however, are the ironies of language-maintenance. When American Ultra-Orthodoxy was moved to establish schools and day care centers for impoverished post-war North African Jewry, the study of Talmud in Yiddish was an integral part of the program it sponsored there. Similarly, when American Ultra-Orthodoxy rallies to establish all-day schools ("Jewish parochial schools") in every American city of any size, the Talmud in Yiddish is frequently (although not always) a part of the academic program - whether this be in the Deep South or in the Pacific North West. As Tables 8 and 9 reveal, all-day schools offering instruction in both Yiddish and Hebrew have been growing at a rapid rate during the past decade - although they are still more likely to be in Hasidic Brooklyn than anywhere else. The graduates of these schools reveal an unusual kind of Yiddish language proficiency. Those coming from homes in which Yiddish is still spoken achieve near native fluency by the time of their graduation of the Mesifta (high school), with particular refinement of vocabulary in those areas related to Talmudic discourse. However, a majority come from homes in which Yiddish

YIDDISH IN AMERICA

133

is already dormant (and even from families where it has not been spoken for over a generation). These graduate with appreciable Yiddish facility in the intricate Talmudic area but with extremely limited facility in simple every-day discourse. Those from such backgrounds who leave this environment before entering even more intensively into Talmudic study, frequently develop purely mechanical translating ability which they then utilize with great precision but entirely without comprehension. Even those who study longer and, therefore, arrive at a comprehending grasp of the language, particularly in the areas of Talmudic relevance, have no out-of-school peer culture in which Yiddish is still a normal vehicle of communication. In view of their immersion in Jewish studies from early morning to late at night, it is not unusual to hear them speak a highly intermixed combination of English and Yiddish as they converse with each other. There is little concern for the purity or beauty of Yiddish, such as exists among secular Yiddishists, since the language is merely viewed as a key to a treasure rather than the treasure itself. Nevertheless, the key is used so extensively that young American born Talmudic students have frequently been described as "speaking English as if it were Yiddish" - an indication of not only lexical and grammatical but also of complete intonational and accentual interpenetration. Even this key "function" may well be a passing one in the Talmudically oriented Ultra-Orthodox world. With the passage of time an increasing number of American born Talmudic scholars has been trained. They are capable of teaching the Talmud to their pupils in English and, increasingly, they are doing just that. The full transition from Yiddish to English as the language of Talmudic instruction and discourse may require an additional decade or two. However, in certain prestige centers, such as Yeshiva University's rabbinical program, this transition is already well underway while in yet others, it has already been accomplished. b. In the Hasidic world described so strikingly by Poll (1962) and by Krantzier (1961), Yiddish is also viewed as a key - but not merely as a key to learning (since learning itself is not emphasized as much as it is in Talmudically oriented Ultra-Orthodox circles). Yiddish is also viewed as an aspect of the "differentness" with which pious Jews must surround themselves in order to more completely separate themselves from the temptations of the secular world. Most Hasidim are post Second World War immigrants from Hungary, Carpatho-

27 (22.7%)

42 (168.0%)

67

25

Yiddish and Hebrew**

YIDDISH: TURNING TOLIFE

** Yiddish and Hebrew generally refers to the use of Yiddish as a vehicle of instruction for the study of Hebrew (or Aramiac) texts. Formal instruction in Yiddish per se is quite rare.

* Data derived from Directory of Yeshiva All Day Schools· 5713:1952-3 and Directory of Day Schools in the United States and Canada 5721:1961, New York, Torah Umesorah, 1952-61; mimeographed, as prepared for the Language Resources Project by Poll (1965).

69 (47.9%)

213

1960-61 school term

Increase between 1952-53 and 1960-61 school terms

119

144

1952-53 school term 146

Hebrew Only

Total

Table 8. Increase in Orthodox all-day schools offering instruction in (a) Hebrew only and (b) Hebrew and Yiddish between 1952-53 and 1960-61 school terms.*

134

4 (2.7%) 24 (16.4%) 11 (7.5%) 1 (.7%) 23 (15.7%)

40 (27.4%)

Hebrew 15,000 15.7 6.8

JEWS

1,117.4 4,090.7 0.7

Cultural characteristics % speaking natl. lang. 99.7 87.1 % literate (any lang.) 44.5 41.5

2.5

ARMENIANS

UZBEKS

TOTAL USSR

1,565.6

3,987.5

167,665.8

0.9

2.4

7 4.7 17.9

21.1

50.9

23.8

13.8

88.4

71.9

92.4

99.1

--

--

27.0

3.7

a Socioeconomic characteristics Political characteristics Natl . compos ition of the Communist party: 1922 party census 72.0 5.9 1927 party census 65.0 11.7 Natl . compos і tion of Soviet b 66.7 0.0 polit. elite

2.5

5.2

1.2

4.3

0.0

20.0

1.0

0.5

1.7

1.2

0.0

0.0

[a] omitted here because of skimpiness of data, none of which is available for Jews. [b] National Composition of the top Soviet leaders who serve as members or candidate members of the Politburo plus the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Sources: Lewis, Rowland and Clem (1976: 279), Clem (1978), Clem (1975: 144, 262 and 1978), Kohn (1933: 156-157), Arutyunyan (1972: 3-20), Fainsod (1958: 219) and Brzezinski and Huntingdon (1963: 132-133).

TABLES - CZARIST EMPIRE, USSR & POLAND

395

Table 8. USSR literacy by ethnic group in 1926 (%) Ethnic group

Total

Urban male female

Russian Ukrainian Belorussian Moldavian Georgian Armenian Azerbaizhan Kazakh Uzbek Turkmen Tadzhik Kirgiz Karelian Komi (Zyryan) Mordovian Mari Udmurt Chuvash Tatar Bashkir Kalmyk Avar Kabardin Ossetian Chechen Buryat Yakut Abkhaz Karakalpak Jewish German Polish

45.0 41.3 37.3 27.6 39.5 34.0 8.1 7.1 3.8 2.3 2.2 4.6 41.4 38.1 22.9 26.6 25.6 32.2 33.6 24.3 10.9 6.8 6.8 21.2 2.9 23.2 5.8 11.2 1.2 72.3 60.2 53.8

74.4 71.3 75.6 61.9 72.7 60.1 35.8 37.0 20.0 35.3 13.4 39.7 75.9 82.6 71.9 88.3 79.4 82.5 55.1 55.9 54.6 45.4 71.9 62.2 44.0 69.2 46.2 59.6 20.2 76.9 74.9 78.4

60.2 50.6 54.4 26.6 63.9 46.7 10.2 9.2 4.1 5.0 1.7 9.1 47.7 57.9 32.3 60.4 48.1 50.1 38.2 31.1 34.8 14.3 42.0 36.4 12.0 54.6 21.2 31.2 1.2 71.0 72.9 70.0

Rural male female 53.0 53.8 49.0 42.0 40.1 34.3 9.1 11.9 3.2 3.6 2.2 7.9 54.6 51.8 37.7 44.7 40.7 47.6 38.6 34.0 11.7 12.5 10.3 28.0 4.9 36.4 8.3 15.6 1.9 70.7 58.9 51.2

26.9 25.0 19.8 11.6 27.1 12.0 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 28.6 24.1 8.1 9.8 11.3 16.7 24.2 14.5 1.1 0.8 1.9 9.0 0.2 9.1 1.8 3.4 0.1 60.7 56.7 37.2

Native language 997 51.9 40.2 38.7 98.3 80.9 96.2 96.5 98.0 91.1 69.9 93.2 56.2 28.9 69.4 75.5 89.6 92.5 40.0 24.7 85.6 23.7 38.5 29.8 857 42.9 66.3 55.5 91.7 52.3

!

Source: Natsional'naya politika BKP(b) ν tsifrakh, pp 271-273. Note: Data for Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians for 1926 are unrepresentative and have not been included.

396


Table 9. Proportion (%) naming their ethnic group (Natsionaľnosť) as their native lan guage. 1926 Ethnic Group

m/f

Russian Ukrainian Belorussian Lithuanian Latvian Estonian Moldavian Georgian Armenian Azerbaidzhan Kazakh Uzbek Turkmen Tadzhik Kirgiz Karelian Komi/Komi-Permyak Mordovian Mari Udmurt Chuvash Tatar Bashkir ! Kalmyk Kabardin Ossetian Į Chechen Peoples of Dagestan Tuva Buryat Yakut Abkhaz Karakalpak Jewish German Polish

Total Pop. male

99.7 87.1 71.8 46.9 78.3 88.4 92.3 96.5 92.4 93.8 99.6 99.1 97.3 98.3 99.0 95.5 96.5 94.0 99.3 98.9 98.7 98.9 53.8 99.3 99.3 97.9 99.7 99.3

99.7 87.0 70.8 46.1 76.5 88.0 91.8 96.6 92.4 93.6 99.6 99.1 97.3 98.3 98.9 95.6 96.3 93.6 99.3 98.8 98.5 98.7 54.1 99.3 99.4 97.8 99.7 99.1

—

—

98.1 99.7 83.9 87.5 71.9 94.9 42.9

97.8 99.8 83.9 87.2 71.5 94.7 41.4

Urban Pop. m/f male 99/7 64.9 37.5 39.3 66.1 68.3 74.2 97.2 88.0 98.4 98.4 99.2 98.8 99.3 96.1 70.3 84,5 64.2 97.4 85.6 82.2 96.2 72.8 92.2 91.4 87.2 94.2 97.0

—

997 65.6 36.2 37.9 64.5 68.5 73.8 97.2 88.2 98.5 98.5 99.3 98.8 99.2 96.4 71.8 86.3 68.7 90.0 87.8 84.3 95.9 74.6 94.2 92.5 86.8 92.5 96.9

—

89.5 96.8 85.3 99.3 67.4 77.4 49.7

92.3 96.7 86.2 99.0 66.9 76.5 46.9

Living in own ethnic rep.

Living outside own ethnic rep.

1959 Ethnic Group

Total Pop. m/f male

Urban Pop. m/f male

Russian Ukrainian Belorussian Lithuanian Latvian

99.8 87.7 84.2 97.8 95.1

99.9 77.2 63.5 96.6 93.1

99.3 86.4 82.0 97.7 94.9

99.9 75.6 60.6 96.4 92.9

100

93.5 93.2 99.2 98.4

ļ

99.3 51.2 41.9 80.3 53.2

!


397

Table 9. Continued 1959(contd) Ethnic Group

Total Pop. m/f male

Urban Pop. m/f male


Living outside own ethnid

rep. Estonian ļ Moldavian ! Georgian Armenian Azerbaidzhan Kazakh Uzbek Turkmen Tadzhik Kirgiz Karelian Komi/KomiPermyak Mordovian Mari Udmurt Chuvash Tatar Bashkir Kalmyk Kabardin Ossetia n Chechen Peoples of Dagestan Tuva Buryat Yakut Abkhaz Karakalpak Jewish German Polish

95.2 95.2 98.6 89.9 97.6 98.4 98.4 98.9 98.1 98.7 71.3

96.2 94.5 98.6 89.7 97.5 98.1 98.4 98.8 98.0 98.5 69.0

93.1 78.4 96.8 84.4 96.4 96.7 96.7 97.3 96.4 97.4 51.7

93.4 77.4 96.7 84.3 96.3 96.2 96.6 97.3 96.2 97.2 48.7

98.2 99.5 99.2 98.1 99.2 98.6 99.5 99.3 99.7 80.9

99.3

56.3 77.7 73.4 78.1 95.1 95.6 97.4 92.0 94.6 92.3 61.3

88.7 78.1 95.1 89.1 90.8 92.0 61.9 91.0 97.9 89.1 98.8

87.5 75.8 93.4 86.8 88.6 91.0 62.1 89.2 97.5 87.8 98.5

74.3 52.2 75.8 69.7 71.2 87.5 73.3 83.8 90.8 82.0 97.0

72.4 49.5 73.2 66.8 68.6 86.1 73.1 80.4 90.7 80.8 96.2

93.8 97.3 97.8 93.2 97.5 98.9 57.6 98.2 99.2 98.0 99.7

60.9 70.9 91.6 75.9 83.2 89.3 75.1

96.2 99.1 94.9 97.5 95.0 95.0 21.5 75.0 45.2

95.5 99.0 94.0 97.4 94.7 95.1 20.8 72.2 46.2

90.3 95.3 81.5 90.7 88.8 96.8 21.0 66,3 38.6

89.6 95.5 80.8 90.6 88.9 96.1 20.3 63.5 39.3

98.6 99.2 97.3 98.2 96.7 99.1

87.9 96.4 84.9 82.8 70.1 56.4

— — —

— — —


Living outside own ethnid rep.

100 91.4 90.1 99.5 98.1 99.2 97.7 99.4 99.8

99.2 48.4 40.9 71.8 51.1 53.5 79.1 71.5 78.0

79.6 79.2 73.1 97.8

ļ

1970 Ethnic Group

Total Pop. m/f male

Urban Pop. m/f male

Russian Ukrainian Belorussian Lithuanian Latvian Estonian Moldavian Georgian Armenian

99.8 85.7 80.6 97.9 95.2 96.5 95.0 98.4 91.4

99.9 75.9 63.4 97.0 93.2 93.8 82.5 97.1 87.8

99.8 84.3 78.6 97.7 95.0 95.5 94.4 98.3 91.3

99.8 74.3 61.1 96.8 93.0 93.9 82.2 97.0 87.7


398 Table 9. Continued 1970{contd)


Living outside ļ own ethnic rep.

96.6 95.6 96.9 97.3 96.7 97.4 45.4

98.9 98.9 98.9 99.3 99.4 99.7 71.7

95.8 95.0 97.4 93.5 95.6 91.6 51.0

66.2 56.6 73.2 64.3 68.0 83.3 73.2 90.0 93.7 84.9 95.7

63.4 53.2 71.2 61.3 65.2 81.9 73.4 88.7 93.5 84.0 95.0

86.7 96.2 95.8 87.7 94.5 98.5 63.2 97.3 99.1 98.4 99.5

74.6 72.6 86.5 71.4 79.1 85.9 73.8 76.2 79.6 76.7 94.5

91.6 94.5 79.6 87.0 90.4 97.6 17.4 58.3 31.6

91.1 94.9 78.4 86.8 90.1 97.6 16.6 54.8

98.7 99.1 95.0 97.1 97.8 99.5

88.9 85.0 84.4 72.4 71.8 62.2

— — —

—

Ethnic Group

Total Pop. m/f male

Urban Pop. m/f male

Azerbaidzhan Kazakh Uzbek Turkmen Tadzhik Kirgiz Karelian Komi/KomiPermyak Mordovian Mari Udmurt Chuvash Tatar Bashkir Kalmyk Kabardin Ossetian Chechen Peoples of Dagestan Tuva Buryat Yakut Abkhaz Karakalpak Jewish German Polish

98.2 98.0 98.6 98.9 98.5 98.8 63.0

98.1 97.2 98.6 98.8 98.4 98.7 59.6

96.7 95.8 96.9 97.2 96.7 97.6 50.4

83.7 77.8 91.2 82.6 86.9 98.2 66.2 91.7 98.1 88.6 98.8

82.2 75.6 89.6 80.4 84.8 88.1 67.1 90.7 97.8 88.0 98.4

96.5 98.7 92.6 96.2 95.9 96.6 17.7 66.8 32.5

96.0 98.7 91.9 96.1 95.5 96.6 16.9 63.7 32.3

—

1979 Ethnic Group

Total Pop.

Russian Ukrainian Belorussian Lithuanian Latvian Estonian Moldavian Georgian Armenian Azerbaidzhan Kazakh Uzbek Turkmen

99.9 82.8 74.2 97.9 95.0 95.3 93.2 98.3 90.7 97.9 97.5 98.5 98.7

Urban Pop.


99.4

100

73.7 59.1 97.4 93.3 93.4 81.3 96.9 87.6 96.2 97.1 96.1 97.0

89.1 83.5 97.9 97.8 99.0 96.5 99.4 99.4 98.7 98.6 98.8 99.2


99.9

43.8 36.8 63.9 55.3 33.3 74.3 67.3 73.9 92.7 92.8 96.9 90.4

!

TABLES - CZARIST EMPIRE, USSR & POLAND Table 9. Continued ļ

1979(contd) Ethnic Group

Total Pop.

Urban Pop.



Tadzhik Kirgiz Karelian Komi/KomiPermyak Mordovian Mari Udmurt Chuvash Tatar Bashkir Kalmyk Kabardin Ossetian Chechen Peoples of Dagestan Tuva Buryat Yakut Abkhaz Karakalpak Jewish German Polish

97.8 97.9 55.6

95.9 97.3 43.4

99.3 99.6 61.7

92.8 84.8 46.9

76.5 72.6 86.7 76.5 81.7 85.9 67.0 91.3 97.9 88.2 98.6

60.2 55.1 72.3 60.6 64.7 81.0 72.8 90.1 95.3 84.2 96.3

79.9 94.3 83.7 82.3 89.8 97.7 64.4 97.1 99.1 92.3 99.7

71.5 63.9 79.9 64.4 73.4 81.8 72.6 62.3 85.7 75.8 94.0

95.9 98.8 90.2 95.3 94.3 95.9 14.2 57.0 29.1

96.0 78.8 86.1 89.7 97.3 12.3 48.5 27.8

—

98.6 99.1 93.1 96.4 97.0 98.7

86.8 85.7 86.0 72.3 65.5 59.1

— — —

— — —

399

400


Table 10. Soviet Census data for selected characteristics by nationality, 1970.

RUSSIANS

UKRAINS. ESTONIANS

Ecological characteristics Total pop. (millions) 129,015.1 40,753.2 1,007.3 % of. total USSR 53.4 16.9 0.4 living in urban cntrs . of >15,000 57.4 37.9 43.6 Cultural characteristics % speaking nati. lang. 99.8 85.7 % aged 10+ wi th sec . ed . or higher 50.8 47.6 Copies of bks. publ . in natl lang. per .100 spkrs 562.2 226.2

JEWS

2,150.7 (0.9

ARMENIANS

3,559.1

UZBEKS

9,195,093

TOTAT, USSR

241,720.1

1.5

.

76.9

82.7

53.9

20.7

46.6

95.5

17.7

91.4

90.6

93.9

46.2

77.3

51.8

41.2

48.3

889.7

1^8.

211.9

239.3

10.7

0.5

6.7

2.2

1.3

Political characteristics Natl . compos Ition of the Commun ist party, 1972 61.0 16.0 Natl . composi tion of Soviet political elite a (III/IV '71) 60.0 16.0

0.3

n.a.

1.5

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

Socioeconomic characteristics % scientific

workers

66.4

0.0

-

[a] National composition of members or candidate members of the Poltiburo plus the sec retariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Sources: USSR (1973: 9-13), Clem (1975: 262, 281), Katz, Rogers and Harned (1975: 444445, 449, 459), Rigby (1976: 326), Current Soviet Leaders (1976) and Portraits of Prominent USSR Personalities (1971).


401

Table 11. Percentage of those claiming a non-Russian language as their native tongue who have learned Russian as a second language, according to nationalities in 1970. Nationality

%

Nationality

%

Nationality

%

Russian Ukrainian Uzbek Bellorussian Tatar Kazakh Azerbaydzhan Armenian Georgian Moldavian Lithuanian Jew Tadzhik German Chuvash Turkmen Kirgiz Latvian Daghestanis comprising Avar Lezgin Dargin Ku myk Lak Tabasaran Nogai Rutul Tsakhur Agul Mordvin Bashkir

0.1 36.3 14.5 49.0 62.5 41.8 16.6 30.1 21.3 36.1 35.9 16.3 15.4 59.6 58.4 15.4 19.1 45.2 41.7

Pole Estonian Udmurt Chechen Mari Ossetian Komi * Permyak Korean Bulgarian Greek Buryat Yakut Kabardinian Karakalpak Gipsy Uygur Hungarian Ingush Gagauz Peoples of the North comprising Nenets Evenki Khanty Chukchi Even Nanai Mansi Koryak Dolgan Nivkh

37.0 29.0 63.3 66.7 62.4 58.6 63.1 68.5 50.3 58.8 35.4 66.7 41.7 71.4 10.4 53.0 35.6 25.8 71.3 63.3 52.5

Selkup Ulchi Saami Udegei Itelmen Keti Orochi Nganasan Yukagir Kareli Tuvin Kalmyk Rumanian Karachai Adygei Kurd Finn Abkhaz Turki Khakass Balkar Altai Cherkess Dungan Iranian Abazin Aisor Czech Tats Shortzi Slovak Others

40.8 56.8 52.9 46.0 32.5 59.1 44.4 40.0 29.1 59.1 38.9 81.1 28.5 67.6 67.9 19.9 47.0 59.2 22.4 66.5 71.5 54.9 70.0 48.0 33.9 69.5 46.2 35.6 57.7 59.8 39.3 38.4

37.8 31.6 43.0 57.4 56.0 31.9 68.5 30.7 12.2 39.8 65.7 53.3

55.1 54.9 48.1 58.7 48.4 58.0 38.6 64.3 61.4 43.8

Source: 1970 Census account in Izvestiya April 17, 1971.

402 Table 12.

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE Enrollment of Jews in educational institutions in Poland, 1934-1935*

TYPE OF SCHOOL AND AFFILIATION

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS

ENROLLMENTS

Non-Jewish STATE, MUNICIPAL, a n d PRIVATE

elementary secondary vocational special (for the disabled) university

425,566 29,822 6,994 1,607 7,114

Total

481,203 Jewish

TARBUT ( Z i o n i s t )

kindergarten and elementary secondary and vocational evening

255 10 4

35,764 2,557 6,229

269

44,780

97 2 70

10,256 650 4,580

165

15,486

snuL-KULT (Labor Zionist and others) kindergarten and elementary evening

13 3

2,026 317

Total

16

2,343

Total CYSno (Bund, Labor Zionist, Folkist, and others) kindergarten and elementary secondary evening Total

8,300

JEWISH SECONDARY SCHOOL FEDERATION (officially

nonpartisan but Zionist-influenced) YAVNEH (Mizrachi) kindergarten and elementary secondary yeshivah rabbinical seminary

220 3 4 2

Total

229

15,923

557 197

61,328 18,758

754

80,086

HOREV (Agudas yisroel)

kheyder and Talmud Torah yeshivah Total


403

Table 12. Continued TYPE OF SCHOOL AND AFFILIATION

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS

ENROLLMENTS 20,000

BETH JACOB (Agudas y israel) PRIVATE

kheyder secondary (gymnasium and lyceum) Total

147

40,000 8,232** 48,232

VOCATIONAL

ORT ICA WUZET Total Total number oť enrollments in Jewish schools Total number of Jewish enrollments

*

4,427*** 2,942*** 1,933*** 9,302 244,452 725,655

This table is based on Zineman 1938, Chmielewski 1937, Kazdan 1947, and Mauersberg 1968. The number of enrollments is greater than the number of stu dents because one person might enroll at more than one institution; for example, one student might attend a public elementary school in the morning and a Jewish school in the afternoon. According to the census of 1931, the total number of Jews between the ages of three and nineteen in Poland was 1,056,556. ** 1937-1938.

103 1 16 13 9 18 10 14 6 9 15 1 11 6 9 2 3

246

Warsaw, city' of Warsaw / 1 Łódź / 5 Kielce / 6 Lublin / 6 Vilna / 1 Nowogródek / 3 Białystok / 4 Polesie / 3 Wołyń / 6 Lwów .·' 2 Tarnopol / 1 Stanisławów / 2 Cracow / 2 Pomerania / 3 Poznań / 1 Silesia i 1

Total / 48

Į HEBREW POLISH

YIDDISH

3 3 2

7

1 1

204 3 31

15 12 9 18 10 14 6 9 7 1 8 3 6 2 1

83 3 14

2 6

1 1

1

1

3 1

BILINGUAL

DAILIES

33

68

513,000 93

1 1

2

1 4

2

5

5 1

46

5 5 7 2 2

18,000

16,400 2,000 3,000 10,000

7 1 1 2

1

6 8 6 2 9 2 4 7 7

17,000 3,000 1,500 42,000

2 1 1 6

NUMBLR

400,000 21

WEEKLIES

11

OTHER PERIODICALS

Source: Lucian Dobroszycki and Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1977.

NUMBER OF NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS

PROVINCES AND NUMBER OF CITIES IN EACH

GERMAN

143

1

2 1 4

52

ISSUED IRR.

45 1 6 12 8 7 10 11 3 6 10 1 7 3 8 2 3

GENERAL

25 1 3 3 2 5 1 3 1 2

4 1 1

25

2 1 1

6

5

SCIENTIFIC

15 11

1

1 1 2

8

SOCIO-POLITICAL

2 2 1 3

CULTURAL

7

TYPE

TRADE UNIONS AND PROFESSIONS

30

1

1

2

3

23

ZIONISTS

SrORT

YOUTII

4 1 2 2 1 1 1

І 1

1

1 1 2

1

1

1

7

BUND

17 5 37 10

1 1

1

3

1

11 4 18

AFFILIATION

5

1 1

3

7

1

1

1

1 1 1

1

FOLK1STS

FREQUENCY

AGUDAS YISROEL

LANGUAGES

2

2

COMMUNISTS

Table 13. The Jewish press in Poland, 1938-1939

CIRCULATION

COMMUNAL, EDUCA TIONAL. AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

185

8 4 6 1 2

72 1 14 10 6 17 8 12 5 8 11


78(1) 57(2) 69(6) 62(15) 67(31)

66 (45)

70(8) 66(13) 66(32)

61 ( D 62(1) 69(4) 65(3) 67(10)

72(1)

78(1) 85(4)

•

70 (2)

66(1) 67(1) 62(1) 61(3) 70(4) 62 (6) 70 (8) 70(19) 60(10)

72(3) 66(1) 62(3) 76(1) 62(1) 73(1)

5

4

3

2

Traditional texts and commentaries Language and literature: research and criticism Novels, short stories Poetry History and current events Journalism Children's literature and texts

71(6)

70(5)

75(1)

1

68 (85)

70(30) 68(28)

62(4) 70(2) 75(4) 73 (3) 67 (3) 73(11)

6

61(12)

75(3) 55(2)

68(2)

54(3) 63(1) 56(1)

7

[a] Derived from entries in Leksikon fun der nayer yidisher literatur (Lexicon of Modern Yiddish Litera ture), Volume 5 (New York, Congress for Jewish Literature, 1971). [b] Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of cases on which each average is based. [c] Compare with the last line of Table 3 in Fishman 1965c for the 1960 average.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Total

Argentina Latin America Soviet Union Poland France British Commonwealth West Europe United States Israel

Country/region

Genre

Table 14. Average age of Yiddish writers (as of 1970)a by country/region of residence and literary genre b

68(221)

64(13) 68(6 ) 69(11) 74(11) 69(10) 69 (20) 61(4 ) 70(75)c 63(71)

Total

TABLES - CZARIST EMPIRE, USSR & POLAND 405

[*] Aged 2 and over [**] Aged 15 and over Source: Stern 1989

Jewish population Hebrew speakers Percent

716,678 511,000 71.3

(Nov.1948)*

(1914)*

85,000 34,000 40

Census at end of Mandatory Period

Estimate for the end of Turkish Period

1,413,800 861,000 60.9

(June 1954)*

Estimate based on Labor Force Survey

Table 1. Jews speaking Hebrew as only or first language (1914-1983)

1,847,860 1,360,180 73.6

Estimate based on Census of Population and Housing (May 1961)* 1,962,800 1,526,700 77.7

Estimate based on Census of Population and Housing 1972** 2,345,200 1,960,600 83.6

Estimate based on Census of Population and Housing 1983**


Israel

TABLES - ISRAEL

407

Table 2. Foreign languages spoken by the Jewish population (aged 2 and over), 19161961

As only or first language 1948

1950

1954

1961

Language

1916-19a

Total

22,700 166,341 524,000 552,793 446,200 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Yiddish Spanish (incl. Dzudezmo) Bukharian Kurdish Arabic Persian Turkish Italian English Bulgarian German Dutch Hungarian Greek Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian Polish Czech & Slovakian French Rumanian Russian Other Languages

Israel-born Other than Hebrew 1961 2-14 15+

Į |

109,100 77,995 (100%) (100%)

Į

59.1

46.8

33.3

27.8

22.7

14.2

26.1

6.8

8.3 0.3 0.3

5.7 0.2 0.2

5.4 0.2 0.9

7.3 0.1 1.9

8.9 0.5 0.6

10.3

28.2 .

27.5

48.5

23.1

0.1

16.9

1.1 2.7 0.1 1.4 8.4 7.9

4.4 0.3 0.5 3.1 2.0 4.2

— — —

0.2 4.1 0.3

—

—

4.1 0.5

3.3 0.3

3.7 1.0 0.4 1.8 3.1 6.3 0.1 4.6 0.2

1.7 0.1 0.2

—

4.8 0.4 0.4 6.6 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.7 3.4

1.9 5.7 1.5 3.0 6.7 2.6 0.2

0.4 2.9 0.5 2.5 7.8 1.4 0.9

0.4 4.4

0.2 0.8 0.2 3.8 3.6 0.4 1.0

— — 30.2

— — — 0.2

— — — 0.9

— 0.7 0.2

— 3.0 0.6 2.6 3.9 1.7 0.6

3.5 1.6 0.7 0.7 4.6 7.0

[a] Changes as amended in II, p 46. Source: Population and Housing Census, 1961, I p. xxxv.

' 0.3

5.5 9.0 1.7 1.0

24.5

0.2 8.5

—

—

3.1 0.3

0.8

— — 0.3 0.1 3.2 0.3

0.5 0.4

í

Index

1961

1 Turkish 2 Persian 3 Hungarian 4 Kurdish 5 Bulgarian 6 Greek 7 Spanish (incl. L a d i n o )) 8 Rumanian 9 German 10 Yiddish 11 Arabic 12 Russian 13 Polish 14 French 15 Dutch 16 Bukharian 17 Italian 18 Czech & Slovakian 19 English *

Language

+ — — — + + + — + — — — 12

47.0 46.5 45.8 45.6 45.3 44.3 44.2 44.1 43.8 43.0 41.8 41.3 33.7

a

—

4 6 1 6 6 6 2 5 1 4 10

+ 2 + 12 + 2 + 9 — 4 + 4

Change in Rank

55.5 51.1 50.9 49.6 48.6 47.5

Index

Source: Stern 1989 Low Index because heavily weighted as "additional" language.

79.5 1 Bulgarian 2 Rumanian 71.9 70.5 3 Turkish 4 Yiddish 70.3 70.0 5 Hungarian 6 Czech & 66.8 Slovakian 66.0 7 Italian 63.0 8 German 62.9 9 French 62.3 10 Greek 11 Spanish (incl. L a d i n o ·) 61.2 12 Bukharian 57.5 55.7 13 Kurdish 14 Persian 51.8 50.6 15 Polish 16 Dutch 48.6 46.4 17 Arabic 18 Russian 45.5 43.4 19 English

1948 Language

Table 3. Index of speaking for minority languages among Jewish population

1 2 3 4 5 6 7. θ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1Ö 19 20 21 22 23

1983 Persian Georgian Bukharian Russian Indian Rumanian Hungarian Yiddish German Dutch Serbian Kurdish Bulgarian Greek Polish French Czech Arabic Italian Portuguese English Turkish Spanish-Ladino

Language 69.3 58.7 52.3 50.1 49.1 45.0 44.7 41.5 41.4 41.2 41.2 40.4 39.4 36.9 36.3 36.2 36.1 36.0 35.8 35.6 34.5 31.7 30.8

Index

-

+ -

2 20 16

8 θ 8 2 2 1 7 2

* 5

-

+ 2 - 4 + 2

—

+ 13 + a

+ 1

Change i n Rank


TABLES - ISRAEL

409

Table 4. Population aged 14 and over, by daily spoken languages (%)

[1] A person who spoke more than one language, is included in each language which he spoke and therefore the total does not sum up to 100%. [2] Principal — only or first in everyday language. Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Israel, No. 25, 1974.

410


Table 5. Jews aged 15 and over who speak languages other than Hebrew, by language and its use in speaking and by sex and age.

TABLES - ISRAEL Table 5. Continued

411

412 Table 5. Continued



413

414


Table 5. Continued

Source: 1983 Census, publication no. 10


415

416


Table 6. Jews aged 15 and over who speak languages other than Hebrew, by language and its use in speaking, and by sex, place of birth and period of immigration.


417




419



421

TABLES - ISRAEL Table 6. Continued SEX, LANGUAGE, USE IN SPEAKIING WOMEN (CONT.)

FRENCH І ONLY ΙΑΝΟ. PXPST SECOND

í,645 200 1,133 1,510

U,730 530 3,495 6,665

23,635 440 3,900 19,195

10,733 195 1.760 6,760

l,945 20 300 1,625

54,315 1,795 11,630 40,670

5,525 20 190 5,315

59,840 1,815 12,040 45,965

RUSSIAN TOTAL ONLY lANO. FIRST SeCONO

3.950 17,330 715 2,065 2.100 6.795 1,135 6,670

24,340 1,475 9,095 13,970

3.660 65 915 2,660

2,265 100 315 1,650

3,490 30 465 2,975

55.635 4,470 21,905 29,260

470 25 40 405

I 56,105 4,495 21,945 29,665

SPANISH,LADINO TOTAL ONLY tANO. PISST SECONO

2.230 353 1,170 705

9,905 560 3,265 6,040

9.355 610 2,410 4.335

10,630 640 2.563 7,605

3.670 200 790 2,660

40.005 2.720 11.965 25,320

9.600 120  9,100

49,605 2.640 12,345 34,420

GERMAN TOTAL ONLY LANO. FIRST SECONO

»,423 390 1,260 I 775

І

300

4,015 333 1,725 1,955

40 210 250

750 33 245 470

2,275 130 635 1,310

3.670 260 1.400 2.210

6.403 725 2.475 5,205

17,050 1,290 4,330 11,410

32.630 2,460 9,315 20.655

3.930 200 145 3,565

36.760 2.660 9,660 24,440

PERSIAN TOTAL ONLY LANG. FIRST SECOND

670 265 430 155

2.440 500 965 935

4,025 460 1,015 2,550

5,225 360 1.155 3.510

6,050 510 1,150 4,390

953 70 205 660

19,365 2.365 4,940 12,240

2,616 10 110 2.690

22.375 2,395 5,030 14,930

HUNGARIAN TOTAL ONLY LANQ. FIRST SECONO

240 35 60 125

69S 105 295 295

2.235 195 975 1,065

6.615 663 2.765 3.165

6,360 560 2.930 5,090

3,555 125 653 2,575

21,940 1.665 7,920 12,335

1,495 5 25 1,465

23,435 1.690 7,9451 13,600i

POLISH TOTAL ONLY LANO. PIBST SECOND

90 15 30 45

193 15 73 105

1,705 65 333 1.105

6,335 235 1,640 4,460

7,630 140 1,755 3,665

6,575 90 760 5,705

22,750 610 4.615 17,325

450 5 · 445

23,200 61S| 4,615 17.770

GEORGIAN TOTAL ONLY LANO. PIBST SECONO

400 140 200 60

1,125 295 565 265

6,160 1,723 3,450 3,005

225 20 50 155

160 10 40 110

135 25 35 75

10,225 2,215 4,340 3.670

260 35 35 190

10,4651 2,25o| 4,3751 3.6601

BULGARIAN TOTAL ONLY LANO. PIBST SECONO

40 10 15 15

23 20 5

133 15 25 95

310 25 50 235

7.730 350 2,260 5.100

970 5 190 775

9,210 405 2,360 6,225

495 20 5 470

9.705І 423J 2.5651 6,695

INDIAN TOTAL ONLY LANO. PIBST SECONO

110 25 60 25

435 130 190 135

3,635 650 1.425 1,760

1,563 260 445 660

490 75 165 450

60 15 20 45

6,775 1,155 2,305 3,315

690 5 30 655

7,445 1.160 2,335 3,970


422 Table 6. Continued SEX. LANGUAGE USE IN SPEAKING

WOMEN (CONT.) TURKISH TOTAL ONLY LAMO. FIRST SECOND

200 15 160 65

430  195 t05

1.685 73 415 1.195

730 tO 165 545

1,470 90 305 1.075

245 5 45 175

4.640 235 1,325 3,260

225 15 110

3.043 333 1.349 3,4*0

153 5 60 70

140 1O 65 65

625 23 tl3 565

415 25 65 305

1.160 45 175 1.020

160 15 40 265

3,175 145 460 2,350

663 5 tO 440

3.640 150 700І 2,990

KURDISH TOTAI ONLY LΑΝD. FIRST SECOND

45 10 45 10

145 10 100 55

ttO  120 70

tOS 10 55 140

1,7*5 145 305 1,325

340 35 70 235

2,790 260 695 1,635

6*5 35 40 600

3,665 315 735 2,435

BUCHARIAH TOTAI ONLY FIRST SECOND

40 · 15 45

710 170 335 tOS

**S t05 410 360

45 10 t5 

230 tO 60 130

345 35 65 tt3

2,405 440 *50 1.015

275  30 215

2.680 470 960 I 1.230

PORTUGUESE TOTAL 160 ONLY LΑΝD. tO FIRST 45 SECOND 95

330 15 105 2lO

640 tO tl5 405

4*5 35 440

t35 35 tOO

40 · 5 55

2,120 55 440 1,625

tOO · 15 165

2,3101 53 455 1.610І

290 23 120 145

315 30 75 tlO

tOO 10 55 135

440 20 135 265

195 · 45 250

1.665 100 465 1,100

195 5 190

1.880 105 665 1.290

30

30

105 5 40 40

90 10 25 55

405 25 105 175

475 5 95 375

1.110 45 t65 600

165 10 15 160

1,295 55 260 960

10

50 20 10 2O

165 20 35 130

tlO 15 90 105

610 40 205 565

125 15 110

1,390 95 355 940

330 15 15 tOO

1,420 110 370 1,140

 5 · -

15 5 10

220 10 75 135

100 tO 60

765 tO 120 625

260 5 55 220

1.365 40 ł73 1,070

70 70

1.455 40 275 1.140

ITALIAN TOTAI ONLY LAMO. FIRST SECOND

LΑΝD.

DUTCH TOTAL ONLY LAND. FIRST SeCOND

I

GREEK TOTAL ONLY LΑΝG. FIRST SECOND

ļ

SERBIAN TOTAL ONLY LAMG. FIRST SECOND CZECH TOTAL ONLY LANO. FIRST SECOND

I

145 15 55 75

5 5

10 -

-

TABLES - ISRAEL

423

Table 7. Persons aged 15 and over, by everyday language spoken (%)

JEWS-TOTAL

1961

'1972

1983

100.0

100.0

100.0

Thereof: 67.4

76.7

82.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

Arabic

21.6

22.1

15.9

Yiddish

24.0

19.5

15.1

3.5

12.1

Rumanian

9.3

13.5

11.0

English

1.6

5.0

8.5

Spanish

5.4

6.7

6.0

Speak Hebrew as main language Speak other main language —

total

Russian

French

5.3

7.5

58

German

6.7

6.3

4.7

Hungarian

4.8

4.9

3.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.8

94.7

NON-JEWS — T O T A L Thereof: Speak A r a b i c as main language

[1] Persons aged 14 and over Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Israel, No. 36, 1985.

Table 8. Yiddish in Israel and the United States: Basic numerical status. Israel 1961 a Mother-tongue Principal spoken language 101,110 (36.46%) Additional spoken language 176,375 (63.54%) Percent of total Jewish population for whom it is the principal spoken language 5.6% Percent of total Jewish population for whom it is the principal or additional spoken language 13.4%

U.S.A. 1969 b 1.620,000 126,000 — 2.1%

—

[a] Israeli data in this and subsequent tables are based upon a Jewish population aged two years or older of 2,072,630 in 1961 and are derived from various tables reported in Languages, Literacy and Educational Attainment, Part III (= Central Bureau of Statistics, Population and Housing Census 1961, Publication 29). [b] United States data in this and subsequent tables are based upon a total population of 198,214,000 in 1970 and are derived from various tables reported in Current Population Report, Series P-20, No.221. "Characteristics of the Population by Ethnic Origin: November 1969" (U.S. Bureau of the Census).


424

Table 9. Nativity of Yiddish Claimants. Israel 1961

U.S.A. 1969

Mother-tongue native-born foreign-born

-

1,142,000(70.52%) 478,000 (29.48%)

total

-

1,620,000

Principal spoken language native-born foreign-born total

3,325 ( 2.7 %) 97,140(97.3 %) 100,865 a

126,000

Principal or additional spoken language native-born 35,740 (12.88%) foreign-born 241,745 (87.12%) total

20,000 (15.88%) 106,000(84.12%)

-

277,485

[a] In other tables this total is reported as 101,110.

Table 10. Nativity and age of Yiddish claimants. 1. Mother-tongue (U.S.A.) under 14 14-24 25-44 45-64 65 + (median (total number

(1969) Native-born

Foreign-born

.4% 7.0% 29.4% 50.6% 12.7% 50.2 1,142,000

.2% 1.5% 4.6% 30.7% 63.1% 65+ ) 478,000)

2. Principal/additional spoken language (Israel) Foreign-born

Native-born age 2 - 1 4

age 15+

age 2 - 1 4

age 15+

Principal

1,955 1,880 (51.5%) →(48.5%)

2,145 94,995 (2.2%) → (97.8%)

Additional

13,400 18,465 (42.0%) → (58.0%)

10,885 133,720 (7.5%) → (92.5%)

(13.0%) ↓↓ (87.0%)

(9.2%)

(16.3%)

(41.5%)

(90.8%)

(83.7%)

(58.5%)

TABLES - ISRAEL

425

Table 11. 1. Main language spoken at home by age (for Jewish Israelis aged eighteen or older)a LANGUAGE Age

Hebrew

18-24 24-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-64 65 + total X%

18 12 13 12 11 10 7 13 4 100% 71

Yiddish

2 1 2 3 5 9 16 39 24 100% 7

Arabic or Turkish

Eastern European

Western or central European

Latin American or Balkan

%

26 10 5 2 8 8 10 12 14 100% 8

16 4 1 4 2 19 10 22 13 100% 5

7 7 9 4 20 9 4 29 11 100% 4

3 7 7 17 3 13 13 23 13 100% 2

16 10 10 10 11 10 8 16 8 100%

2. Main language spoken at home by ethnic origin (for Jewish Israelis aged eighteen or older).

Ethnic origin

Born in Asia or Africa Born in Europe or America Sabra: father born in Asia or Africa Sabra: father born in Europe or America Sabra: father born Sabra X%

Hebrew

Yiddish

LANGUAGE Arabic or Eastern Turkish European

Western or central European

Latin American or Balkan

%

41

1

94

3

50

44

42

37

97

0

95

44

44

42

7

0

5

0

4

4

5

12

1

0

3

2

7

8

4 70

1 7

1 8

0 5

0 4

0 2

3

[a] Tables generated by Liz Nadel from the data bank of Tarbut Yisrael 1970 (Katz et al 1972).

97,140(40.5) 27,675 (42.2) 39,580(59.1) 23,405 (38.0) 19,365(37.0) 20,163(50.2)

[a] Percentages are based upon the number of mother tongue claimants of each language.

Yiddish German Rumanian French Polish Hungarian 3,875(10.8) 532 ( 4.8) 400 ( 9.6) 1,150(17.3) 160(14.7) 327 ( 8.2)

1,581,000(81.2) 159,000(15.5) 493,000(40.5) 160,000(42.2) 163,000(40.7) 106,000(35.8)

3,104,000(63.6)a 256,000( 3.2) 165,000( 5.2) 254,000(14.1) 66,000( 3.3) 20,000( 1.8)

1,822,000 1,025,000 1,218,000 378,000 399,000 478,000

4,878,000 4,809,000 3,147,000 1,801,000 1,982,000 1,142,000

Spanish German Italian French Polish Yiddish

Israel ] 961

Foreign-born

Principal language Native-born

Foreign-born

Mother-tongue

Native-born

Language

Table 12. The top six immigrant based languages: USA 1969

31,865 10,650 3,775 5,495 995 3,645

144,605 37,845 27,400 38,240 33,015 20,000

Foreign-born

Additional language Native-born


427

TABLES - ISRAEL Table 13. Use of Yiddish and the national language: USA 1969.

Mother-tongue

Total claimants

Native-born; current language English

Spanish German Italian French Polish Yiddish

6,700,000 5,835,000 4,364,000 2,179,000 2,382,000 1,620,000

1,774,000 4,653,000 2,982,000 1,547,000 1,916,000 1,122,000

(36.4) (96.8) (94.8) (85.9) (96.7) (98.2)

Foreign-born; current language English

341,000 866,000 725,000 218,000 236,000 372,000

(18.7) (84.5) (59.5) (57.7) (59.2) (77.8)

Israel 1961 Major 'other' language (other than Hebrew)

Index of Hebrewspeakinga

Speaking no Hebrew

Speaking mothertongue only

Total claimants

Yiddish German Rumanian French Polish Hungarian

51.5 52.1 38.0 54.0 52.8 45.2

58,950 13,885 25,275 8,390 8,550 11,610

27,025 7,540 6,305 3,050 2,030 4,770

277,485 76,700 71,155 68,290 53,535 44,135

(21.2) (18.1) (35.5) (12.3) (16.0) (26.3)

( 9.3) ( 9.8) ( 8.9) ( 4.4) ( 3.8) (10.8)

[a] Index roughly indicates percent of time spent speaking Hebrew and is based upon all claimants of any particular "other" language rather than only upon those know ing some Hebrew. In 1948 the corresponding indices were 29.7, 37.0, 28.1, 37.1, 39.4, 30.0 (Hofman and Fisherman).


428

Table 14. Settlement patterns: USA 1960 (Fishman 1966)

Israel 1961 Major 'other' language claimed (other than Hebrew)

Total

Rural

%

New settlements

%


277,155 76,700 71,110 68,315 3,970 7,625

23,600 9,050 6,125 11,295 3,970 7,625

9 12 9 16 6 17

44,335 7,485 23,390 33,385 10,485 12,270

16 10 33 49 19 28

Table 15. Index of speaking foreign languages among the Jewish populationa 1948 Language 1. Bulgarian 2. Rumanian 3. Turkish 4. Yiddish 5. Hungarian 6. Czech and Slovak 7. Italian 8. German 9. French 10. Greek 11. Spanish (including Dzudezmo) 12. Bukharian 13. Kurdish 14. Persian^ 15. Polish 16. Dutch 17. Arabic 18. Russian 19. English0

1961 Index 79.5 71.9 70.5 70.3 70.0 66.8 66.0 63.0 62.9 62.3 61.2 57.5 55.7 51.8 50.6 48.6 46.4 45.5 43.4

Language 1. Turkish 2. Persian 3. Hungarian 4. Kurdish 5. Bulgarian 6. Greek 7. Spanish (including Dzudezmo) 8. Rumanian 9. German 10. Yiddish 11. Arabic 12. Russian 13. Polish 14. French 15. Dutch 16. Bukharian 17. Italian 18. Czech and Slovak 19. English0

Index

Change in rank

55.5 51.1 50.9 49.6 48.6 47.5

+ 2 + 12 + 2 + 9 - 4 + 4

46.5 45.8 45.6 45.3 44.3 44.2 44.1 43.8 43.0 41.8

+ 4 - 6 - 1 - 6 + 6 + 6 + 2 - 5 + 1 - 4 -10

41.3 33.7

-12 -

[a] From Hofman and Fisherman 1971 [b] Many claimants of Persian are really speakers of Farsic/Parsic and many claimants of Greek are really speakers of Yevanic (my footnote: J.A.F.). [c] Low index because heavily weighted as additional language.

[a] [b] [c] [d]

64.2 16.0 19.8

71.7 15.8 12.5

39.0 31.0 30.0

16,695 100.0

37.9 31.6 30.5c

42.7 52.1 5.2

30,060 100.0

12,825 15,660 1,575 23.2 60.9 15.9

27,605 100.0

6,405 16,805 4,395

88,370 100.0

75,095 100.0

25,080 100.0

6,325 5,275 5,095

35,185 41,740 1,445

39.8 47.2 13.0

15,725 100.0

6,130 4,880 4,715

Rumania Rumanian N %

56,245 74.9 15,785b ' 21.0 4.1 3,065

80,835 100.0

57,990 12,765 10,080

Poland Polish N %

64.6 10.3 25.1

16,210 2,575 6,295

47,685 100.0

30,615 7,640 9,430

From Hofman and Fisherman 1971 Mainly German Mainly Polish Mainly Hungarian

Total

1955 on Yiddish Mother-tongue Other languages

Total

1948-1954 Yiddish Mother-tongue Other languages

Total

Up to 1947 Yiddish Mother-tongue Other languages

Mother-tongue

Soviet Union Russian N % 5.0 88.5 6.5

57.6 32.9 9.5

15.1 59.7 25.2 930 100.0

140 555 235

8,925 100.0

5,140 2,940 845

30,800 100.0

1,550 27,360 1,990

Germany/ Austria German N % 26.0 7.3 66.7

30.1 23.4 46.5

9.2 67.7 d 650 100.0

150 60 440

11,605 100.0

3,495 2,715 5,395

8,050 100.0

2,090 590 5,370

Czechoslovakia Czech and Slovak N % 16.7 71.4 11.9

17.5 78.3 4.2

7.6 89.2 3.2 6,745 100.0

6,015 220

11,165 100.0

1,950 8,745 470

6,445 100.0

1,075 4,605 765

Hungary Hungarian N %

Table 16. The relative share of Yiddish and mother tongue among foreign born speaking a language other than Hebrew, by period of immigration (1961)a

TABLES - ISRAEL 429

430


Table 17. Number of claimants of "Top Six" languages in Israel as first or only lan guages, 1948, 1950, 1954, 1961a

Language

1948

1950

1954

1961

% change 1954-1961


78,141 28,271 6,486 4,324 4,989 6,818

174,492 41,396 35,108 15,720 29,868 21,484

153,678 38,696 43,118 13,820 16,031 18,242

101,110 28,107 39,980 24,555 19,525 20,490.

-34.2 -37.4 - 7.3 77.7 21.8 12.3

[a] Derived from Population and Housing Census, 1961, Vol I, p xxxv (as given by Hofman and Fisherman 1971), with changes as amended in Vol II ρ 46.

Table 18. Non-Hebrew publications in Israel: 1940-1970 (total number for top six lan guages)a 1940 Yiddish German Russian French Polish Hungarian Multilingual

1945

1953

1955

1960

1965

1970

18 11 10 17 4 6 1

25 9 6 21 7 4 4

22 8 8 22 6 4 5

18 11 7 18 4 3 5

66

76

75

66

2 5

2 6

1 1 1

4 8 1 1

19 11 9 15 7 12 1

10

21

72

[a] Compiled from various editions of The Jewish Press of the World, edited by Joseph Fraenkel (London, Cultural Department of the Jewish Congress, January 1972) and other standard references.

431

TABLES - ISRAEL

Table 19. Non-Hebrew publications in Israel, 1955-1970a (Number by frequency of publication for top six languagesb) 1955

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly or less Total

1960

Y

G

R

F P U

_ 6 6 6

2 3 5 I

1 10 1 3 12

4 -

1 4 1

10 17 4 6

18 11

1965

Y G R 1 8 9 7

2 2 4 1

1 1 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 0 16 -

1 3 -

25 9 5 21 7 4

1970 Y

G R

F

1 2 1 -

1 6 4 7

1 2 6 2

1 1 1 3 2 — - 1 2

22 8 7 22 6 4

18

F P H

Y G R 1 7 4 10

2 1 4 1

F P H

1 1 5 3 3 1 15

1 2 3 -

P H

1 6 0 0

- - o

11 7

18 4 3

[a] Derived from various editions of The Jewish Press of the World, edited by Joseph Fraenkel (London Cultural Department of the World Jewish Congress, January 1972) and other standard references. [b] Y = Yiddish; G = German; R = Russian; F = French; P = Polish; H = Hunga rian.

Table 20. Non-Hebrew publications in Israel; 1965 and 1970 (number, frequency of appearance, and circulation for top six languages)a Language

Year

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yiddish

1965 1970

1 (1) 16,000 1 (1) 23,000

7 (5) 28,600 6 (3) 11,400

4 (3) 4 (2)

German

1965 1970

2 (1) 18,000 1 (1) 18,000

1 (1) 2 —

Rumanian

1965 1970

I (1) 16,500 1 (1) 16,500

5 (1) 10,000 6

French

1965 1970 1965 1970

1 1 1 1

1965 1970

1 (1) 14,000 1 (1) 20,000

3 3 2 (1) 10,000 2 _ 2 _

Polish Hungarian

(1) (1)

5,000 7,000

(1) 17,000 (1) 10,000

5,000 -

Quarterly or less

Total

9,700 6,500

10 7

22 18

4 (1) 6 -

5,000 -

1 2

8 11

_

_

1

7 7

3 7 (1) 20,000 3 1 2

(6) 15,000 (2) 7,000

15 (10) 53,000 7

_ —

_ —

22 6 4 4 3

[a] From publication self-reports (i.e., the information on circulation figures were reported to us by the publications themselves). Figures in parenthesis show the number of responding publications.

432


Table 21. Hebrew language proficiency of Israeli radio listeners (Jews) a

Kol Yisrael programs

Speak only

Read only

Speak read

Speak, read write

None

Hebrew Arabic English French Yiddish Other languages Average in total population

15% 31 6 22 19 23 16

0% 0 0 0 0 0 0

6% 9 3 8 10 9 6

79% 59 91 69 69 66 77

0% 0 1 1 2 3 1

[a]

100% 100 100 100 100 100 100

Derived by Liz Nadel from Tarbut Yisrael, 1970 data bank (Katz et al. 1972). Other runs of the same data reveal that Hebrew is the "main language" at home of only 45% of listen ers to Yiddish radio programs. The comparable proportions for listeners to Arabic, Eng lish, and French programs are 62%, 64% and 56%. Still other runs reveal that the upper educational level of listeners to Yiddish programs is comparable to that of listeners to the French programs. Thus the Yiddish programs appeal to Yiddish speakers most of whom are also literate in important world languages but who nevertheless are retentive of Yiddish as their home language.

Table 22.

Israeli radio listening 1965: Selected immigrant-based languages a

(1)

(2)

(3)b

(4)

Language

1965: % listeners

1965: % listeners 4 to 7 days per week

1969: % of radio listeners that understand

1969:% of (3) that listen in listed language

Yiddish French Rumanian Hungarian Múgrabi Judesmo

24.3 9.1 8.3 2.5 5.2 4.4

12.7 3.6 5.4 1.4 3.1 2.6

42.0 20.6 12.2 5.3 9.5 7.6

48.1 40.4 64.0 42.7 56.5 41.5

(1) (2) (3) (4) [a]

Percentages of total population Percentages of total population Percentages of radio listeners Percentages of radio listeners who understand the particular language From Radio Listening Survey, June 1965, Kol Yisrael, and Radio Listening and Television Watching, January 1969 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1969 — part I, 1970 — part II). [b] The Jewish population aged fifteen or older = 1,689,286. The number of listeners to Kol Yisrael = 1,574,356 during the week prior to the survey, or 92% of the total Jewish popula tion aged fifteen or older.

Viddish French Rumanian Hungarian Mugrabi Judesmo English Russian Arabic

12.4 7.3 4.2 2.9 2.9 2.5 17.6 4.3 8.2

18.9 e 11.2 5.9 (1.1) 4.4 3.6f 17.0 5.8 16.6

Donor listen to programs in this language Total 8.2 3.8 2.8 (0.4) 2.3 (1.1) 3.9 (1.5) 6.5

Usually or often 6.9 4.9 2.1 (0.6) (1.3) (1.3) 7.6 (2.4) 6.7. 3.8 2.5 (1.0) (0.1) (0.8) (1.2) 5.5 (1.9) 3.4

Sometimes Rarely .60 .62 .58 .28 .60 .59 .50 .57 .67

Total number of listeners/ total number of people who understandd .43 .34 .48 36 .52 .30 .23 .26 .40

Usually or often/ total lis tenersd 18.1 6.6 4.4 (0.8) 3.9 2.9 5.4 5.2 8.2

Shidurey Yisrael alone (0.2) (1.3) (0.2) (0.0) (0.1) (0.2) 5.7 (0.2) (0.9)

Foreign broadcasts alone (0.6) 33 (1.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) 5.9 (0.4) 7.5

Both Shid urey Yisrael and foreign broadcasts

Extent of listening in particular languages to

Radio listeners constitute 88.2% of the (non-institutionalized) Jewish population aged fourteen or older (1972:n = 1,970,642). Figures in parenthesis have a relative sampling error greater than 25%. From "Radio Listening Survey" unpublished. (Central Statistical Agency, January-March 1973). Computed by Joshua A. Fishman and David E. Fishman Of those listening in Yiddish Of those listening in Judesmo 2.4% replied that these programs were their only source of radio news (0.2%) replied that these programs were their only source of radio news 3.8% replied that these programs were an additional source of radio news (0.9%) replied that these programs were an additional source of radio news 11.0% replied that they do so because they love the language and literature 02.1% replied that they do so because they love the language and literature 1.7% replied that they do so for other reasons 0.3% replied that they do so for other reasons

31.3 18.5 10.1 4.0 7.3 6.1 34.6 10.1 24.8

Language

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e]

Understand the language: total

Extent of listening in particular languages

Table 23. Radio listenersa according to languages understood and extent of listening to particular languagesb (January-March, 1973)c

TABLES - ISRAEL 433

434


Table 24. Recent budgets of the "Israel Broadcasting Authority" for "Programs for New Immigrants and Foreign Broadcasting"a

Yiddish Judeo-Español (Judesmo)b Easy Hebrew Mugrabi Rumanian English French Russian Arabic 'Songs of the Communities'

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

I £33,298 24,273 28,381 2,269 31,595 69,522 91,881 314,248 — 30,340

I £ 40,000 12,000 40,000 4,000 33,000 50,000 75,000 250,000 — 40,000

I £ 41,000 20,000 40,000 4,000 38,000 80.000 130.000 460;000 c 2,707,000 d 58,000 e

The (semi-secret) budgets of the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (Shidurey Yisrael) penalize Yiddish by (a) not being proportional to listenership, (b) not providing Yiddish broadcasting with the increases provided almost all other programs, and (c) requiring "Songs in Yiddish" to be budgeted out of the general budget for Yiddish rather than being budgeted separately as is the case for "Songs of the Communities" vis-a-vis JudeoEspanol and Mugrabi. [a] Figures pertain only to "honorariums" for special performers and technicians rather than to salaries for permanent personnel. 1971-72 figures are actual expenditures whereas 1972-73 and 1973-74 figures are allocations. The total radio budget for 1973-74 was I £ 38,574,000 and for television I £ 54,806,000. [b] The sharp drop in 1972-73 is attributable to additions to the budget for full-time personnel for programs in Judeo-Espanol. [c] Of the total amount for Russian broadcasting, a minor sum is actually allocated for Georgian. In 1973-74 the Georgian allocation was I ? 54,570. No separate figures for Russian and Georgian are available for previous years. [d] Of the total amount for Arabic broadcasting a minor sum is actually allocated for Persian. No separate figures are available for Arabic and for Persian in 1973-74 and no figures at all are available for the two previous years. [e] "Songs of the Communities" presents Sephardic/Oriental songs exclusively. The budget for "Songs in Yiddish" (twenty minutes every other week) is included in the general budget for Yiddish, see above.

TABLES - ISRAEL

435

Table 25. Yiddish Theater in Israel 1945-1970[a].

Year 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 total

Number of different titles

0 1 10 20 19 29 22 101

Number of performances 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30

31+

0 1 8 7 5 3 12

0 — 1 2 2 2

35

0 — 1 3 2 1 7

0 — 2 3 2 8 1

0 — — 6 6 15 0

14

16

27

Total οf titles by performances

0 1 43 277 274 597 226 1718

[a] Based upon a 25 percent count of Israeli Yiddish newspapers for the years indi cated.

71(6)

70(5)

75(1)

1

66 (45)

70(8) 66(13) 66(32)

67(10)

4

61(1) 62 (1) 69(4) 65(3)

72(1)

67(31)

78(1) 57 (2) 69(6) 62(15)

78(1) 85(4)

70(2)

5

[a] Derived from entries in Lexikon far der nayer yidisher literatur (Lexicon of Modern Yiddish Literature), Volume 5 (New York, Congress for Jewish Literature, 1971). [b] Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of cases on which each average is based. [c] Compare with the last line of Table 3 in Fishman 1965c for the 1960 average.

72(3) 66(1) 62(3) 76(1) 62(1) 73(1)

3 66(1) 67(1) 62(1) 61(3) 70(4) 62(6) 70 (8) 70(19) 60(10)

2

1. Traditional texts and commentaries 2. Language and literature: research and criticism 3. Novels, short stories 4. Poetry 5. History and current events 6. Journalism 7. Children's literature and texts

Total

Argentina Utin America Soviet Union Poland France British Commonwealth West Europe United States Israel

Country/region

Genre

75(3) 55(2) 61 (12)

68 (85)

68(2)

54(3) 63(1) 56(1)

7

70(30) 68(28)

62(4) 70(2) 75(4) 73(3) 67(3) 73(11)

6

Table 26. Average age of Yiddish writers (as of 1970)a by country/region of residence and literary genreb

68(221)

64(13) 68(6) 69(11) 74(11) 69(10) 69(20) 61 (4 ) 70(75) c 63(71)

Total


TABLES - ISRAEL

437

Table 27. Non-Hebrew book publication in Israel, 1940-1970 (top sixa languages, as registered in Kiryat Sefer) Years Language Yiddish

German

b

Type

1 2 3

-

_

_

_

T

4

4

7

10

1 2 3

_

_

1

3 2 2

1 2

-

_ -

-

1

4 1

_

_

_

4

4

i

_ -

_ -

1

— _

6 2 3 1 8

1 1

T 1 2 3

T 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 T

Multilingual (Hebrew plus one or more of the above languages)

1

1 3

2 4

2 3 4 5 6 T Hungarian

—

1 2 1

_.

4 5 6

4 5 6 Rumanian

-

1 3 4 2

4 5 6 French

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970

1 2 3 4 5 6 T

1 4 11

2 2

4 2i 8 4

1 17 12 3

1 38

3 36

2 36 14 3 1

2 1

_ -

1

_ — 6 4 2 12

_ 1

1

1

54 1 1 4

_ 6 1 2 1 4

3

1 4

_

_

_

4

5

3 17

2 6

_

4

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

1 1

9 1 2

1 1 1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

1

2

1 1

1

1

1

_ 4 4

_

2 2

8

3 15

1

-

3

2

-

-

-

3

2

4 1

1

1

_

-

-

7

1 9

-

-

— -

1 4

3 11

3 13

2

3 1

ι

14 1

-

17

[a] Only one Polish book was located (1970). [b] Types: 1 religious; 2 belles-lettres; 3 history; 4 Israel; 5 children's literature; 6 other.

438


Table 28. New and reprinted books by language of original and language of pub licationa 1969-70 to 1970--71 Language of original Language of publication

Total

Hebrew

Yiddish

English

French

Russian

German ' other

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1889 1527 224 89 b 39 10

1246 1185 46 6 7 2

44 15 4 25

312 225 54 8 22 3

41 32 1 5 1 2

132 16 111 5

36 31 5

Hebrew English Other languages Multilingual Dictionaries

—

—

—

78 23 3 40 9 3

[a] From Supplement, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics 3, 16, (1973) 23. Table 7 (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). [b] "Of these, 44 books were published in Arabic and 27 in Yiddish". These Yiddish books are classified topically as "largely belletristic".

Table 29. Attitudes toward Yiddish among high school students of Ashkenazi Paren tage (Herman 1972)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very positive Positive No particular feeling Negative Very negative . Total % n

All respondents

Religious

NonTraditionalist religious

7% 28 52 10 3 100 577

9% 47 39 4 1 100 115

9% 31 46 13 1 100 147

6% 18 60 10 6 100 315

TABLES - ISRAEL

439

Table 30. Attitudes toward Yiddish among high school students of Oriental/Sefardi parentage (Herman 1972)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very positive Positive No particular feeling Negative Very negative Total % n

All respondents

Religious

NonTraditionalist religious

1% 7 69 10 13 100 200

1% 1 84 7 7 100 46

-% 10 62 13 15 100 116

-% 8 74 5 13 100 38

440


USA Table 1. Number of mother tongue dailies, 1910-1960 Percent Increase or Decrease Languages French Spanish German Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern All Other Total

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1960 LRP 1910-1930 1930-1960 1950-1960 9 1 70 7 3

10 5 29

7 10 22

6 8 13

2 8 7

1 6 4

1 6 4

—22% +900 -68

11 3 1

11 3 2

10 3 2

6 3 2

5 2 2

5 2 2

12 9 2 7

11 15 2 9

10 16 5 8

10 10 2 7

5 9 2 5

5 7 2 2

1 2

16 2

15 2

12

9

1 5

1 4 9 12

3 6 10 12

1 2 10 10

129

140

142

106

Source: Fishman et al., 1966

-86% -40 -82

-50% -25 -43

+ 57 0

-54 -33 0

-17 -33 0

5 6 2 2

-17 +78 + 150 + 14

-50 -56 -60 -75

0 -22 0 -60

7

10

+ 1400 0

-53 -100

-22

1 4 12 11

1 1 9 7

1 1 10 7

+500 + 100

67 -83 -10 -42

0 -75 -25 -36

86

61

64

+ 10

-57

-29

43

b

(99) 1499

11 88 33 95

184 31

(11)

(3) (5) (7)

(10) (15) (3) (7) 03) (1) 33 17 46 158

(6; (3) (2) (5) (9) (2) (4)

424 98 46 217 261 26 145 200

(1)

10 5 73 128

(94) 2000

(8) (8)

(1)

149 238 34 135 101

238 52 27

8 70 69

10 23 74 168

(80) 1402

(11) (11)

(1) (4)

— —

(8)

(2) (7) (5)

1950 25 74 261

— —

(11)

(5)

(8) (10) (2)

34S 345 37 156 254 12

(9) (3) (2)

(6) (S) (12)

1940

558 98 31

32 56 354

(108) 1990 į (123) 2542

(1) (2) (8) (11)

(11) (13) (2) (9) (12) (2)

(10) (3) (2)

(6) (7) (20)

1930

[a] Number of dailies for which circulation figures are available [b] Last three digits have been dropped in all circulation figures. Source: Fishman et al., 1966

Total

— — — — (1) 3 — —

28

— —

Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Fax Eastern All Other

(2)

(4) (6) (1) (6)

330 239 65 113

507 72

— —

(11) (2)

41 15 239

57 63 4 75

261 27

935

(8) (2) (14)

1920

— —

(5) (3)

(64)

— —

(7)

a

1910

Italian Polish Greek Czech

Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian

French Spanish German

Languages

Table 2. Circulation of mother tongue dailies, 1910-1960

74

136 184 34 64

140 43 30

3 114 74

9 3 61 127

(58) 1103

(9) (7)

(0 (1)

— —

(6)

(4) (7) (2) (2)

(4) (2) (2)

(1) (6) (4)

1960

84

133 152 32 61

166 43 30

3 135 74

9 3 66 127

(61) 1125

(1) (1) (10) (7)

— —

(9)

(4) (6) (2) (2)

(4) (2) (2)

(1) (6) (4)

1960 LRP

-62

—

— —

—

511 448 825 108

+70

—

+ 1433

-57

+ + + +

+ 114 +263

—

-26%

-57

-73 -82 + 33 -20

—

-61 -47 -8 -59 -71

-75 -56 -3.

-91% + 104 -79

1930-1960

-16

-10 -87 -18 -24

—

-27

-9 -23 0 -53

-41 -17 + 11

+7

-62% + 63

1950-1960

Percent Increase or Decrease 1910-1930

TABLES - USA 441

442


Table 3. Number of mother tongue weeklies, 1910-1960 (including publications appear ing twice and three times per week) Percent Increase or Decrease Languages French Spanish German Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern All Other Total

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1960 LRP 1910-1930 1930-1960 1950-1960 18 30 433 8 7 1 48 37 5 34 11 94 16 8 5 4 17

17 39 172 16 16 5 66 54 8 29 31 73 13 12 6 5 32

18 39 106 7 28 3 73 64 6 27 28 51 11 12 2 8 28

14 18 68 3 25 2 29 43 7 28 22 32 8 10 1 3 24

13 18 35 8 26 3 28 35 6 12 26 26 3 6 6 5 29

1 4 8 3 26

8 12 30 3 19 3 12 22 3 9 17 15 1 5 9 3 27

776

594

511

337

285

188

198


8 10 29 2 19 2 12 18 3 9 20 14

0% +30 -76 -12 + 300 +200 + 52 +73 +20 -21 + 155 -46 -31 + 50 -60 + 100 + 65 -34

-55% -74 -73 -71 -32 -33 -84 -72 -50 -67 -29 -73 -91 -75 + 300 -62 -7 -63

-38% -44 -17 -75 -27 -33 -57 -49 -50 -25 -23 -46 -67 -33 + 33 -40 -10 -34

21 795 33 6 10 5 49

(4) (78) (12) (5) (2) (2) (10)

Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern F a r Eastern All Other

(606) 3769

(223) 2769

(316) 4014

414 267 23 43 2

146 627 23 233 164 185 9 25 4 18 121 75 114 4 7 17 5 104

84 146 8 122

21 109 2

(167) 1010

(16) (14) (1) (3) (6) (2) (23)

(17) (2) (9)

(D 00

(2) (19)

74 109 8 152 302 14 99

(7) (S) (26)

(216) 1512

(5) (22) (2) (22) (27) (4) (11) (22) (19) (3) (5) (3) (4) (22)

86 209 6

[a] Number of weeklies for which circulation are available [b] Last three digits have been dropped in all circulation figures Source: Fishman et al., 1966

Total

(19) (24) (7) (6) (1)

(2) (19) (1) (15) (22) (5) (20)

(9) (12) (25)

— — (16) 130

(22) (35) (5) (9) (1) (2) (16)

157 753 47 14 7 14 91

178 95 19 264 558 26 279

(8) (9) (49)

21 30 133

1960

33 52 137

1950

44 29 431

1940

455 532 22 97 21 300 116

(3D (37) (4) (21)

(5) (17) (2)

(13) (24) (72)

71 143 832

19: 0

253 666 12 263

236 92 27

(383) 3608

(17) (58) (13) (4) (2) (3) (18)

187 126 6 243

(3) (5)

(D


(24) (20) (1) (25)

(25) (119)

03)

46 S6 831

1920


b

(11) (9) (3) (29) (33) (3) (23)

(13)- 60 35 (13) (383) 2092

1910

60 23 11


Languages

84 116 4 17 22 4 115

-84 -79 -82 -93 -19 -98 -10 -75

+ 2067 -33 -33 + 1517 + 110 + 5900 + 137

+6

-68 -74 . -69 -56

+ 41 + 342 + 333 + 15

108 203 8 124

-88 + 15 -89

+ 197 +313 +73

34 101 7

(131) 1198

(16) (15) (1) (4) (7) (2) (25)

(11) (21) (2) (9)

(3) (19) (2)

(7) (9) (28)

-70% -79 -84

1930-1960

+ 18% +309 -60

1910-1930

36 43 165

1960 L R P

-33

-54 -43 -55 -72 + 325 -72 -14

-45 -52 -43 + 23

-72 0 -75

-36% -42 -3

1950-1960

Percent Increase or Decrease

Table 4. Circulation of mother tongue weeklies, 1910-1960 (including publications appearing twice and three times per week)

TABLES - USA 443


444

Table 5. Number of mother tongue monthlies, 1910-1960 (including publications appearing twice a month and every other week) Percent Increase or Decrease Languages French Spanish German Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern All Other Total

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1960 LRP 1910-1930 1930-1960 1950-1960 1 3 49 2 1

2 12 31 1 5 2

1 4

1 14

2 2 3 11 5 20 1 4 1 1 6

132

109

7 17 27 4 1

Source: Fishman et al'., 1966

3 9 17 2 3 1 2 4 4 9 10 9 2

2 9 3 1 3 1

\ 5 4 5

4 5 8

4 11 8

1 18 15

8 6 2

6 11 6

3 8 2 8 8 5

3 10 4 7 16 4

7 17 12 6 11 4 10 26 7

1 1

1 1

+ 200% + 200 -65 0 + 200 + 100 0 + 29 -41 -67 -50

+ 33% + 22 -53

0% + 120 0

+200 + 267 + 500

-25 + 83 + 200

+ 50 + 150 0 -22 + 60 -56

0 +25 + 100 -12 + 100 -20

4

3

8

14

21

-71

+250

+ 75

79

37

75

106

157

-40

+ 34

+ 41

51 75 99 48

59

(4) (9) (16) (4)

(10)

(87)

Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern All Other

Total

·

(1)

(23)

643

(3) (1) (5)

(3)

95 10 77 20 36

(2) (1) (8) (7) (6)

(2) (D

21

37 38

(1) (3)

(6)

4

52 3 67

5 3

89

46

272

(2)

(1) (5) (5)

48 8S 168

1940

1930

(3) 22 756 í (45)

12 134

(1) (14)

(4) (58)

25 67

65 21 20

31 133 240

(1) (7)

(1) (2) (1)

(2) (5) (19)

1920

ι

Ο)

(44)

(6)

(3) (3)

534

14

18 8

45 96 12 91

48 58

(4) (6) (D (5) (2) (5)

51 8 79

(3) (2) (3)

1950

[a] Number of monthlies for which circulation figures are available [b] Last three digits have been dropped in all circulation figures [c] Less than 1000 Source: Fishman et al., 1966

747

22

(2)» 28 b (40) 361

1910

(2)

Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech


Languages

(80)

952

19

7 16

(D (D

OD

16 46 11 41 341 22 83 65 5

92 109 73

(3) (6) (5) (2) (10) (3) (6) (10) (2)

(4) (8) (8)

1960

80 39

(22) (6)

27 (137) 1023

(19)

3 16

50 349 26 88

(5) (11) (4) (9)

(1) (1)

25 66 18

141 8S

(6) (13) (11)

(14) (15)

1960 L R P

+8

-14

-64

+ 48

-10

+225 -86

+ 51 -73 -64

+ 259 + 120

+ 78

+ 36

+ 261 -38

-9 + 255 + 83 -9

-67 -21 + 1000

+ 80% + 1262 -8

+ 92% +24 -57 -57 + 21

1950-1960

1930-1960

+ 332

+ 214% -53

1910-1930


Table 6. Circulation of mother tongue monthlies, 1910-1960 (including publications appearing twice a month and every other week)

TABLES - USA 445

446


Table 7. Total number of mother tongue publications, 1910-1960 (including periodicals appearing less frequently than monthly) Percent Increase or Decrease Languages French Spanish German Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern All Other Total

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1960 LRP 1910-1930 1930-1960 1950-1960 28 29 28 35 58 61 554 234 146 17 28 20 11 24 35 1 8 6 6Í 79 85 50 71 84 7 13 15 48 49 44 31 52 53 123 96 62 20 14 13 9 17 15 6 11 8 10 15 18 32 50 44 1043 848 737


23 28 90 ]6 28 5 42 54 10 40

20 35 50 23 35 7 36 52 10 25

13 31 41 15 32 14 21 37 9 19

15 49 54 22 40 25 26 43 10 24

38 37 8 11 3 13 37

44 31 3 7 10 17 48

46 20 1 7 10 12 49

64 23 1 9 16 14 82

483 453 377

517

-35% -11 -18 -35 -9 + 100 -42 -29 -10 -24

+ 18 +218 + 500

-54% -49 -72 -20 -9 + 113

+ 39 + 68 + 114 -8

-75 -56 -40 -57

+ 71 -50 -35 + 67 + 33 +80 + 38

-13 -68 -92 -53 +25 -33 + 11

-29 -67 0 0 -29

-29

-49

-17

0% +74 -74

+5

+2

(795) 6029

(551) 6378

(488) 7216 (341) 5052 (344) 3506

(30)

(6) (9)

(12)

(5)

(42) (42)

(36)

(8)

(41) (54)

(3D 219 (5) 38 (28) 346 (41) 637 (8) 60 (20) 326 (33) 284 (22) 193 (2) 9 (6) 36 (7) 27 (15) 92 (39) 305

[a] Number of publications for which circulation figures are available [b] Last three digits have been dropped in all circulation figures Source: Fishman et al., 1966

Total

Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern All Other


51 613 999 74 513 730 580 22 130 38 346 296

(4)

(4) 29 (40) 584 (46) 906 (6) 102 (39) 444 (30) 353 (75) 925 (13) 47 (6) 26 (4) 16 (Π) 47 (33) 210

(16) 401

(ID 510 (22) 308 (3) 52 (25) 369 (33) 892 (7) 49 (28) 431 (3D 618 (29) 334 (7) 23 (7) 54 (2) 7 (8) 73 (27) 262

(16) 775 (24) 238

(23) 808 (13) 186

(8) 321 (8) 50 (1) 11 (28) 245 (28) 212 (2) 10 (35) 371 (14) 99 (96) 922 (16) 82 (5) 6 (2) 10 (3) 8 (20) 108


1950

1940 (14) 93 (24) 147 (33) 286

1930 (16) 116 (18) 114 (67) 832

1920

(20)» 104b (23) 119 (20) 151 (21) 74 (33) 256 (39) 298 (488) 3391 (152) 1311 (100) 1354

1910


Languages

(9) 68 (23) 288 (57) 261 (22) 157 (1) 4 (8) 58 (14) 44 (13) 72 (77) 308

(23) 298 (42) 739

(18) 239 (36) 214 (23) 66

+ 20

+ 2117 + 280 +4225 + 174

-37 -73

+ 637

+ 150 + 371 + 640 + 38

+ 376 + 364

-60 + 141

-57 і

-79 -77 -17 -8 -56 -31 -12 -47 -70 -79 -82 -81 -3 -81 -15

-22% -10

+45%

(13) 87 (40) 507 (52) 343 + 303

1930-1960

1910-1930

1960 L R P

(320) 3118 (471) 3759

(9) 179 (27) 198 (12) 47 (18) 270 (36) 690 (7) 65 (18) 274 (33) 216 (17) 120 (1) 4 (6) 25 (8) 37 (11) 67 (42) 253

(12) 118 (25) 268 (38) 281

1960

-11

-27 -17

+ 37

+8 +8 -16 +24 -38 -56 -17

— 22

+ 24

-2 -55 -10

+ 82

+ 17%

1950-1960


Table 8. Circulation of mother tongue publications, 1910-1960 (including periodicals appearing less frequently than monthly)

TABLES - USA 447

448


Table 9. Number of mixed publications, 1910-1960 Percent Increase or Decrease Languages French Spanish German Yiddish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern A11 Others Total

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1960 LRP 1910-1930 1930-1960 1950-1960 3 10 29 — _ — 10 1 1 — 3 13 3 — 1 4 3 81

5 11 22

-50% -44 -59 -69 -75 + 200 -47 0 +25 + 300

-50% -24 -10 -33 -75 + 50 -46 -33 +25 + 100

19 5 2 1 1 8 7

-100% -10 -24 — — — + 280 + 100 + 300 — + 367 + 31 + 67 — — + 50 + 100

+ 36 -71 -60 0 — +33 + 17

+6 -44 -33 -50 -50 0 0

107

187

+ 84

-28

-24

18 3 2 — 8 17 4 — — 6 4

7 18 16 10 5 1 39 5 3 1

6 4 2 37 3 4 2

3 13 9 4 1 3 20 2 5 4

18 14 3 — 1 7 5

18 9 3 2 2 8 7

111

149

153

140

7 2 1


6 17 10

3 14 16 6 3 5 27 10 12 6 32 11 4 7 7 9 15

6 9 22 13 4 1 38 2 4 1 14 17 5 1 — 6 6

(4)

20 12

(Π) (3)

(3) (2)

(53)

Total

(62)

0)

422 (82)

(5) (1)

34 1 591

52 7

167 82 16

— 114 23 12

— (20) (2) (1) () (11) (3)

34 9

10 3 65

(8) (2)

(3) (4) (12)

98 58 9

—

59 19

14 7 6

5 . 7 101

1930

(106)

(5) (2)

(2)

OD

(6) (5) (1) (26) (5) (3) (1) (10)

(5) (14) ()

21 17 94

793

42 3

219 52 11

33 48 10 174 37 20 7

1940

(99)

(1) (5) (5)

0)

(12) (7) (3)

(2) (4) (2) (25) (3) (3) (2)

(3) (12) (9)

829

23 9

a

218 36 23 2

132 31 17 9

6 27 12

8 113 155

1950

[a] Number of publications for which circulation figures are available [b] Last three digits have been dropped in all circulation figures. Source: Fishman et al., 1966

352

(5) (Π) (2)

5 58 9

0)

—

Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern AJÍ Others

0)

15 9 8

(3) (1)

(2) (1) (1) (10) (2)

(3) (6) (14)


— — —

b

1920

— — —

3 (3)· 4 (4) (21) 2Ü6

1910



Languages

Table 10. Circulation of mixed publications, 1910-1960

(91)

(16) (5) (2) (1) (1) (8) (5)

(2) (1) (3) (17) (2) (4) (4)

(2) (9) (9)

889

243 40 15 4 6 45 26

63 4 27 164 9 15 17

5 54 146

1960

4-68

— —

(177) 1226

(4) (7) (7) (9) (15)

OD

4-50

-13 +271

— 4-46 -51 -6

— +3240 4-24 4-78

— —

4-44 -61 4-25

—

.+ 85 -56

-50% +1700 +125

4-660 +155 4-50

— — —

+ 233% -25 -68

+160 -42

251 36 39 25

75 11 27

55 157

1930-1960

4-7

+ 11 4-11 -35 +100 4-600 4-96 + 189

-24 -71 -12 + 89

+ 950 -85 + 125

-38% -52 -6

1950-1960

Percent Increase or Decrease 1910-1930

272 69 36 31 23 54 51

(6) (3) (5) (27) (8) (9) (6) (32)

(2) (10) (16)

1960 L R P

TABLES - USA 449

450


Table 11. Proportions of types of publication, 1930 and 1960 — Number.

Ethnic Groups French Spanish German Jewish Hungarian Ukrainian Italian Polish Greek Czech Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Fastern All Others Total

1930 Mother Tongue

1930 Mixed

n 28 61 146 20 35 6 85 84 15 44 53 62 13 15 8 18 44

n 6 9 22 13 4 1 38 2 4 1 14 17 5 1 0 6 6

% 80 81 59 21 90 86 68 95 71 98 79 63 56 94 89 67 86

737 69

1930 English

1930 Total

% 17 12 9 14 10 14 30 2 19 2 21 17 22 6 0 22 12

% 1 3 5 7 78 32 62 65 0 0 0 0 2 2 10 0 0 19 22 0 11 11 2

n 35 75 246 95 39 7 125 88 21 45 67 98 23 16 9 27 51

149 14

181 17

1067


n

2 2 2 0 0 19 5 0 1 3 1

| Į

|

1960 Mother Tongue

1960 Mixed

n 13 31 41 15 32 14 21 37 9 19 46 20 1 7 10 12 49

n 3 13 9 4 1 3 20 2 5 4 19 5 2 1 1 8 7

% 76 65 37 14 94 74 16 86 47 83 68 43 8 88 63 57 78

377 54

% 18 27 8 4 3 16 43 5 26 17 28 11 15 12 6 38 11

107 15

1960 English n

1960 Total n 17 48 110 104 34 19

1 4 60 85 1 2 5 4 5 0

% 6 8 55 82 3 10 11 9 26 0

3 21 10 0 5 1 7

4 46 77 0 31 5 11

46 43 19 23 68 46 13 8 16 21 63

214 31

698

TABLES - USA

451

Table 12. Proportions of types of publications, 1930 and 1960 — Circulation 1930 Mother Tongue

n

%

1930 Mixed

n 10 3 65 34 9

% 6 1 3 3 4

Ethnic Groups French Spanish German

151a 94 298 98 1354 67

Jewish Hungarian Ukrainian

775 72 238 96 51 100


613 83 999 96 74 77 513 100

114 15 23 2 12 12

Other Slavic Scandinavian Other Germanic Other Romance Near Eastern Far Eastern A11 Others

730 580 22 130 38 346 296

74 85 58 100 100 87 98

167 17 82 12 16 42

7216

82

Total

1930 English

n

%

3 1 598 30 264 25 0 0 0 0 16 2 15 1 10 10 0 —

n

1960 Mother Tongue

n

%

1960 Mixed

n

%

1960 English

n

%

1960 'Votai

n

161 304 2017

118a 96 268 81 281 10

5 54 146

4 16 7 2 5 2274 84

123 329 2701

1073 247 51

Į 179 9 198 95 47 62

63 4 27

3 1826 88 2 6 3 36 2 2

743 1037 96 513

270 56 690 96 65 62 274 94

164 9 15 17

2068 208 76 481 717 104 291

216 120 4 25 37 67 253

45 26 2 86 69 57 85

243 51 40 9 15 6 4 4 6 11 45 38 26 9

3118

35

889

93 21

9 3

0

0

990 683 38 130 38 398 303

7 1023 12

8830

0 0 52 13 7 2 591

1930 Total

[a] Last three digits have been dropped in all circulation figures Source: Fishman et al., 1966

34 1 14 6

47 18 24 0 17 303 216 0 11 6 20

10 2 23 0 4 65 92 0 20 5 7

10 4784 54

476 463 235 29 54 118 299 8791

452


Table 13a. Hours and "Stations" of foreign language broadcasting per week (according to ACNS) for 1956 and 1960, by language. ACNS 1960

ACNS 1956 Languages and Language Groupings

Romance French Italian Spanish Portuguese Rumanian Slavic Polish Ukrainian Russian Other» Scandinavianb Greek Germanic German Otherc Near Fastd Far Eastd Yiddish Finnish, Hung., Turkish Hungarian Other Miscellaneousf Total

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f]

"Stat ions"

"Stat ions" Total Hours

Total

with Average Total Info. Hours Hours 8.72 2.87 3.53 13.90 4.08 .50 2.71 3.49 1.53 1.65 1.47 1.13 1.45

84 78 6

485 56 148 246 31 4 248 151 27 5 65 31 44 64 60 4

13 11 46

10 6 28

.65 1.13 5.97

59.00 71 43.50 48 15.50 23 39.00 51 5442.08 1354

52 36 16 37 1005

1.13 1.21 .97 1.05 5.42

4231.51 160.75 522.84 3419.42 126.50 2.00 671.83 526.58 41.25 8.25 95.75 35.00 64.00 161.25 152.25 9.00

599 73 194 284 43 5 359 188 39 12 120 55 65

6.50 6.75 167.25

2.52 2.54 2.25

Total

with Average Info. Hours

% I or D in Aver. Hours

642 76 194 324 43 5 307 174 21 23 89 42 71

8.00

730 83 229 363 48 7 392 203 32 28 129 66 86 138 129 9 17

117 108 9 12

7.44 2.97 3.14 11.74 3.08 1.10 2.30 2.93 1.37 1.82 1.41 1.02 1.27 2.50 2.55 1.86 .67

33.75 142.75

17 42

15 29

2.25 4.92

+ 3.1% + 99.1% - 17.6%

60.50 72 43 38.25 22.25 29 64.00 62 6214.70 1622

57 37 20 48 1340

1.06 1.03 1.11 1.33 4.64

+. + -

4774.70 225.50 608.95 3802.50 132.25 5.50 705.00 509.00 28.75 41.75 125.50 43.00 90.50 292.50 275.75 16.75

- 14.7% + 3.5%

- 11.0% - 15.5% - 24.5% + 120.0% + -

15.1% 16.0% 10.5% 10.3% 4.2% 9.7% 12.4%

-

.8%

+

.4%

- 17.3%

6.2% 14.9% 14.4% 26.7% 14.4%

Includes Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, Czech and Slovak Includes Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and "combined" Scandinavian Includes Dutch, Swiss-German, Pennsylvania German (Pennsylvania Dutch). Includes Lebanese, Syrian and Egyptian Arabic. Includes Chinese, Japanese and Hindustani Includes Lithuanian, Estonian, Latvian, Armenian, Albanian, Maltese, Basque and Filipino languages. (These language groupings also apply to the following table). Source: Fishman et al., 1966

453

TABLES - USA

Table 13b. Hours and "Stations" of foreign language broadcasting per week (according to LRP data) for 1960 by language Languages and Language Groupings Romance French Italian Spanish Portuguese Rumanian Slavic Polish Ukrainian Russian Other

"Stations" Total

with Info.

Average Hours

5447.44 248.00 582.42 4498.82 111.70 6.50 629.41 437.66 33.00 24.00 134.75

659 77 196 338 42 6 331 177 28 21 105

607 73 181 308 39 6 299 163 22 20 94

8.97 3.40 3.22 14.61 2.86 1.08 2.11 2.69 1.50 1.20 1.43

Total Hours

% I or D . in Average Hours to ACNS 1956 + + + +

2.9% 18.5% 8.8% 5.1% 29.9% 116.0%

- 22.1% - 22.9% - 2.0% - 27.3% - 2.7%

48.60

62

43

1.13

Greek

120.25

73

66

1.82

0% + 25.5%

Germanic German Other

229.25 215.00 14.25

115 104 11

105 97 8

2.18 2.22 1.78

- 13.5% - 12.60% - 20.9%

Near East

12.75

22

17

.75

+ 15.4%

Far East

54.75

18

17

3.22

+ 185.0%

Yiddish

129.25

34

32

4.04

- 32.3%

56.50 40.25 16.25

64 41 23

49 34 15

1.15 1.18 1.08

Scandinavian

Finish, Hung., Turkish Hungarian Other Miscellaneous Total

76.50

61

56

1.37

+ 1.8% - 2.5% + 11.3% + 30.5%

6804.70

1439

1291

5.27

-


2.8%

454


Table 14. Proportion of Total FLB accounted for by major languages or language groupings in 1956 and in 1960 Language Romance French Italian Spanish Slavic Polish Scandinavian Greek Germanic German Near Eastern Far Eastern Yiddish Finn., Hung., Turk. Miscellaneous Total

ACNS 1956

ACNS 1960

LRP 1960

77.8% (3.0) (9.6) (62.8) 12.3 (9.7) .6 1.2 3.0 (2.8) .1 .1 3.1 1.1 .7 100%

76.8% (3.6) (9.8) (61.2) 11.3 (8.2) .7 1.4 4.7 (4.4) .1 .5 2.3 1.0 1.0 100%

80.0% (3.6) (8.6) (66.1) 9.2 (6.4) .7 1.8 3.4 (3.2) .2 .8 1.9 .8 1.1 100%


TABLES - USA

455

Table 15. Percent distribution of FLBa in 1960 within regions MA

NE

ENC

WNC

West

South

Romance French Italian Spanish Portuguese Rumanian Slavic Polish Ukranian Russian Other

61.7 .7 18.7 42.3

67.3 25.2 33.8 1.3 7.1

34.9 .2 11.4 22.9

19.0 .7 2.3 16.0

96.4 6.4 .9 89.1

—

—:

— —

17.9 13.7 1.7 1.8 .8

16.1 15.8

.5 35.8 24.5 1.7 .3 9.3

94.8 .2 5.0 86.0 3.4 .1 .4

Scandinavian

.8

.5 6.4

Language

— —

1.9

—

__

.8 .8 .8

.5 .9 .9

b

b

—

1.8

1.0

—

.9 .5 .4

4.0 3.0 1.0

7.0 1.3 5.7

.8

3.6

4.3 100.0% 836.92

.7

100.0% 1096.01

100.0% 419.92

[a] Based on 1960 LRP total hours [b] Less than 1% Source: Fishman et al., 1966

— —

.2

—

.7 .7

b

.3

.4

—

b

1.6 .2

14.7

9.4

Yiddish

1.4 1.4

b

24.0

2.0

Germanic German Other Near East Far East

5.3 5.2 .1 .1

Total N

—

_ —

— — — —

2.9

Miscellaneous

.2

4.1 13.7 12.3 1.4 .3

Greek

Finnish, Hung., Turkish Hungarian Other

—

30.3 15.7

— —

19.0 19.0

100.0% 75.00

__

1.4

b

2.1

—

.3

.3

.1 .1

.2 .1 .1 .1

— .6 100.0% 2380.51

100.0% 1996.34

456


Table 16. Percent distribution of FLBa in 1960 across regions MA

NE

ENC

Romance French Italian Spanish Portuguese Rumanian

12.5 3.1 35.2 10.3

5.2 42.6 24.3 .1 26.6

5.4 .6 16.4 4.3

.3 .2 .3 .3

—

—

— —

Slavic Polish Ukrainian Russian Other

31.2 34.2 56.1 81.3 6.5

10.7 15.2

—

61.5 47.7 46.8 42.4 10.4 58.3

Scandinavian

18.7

4.1

32.4

Greek

26.2

22.5

Germanic German Other

25.2 26.3 8.8

2.6 2.8

Near East

7.8

Far East

7.3

—

—

Language

— —

WNC

West

South

Total

N

35.3 51.5 3.2 39.5

21.1

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5447.44 248.00 582.42 4498.82 111.70 6.50

8.2

41.4 1.9 20.6 45.5 73.4 38.5 1.7 .2 1.5 4.2 5.9

37.0

7.7

_

100%

48.60

28.7

—

13.7

8.9

100%

120.25

6.2 6.6

—

49.8 47.8 80.7

8.3 8.4 7.0

7.9 8.1 3.5

100% 100% 100%

229.25 215.00 14.25

66.7

19.6

— 4.2

3.6 2.7

— —

__ — 5.1 .9

— —

129.41 437.66 33.00 24.00 134.75

Yiddish

79.5

5.8

6.2

— — — —

Finnish, Hung., Turkish Hungarian Other

14.6 20.5

59.3 62.7 50.8

9.3 2.5 26.2

—

Miscellaneous

11.8

6.6 5.0 10.8 19.6

47.4

.7

19.3

1.3

100%

56.50 40.25 16.25 76.50

Total

16.1

6.2

12.3

1.1

35.0

29.3

100%

6804.70

—

[a] Based on 1960 LRP data Source: Fishman et al., 1966

—

5.9

100%

12.75

92.7

—

100%

54.75

4.6

3.9

100%

129.25

3.5 5.0

6.6 4.3 12.3

100% 100% 100%

408,040 512,983 165,373 260,035

113,119

88,162

2,437,938 452,812

510,366

Slovak

Hungarian Serbo-Croatian

Albanian 1,571

3,038

9,802

17,382

Slovenian Dalmatian

15,811

73,281 6,764

395,341 215,360

52,156 24,095 9,040

239,45 5 82,321

423,416

4,748 8,283

54,103

132,296

234,088

233,165 340,855

1,347,691

303,868

2,403,125

1,767,603

15,439

727,698

29,024

107,155 132,201

3,604,660

25,470

86,950

148,944

670,335

2,488,394

7,252

1,460,130

447,497

Czech

6,093,054

Breton

German

32,722

French

Polish

61,889

2,598,408

Flemish

29,089 90,713 12,064

194,462

350,748

Dutch

626,102

Swedish

Danish

612,862

Norwegian

49,825 1,138,278

34,675

78,428

9,734 204,822

160,717,113

English

381,575

32,969

33,575,232 11,404,678

169,634,926 149,312,435

203,210,158

Total

Celtic

23,955,930 9,706,853

Total

parentage

Total Total

6,730

47,552 3,201

195,556 109,262

279,203

163,704

1,085,041

1,468,715

8,963

333,997

21,649

75,614 86,463

191,929 283,569

25,655

3,170,411

12,902,976

parentage

Foreign

1,553

1,547

6,551

23,034

38,532

61,652

69,461

262,650

934,410

7,375 393,701 6,476

31,541 45,738

98,006

7,314 121,746

11,052,954 6,536,442

parentage

Mixed

Native of foreign or mixed parentage

Foreign stock

United States

Native of native

Table 17. Mother tongue of the population by nativity and parentage: 1970

Foreign

7,528

2,016

83,064 19,178

161,253

70,703 82,561

419,912

1,201,535

10,031

410,580

127,834 20,801

58,218

94,365 131,408

45,459

1,697,825

9,619,302

born

TABLES - USA 457

Continued

native

1,852 13,758

8,108

100,495

123,744

Arabic (n.e.c.) 4,05 5

19,691

101,686

Hebrew

Other Persian dialects 590

965

20,553 3,370

Persian

Armenian

Basque

4,171,050 62,252

Spanish

Portuguese

56,839 605,625

458,699

4,44,34 7,823,583 365,300

170,174 1,252

179 5,166

22,662

30,665

Italian

56,590 1,593,993 1,588

757

334,615 249,351

Greek

Gypsy (Romani)

Yiddish

Rumanian

Ukrainian Georgian

Russian

19,748

292,820

Other Balto-Slavonic dialects

58,124 34,744 1,231

214,168

parentage

Lithuanian

Total

Native of

Finnish

United States

Table 17.

81,995 109,689

2,780

86,737 19,588

6,256

3,652,533 303,048

3,538,690

401,860

36

52,902

45,883

1,437

3,602

48,414

4,087

162,749

1,956,293

2,512,696

208,115

180

25,369 985,703

157

578

51,424 1,423,819

154,673 130,054

8,309

117,754 162,888

Total

303,950 226,689

18,517

258,076

156,044

Total

146,897

34,036 38,704

1,697 1,110

38,930

3,034

111,922

958,628

1,927,001

14,198

11,847

327

1,905

9,484

1,053

50,827

997,665

585,695

61,218

ΙΟΙ

140,219

845,484 79

3,560

37

120

21,809

14,072

22,880

19,591 1,663

56,787

36,112

1.343

38,323 15,986

2,169

140,299

1,025,594 1,696,240

193,745

156

26,055 438,116

421

96,635

149,277

10,208

95,188

38,290

born

parentage 26,024

Foreign

Mixed

131,793 115,982

143,297 6,646

91,730

parentage

Foreign


Foreign stock


Dravidian Korean Japanese Chinese (n.e.c.)

Turkish Other Uralic Altaic Hindi (Hindustani) Other Indo-A ryan

Libyan Niger-Congo (Chari-Nile) Eastern Sudanie

North African Arabic dialects Southern Semitic Hamitic Swahili

Egyptian Iraqi Near Eastern Arabic dialects

United States

Table 17. Continued

503

1,951

380 445

2,040

948

3,991

16

2,347

5,666 3,016 251

22,312 14,426

668

1,811 765 306

1,249 731

15,191

974

26,253

22,939

635 2,756 82,886 29.244

8,983

53.528

408,504

337,283

578

7,328 137,373 80,317

813

16,024 207,528 122,000

8,348 50,772 325,618 308,039

22,208

1,944 1,740 2,987 2,442

25,004

206

3,826

1,347

2,207

336

2,543

24,123

653 953

1,221

5,482

1,055

6,537

29

86

145

265

384

135

78

812

217

216

410

974

217

408

1,354

52

31,672

40,306

55,112

10,952

2,44 66,064 191

435

79 758

858

1,904

49

Foreign parentage

33

Total

509

Total

11,410

669

70,155 41,683

8,696

186,039

118,090

7.535 34,748

19,866

602 235

22,017 1,043

417

16,646 1,840

45

860

568 394

59 4,261

57

1,139

286 82

428

758

139

14,806

1,146

779

Foreign born

138

36

8,634

323

30

Mixed parentage


891

Total

Native of native parentage

Foreign stock

TABLES - USA 459

Continued

703 166

5,819

57,073 3,725

2,849 209,571 8,681

826

1,193 8,336 12,006

6,253 4,042

530,653 444,792

350,126 8,873,081

128,039

880,779 9,317,873

9,624

152

348,645

341,483

5,193

55

38

104,979 171,357

177,288

96,47

189,170

4,431

32 3,327

580 278

120

640

9,6 474

4,956 1,593

21,492

4,610 2,305 152,498

506

1,156 11,695

119

310

3,179

732

Foreign born

162

1,079

126

27

50

49 664

Mixed parentage

236,504

1,866

23

17

451

93

17,497

1,031

245 137,663

174

648

18,528

274

1,190

35,581 2,132

311 382

464

768

544

817

1,543

5!

23

106

1,73

175

Foreign parentage

1,830

18,079 91,092

19,909

91,860

20,687

217,907

5,427

1,178

177

14,416

1,333 13,238

183 248

50

34 1,937 ,56

Total

352

169

466

5,116

1,046

Total


1,581

632

651

1,697

Total

Native of native parentage

Foreign stock

Source: General Social and Economic Characteristics, United States Summary: PC(1)-C1. 1972. The designations for languages and language clusters are those utilized in the cited census report. n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified

All other Not reported

Algonquin Navajo Other Athapaskan Uto-Aztecan Other American Indian

Tibetan Burmese Thai (Siamese), Lao Malay (Indonesian) Other Malayan Tagalog Polynesian

Mandarin Cantonese Other Chinese dialects

United States

Table 17.


10.34 14.74

1491

20.31

28.34

13.22

4-25

2-01

.99

5.09

3.09

.58

•43

3 2-94

12.96

10.88

759

7.80

21-49

3977

19.15

36.77 52.57

17.09

32.59

5·23

19 55

32.62

23.10

22.17

17-95

18.78

32.15

12.85

10.62

13-72

16.31

5.57 35-87

21.05

34-47

6.47

23-08

10.53

3.48

20.77

5-72

1·93

2.71

12.86

24.97 7-55

11.36

22.62

28.56

23.06

34.20

22.81 1936 3 3 96 2 1 . 0 9 12.52 l6.27

14.72

37-78

16.16

19.47

3.67

27.24

9.25 9.81

2-95

3032 28.28

25.56 30.70

24.84

13.65

8.82

6.91

17.10

12.49

5-79

9-74 5.96

2.66

5.82

1.21

3-47 3-76 10.66

7.4

16.89

l6.21

28.03

25.46

63-51 39.36

23-l6

2.10

.84

30.78

4.84

14·8ο

7·07

27-77 15.50

25.03

7-71

7-39

42.18

20.16

24.62

2.41 3.11

4083

31.64

•70

5-50 1.72

15-53

14.66

29.02

17-95 8.38

5211

30.31

37.75

10.36

10.25

6.81

66.80 57.15

15-54 24.00

2-34

5.20

6.04

2.65

5.20

8-73

17.21

40.11

.78

2999 22.28 27.16

3.24 4.81

l.11

•42

21.29

33.71

24.76 20.43

15.38

26.5p 25.84

18.68

14-32

2.85

22.81

2.11

6-54 9-34

15.09

7.19

4-55 6.90

378 4.46 6.48

6.81

3.19

1.58

•32

1.74

-54

•4 3

.95

.38 .56

1.06

.42

.24

.64 -43

5.66

5.19

1.22

9.57

10.74

31.10

13.84

36.05

24.36

5.64

1.75

.71

.20

.82

.28

.47 .60 .38

.32

.85

.13

.28

.22

.30

1.84

•44

5.70

1.22

5.69 2.93

8.65 5.89 32.20

1.24

3.64 4.61

2.62

2.79

2.89

75 & over

7-27

4.78

4.85

65-74

39-87

40·15 36.78

17-58

17.72

45.26

41-98

55.37

42.22

53.25 45.89 54-39 46.79

53-26

41-33

48.89

32-47

31.51

36.07

39.38 45 66 41·50

23-54 23.06

45-64

29.40

39.82

14.58

27.41

39-34 32.79 25.18

42.66 •32

1.20

34-45

7.10 14.82

37-84 29.60 1.19

14.69

31.60 33.02

8-99 11.80

34.90

3°·79

25.56

14.84

2.44

.45 .85 1.68 .36

14.92

9-49 9.65

1.66 1.19

5.70

25.92

9.69

10.26

2.41

7.68

18.91 10.14

6.64 15.51

19.23

11.37

6.06

16.39

7.26

12.34

10.05

2.63

9.86

8.61

2-93 6.02

12.27

21.47 21.55

30-23 1.98

2955

15.06

15-57 13.99

5-87 6.84

25-44

Native Born of Native Parentage

&. over Under 14 14-24

20.78

59-32

3.94

20.42

59-42

21.1O 25.70

64.08

56.99 66.98

29.26

24-13

20-77

4.22

4.33 7.75

2.08

3.52

3·69

52-19

17-42

.96

2-37

6.42

32.43

26.69 26.89

3554

3 5-03

8.68 16.06

9-61 4-98 2.69 1.96

11.18

37-87

5.72 21-37 25.26

41.88

1 5-43

18.30

8.31

27.15 30·47

26.49 26.66

30-71

21.69

30-35

10.15

21.04

7-13

21.81

2.32

12.62

6.78

•77

1.97

1-37 5.10

1.82

5-94 6.84

28.14

10.38

5.72

2.18

28.68

11.98

31.37 30.31

13.58

6.14

26.79

23.05

46.04

13-81

15-39

1.69

28.04

16.70 4.23

2.65

23.00

1.42

27.76

23.65

9·°9

18.55

2.25

23.15

21.57

44.80

13-86

2.05

2.15

28.72

25.88

26.32

11.79

10.40

31-32

22-39

15.51

38.26

23-24

9·05 11.95

13.16

13.11

65-74

14-12

45-64

75 25-44

Native of Foreign or Mixed Parentage

Under 14 14-24

75 & over

14.23

4.16

3-37

1.48

17-92

17.85

65-74

30-48

27-03

45-64

24.12

25.85

1.05

8.19

2.59

9.51

5.64

6.18

25-44

Source: Derived from PC(2)-lA(Modal ages underlined).

Total English Norwegian Swedish Danish Dutch French German Polish Czech Slovak Hungarian Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Russian Ukrainian Lithuanian Yiddish Greek Italian Spanish Japanese Chinese All other Not reported

Under 14 14-24

Foreign Born

Table 18. Percentage Distribution of mother tongue, 1970, by nativity, parentage and age for 22 languages.

TABLES - USA 461

5,775

29,021

9,687 3.765 47,665 97,371

1,506,619 360,273 1,031,011

385,567 137,918

410,580 1,201,535 419,912

149, 277

85,291

45.565 1.548

210,239

8,989

1,578,311 2,229,874 85,610

1,696,240

2,483,676 96, 4 7

20,558

971,352

559 6,977

453.79 2

438,116

5,524 1,672

5.748 30,788

20,832

47,569

447,789

325,125

110,604

49.130 5.407 1,701 27,410

531.165

1.27 1.12

6.91

6.49 .86 4.65

91.82

89.04

89.78

93.05

94.67

99.01

92.39

2.56

11.63

9-3 5

5-74 8.47

1-75 1.61

1.21

.13 .68

80.54

86.51

85.25

93.4 2

93.43 98.74

83.98 90.68

84.22

1.40 10.85

1.23 87-75 85.81

10.04

8759 87.14

7.92

4.86 18.98

1.80 5.70

17.60

10.45

.88

.15

1.84

7-54

2.44

12.21 1.83

19.70 11.19

3.90 10.86

22.38

2/1

1.43

90.65 88.74

87-75 76.70 76.16

98.02 91.79

75-75 69.44 86.38 85.96

5-41

5-59

23.38

71.04

8,884,065

1,025,994

44,5 59 139.736

170,374

8,720,327

1,697,825

761,406

1,750,272

659.995 997,075

21,125 228,723

22,620

22

9,619,302

7,023,665

4,345,39 2

5,376,746

2,862,188

49.311 1,133,051

1,745.121

489,5 5 5 963,763

42,515,379 37,176,480

5.22

4/1

21.96

21.30

72.63

5/1

75,49

10,601,254

43,276,785

2/1

10,463,685

Farm

4

3 Rural Non-Farm

1970

15.92

11.49

11.75

3.53

1.99

2.99

.90

.30

.96 5.69

1.89 1.28

5.29

7.43

1.99 3.49

1.31 13-79 12.53

2.26 10.35

4/1

11.55

3/1

1960

Sources: US Census of Population, 1970. Report PC(2)-1A: National Origin and Language, 1973. (Referred to in the following Tables as PC(2)-1A). 1940 and 1960 data are from Language Loyalty in the U.S., J.A. Fishman et al. 1966, where original sources are cited and estimation procedures described. The 23 languages included in this table are the only ones for which 1940-1960-1970 data are available.

Total foreign born English French German Polish Russian Yiddish Italian Spanish All other Not reported

9,221,726

6,127,345 5,665,590

1,155,877 3,118,321

185,358

2,018,026

1,612,982

3.396,593

2,187,828

112,958,743

193,590.856 159,019,288 4,891,519

140,611,792

149,332,119

203,210,1)8

Total native English French German Polish Russian Yiddish Italian Spanish All other Not reported

Urban

2

Total US Population

Total

1

1970

Table 19. Mother tongue claiming: 1940-1960-1970. Totals for 23 languages


2,759,°32

556,111 105,895

83,780

110,197

87,109

140,299

743,286

766,961

1,696,240

428,360

174,658 1,624,998

189,066 1,808,289

165,220

173,031 1,226,141

193,745 1,025,994 1,561,100

1,091,820

56,964 1,222,658

924,440

38,019

133,567 62,336

182,227

503,605

43,120

165,053 124,994

26,055

97,080

122,660

99,043 53,168

438,116

38,290

95,188

58,685

34,721 

57,926

35,540

106,974

392,049

356,940

276,834

i49»277 96,635

-56,382

77,671

123,631

75,560

32,108

19,178

-79,967 12,464

125,844 102,744

72,649

258,131

118,379 1,365,110

42,277 1,051,767

120,086

140,963

d

105,669

229,094

268,112

70,600

250,393 109,923

88,094

83,064

241,220

213,114

161,253

-88,937

56,519

1,267,880

-535,106

28,525

-486,324

-17,065

-27,474 -58,790

61,095

— 207,663

— 89,019

166,474

234,564 274,948

201,138 240,196

--387,505 — 381,768

171,580

91,711 125,000

70,703 82,561

943,781 228,738

45,93 5 51,060

— 63,962

-138,455 -291,792

— 808,590

— 1,490,318

67.46

295.98

(-34-28)

17.26

(-52.61)

(-39-58)

(-60.56)

(-22.40)

171.91

(-58.18)

(-74-62)

(-33-) 17.65

(-51.88)

(-55.71)

(-24.39) (-47.62)

44.73 14.20

(-52.35)

(-59-47) (-68.95)

(-13-41) (-32.26)

(Decrease)

Change

159,640

2,267,128 1,077,392

965,899

801,680

419,912

581,936

1,278,772

1,201,535

528,842

466,956

523,297 2,188,006

359,520 1,589,040

330,220

410,580

186,345 126,045

189,531 136,540

178,944 133,142

122,180 102,700

123,613

58,218

148,635

683,218

362,199 643,203

345,522 615,465

232,820 423,200

40,774

3,363,792 402,587

211,597 79,619

94,365 131,408

4,345,545

1910

13,712,754 3,007,932

4,983,405

11,109,620

1920

3,097,021

1,697,825

1930

1940

2,506,420

9,738,143 1,852,992

9,619,302

English Norwegian Swedish Danish Dutchb French German Polish Czech Slovak Hungarian Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Russian Ukrainian Lithuanian* Finnishf Rumanian Yiddish Greek Italian Spanish Portuguese

i960

Total

1970

% Increase

1940-1970

1940-1970

53,190

929,279

— 200,147

20,714

-65,489

— 11,964

-3,855 — 14,878

-10,339

-127,557

-12,930

-5,030

-42,439 -51,861

— 21,008

-77,237 — 162,024

80,360

25,022

— 21,401

— 80,189

-155,167 — 46,409

— 118,841

Change

1960-1970

61.06

121.16

(-16.32)

11.97

(-31.47) (-13.00)

(-27.98)

(-3.89)

(-9.66)

(-46.08)

(-5.71) (-40.27)

(-24.33)

(-33-95)

(-22.91)

(-27.84)

(-6.04)

2434

20.24

(-26.88)

(-32.97) (-37.90)

(-8.37)

(-1-22)

(Decrease)

% Increase

1960-1970

Mother tongue of the foreign born for 26 languages, 1910-1970, with percent increase (decrease) 1940-1970 and 1960-1970a

Mother T o n g u e

Table 20.

TABLES - USA 463

118,090 190,260

Japanese Chinese Arabic Total NonEnglish Total NonEnglish, less Spanish

95,°*7 89,609 49,908

i960

1940 g g j 0,940 g g 67,830

1950

1920

57,557

g g

1910 g g 32,868

— — 279.89 (-15.14)

(-32.24)

142,580 -1,244,149

— 2,512,029

1940-1970 % Increase (Decrease)

— —

1940—1970 Change

-508,145

421,44

23,749

23,063 100,651

1960-1970 Change

(-8-34)

6.14

47-59

112.32

19-53


[a] 1910-1960 data derived from US Census of Population 1960; General Social and Enconomic Characteristics, United States Summary. Final Report PC(1)-1C, Table 70 (Washington, D.C., US Government Printing Office, 1962). 1970 data derived from PC(2)-1A (1973). Population figures for 1910 to 1940 apply to whites only. Figures for 1960 are from Language Loyalty in the United States, J.A.Fishman et al., 1966. [b] Includes Flemish in 1960 and Frisian in 1910 and 1920. [c] 1920 figure not reported in 1960. Reported as 55,672 (including Ruthenian) in 1920. [d] 1910 figure not reported in 1960. Reported as 25,131 (including Ruthenian) in 1910. [e] Includes Lettish (1910-1920). [f] Includes Lappish (1910-1930) and Estonian (1910-1920). [g] Not available

іі

1970

Mother Tongue

Table 20. Continued


340,855

234,088

132,296

Slovak

Hungarian

Serbo-Croatian f

102,884

117,754

Armenian

Lithuanian

Finnish

162,749

1,956,293

Spanish

Portuguese

2,512,696

985,703 208,115

Italian

Greek

Yiddish

25,369

48,414

Ukrainian

Rumanian

154,673 130,054

Russian

54,103

233,165

Czech

Slovenian

1,347,691

French

2,403,125

727,698

Dutch·

Polish

107,155 161,225

Danish

German

34,675

381,575

Swedish

23,955,93° 9,706,853

1970

Norwegian

English

Total

Mother Tongue

(-1-54) (-5-68)

193,938 -32,575 — 81,129

828,327 6,058,239

97,300

102,140

87,000

1,278,000 120,500

714,060

2,080,680

107,000

2,300,000

773,680

20,340

118,460

140,620

26,440

45,280

422,000

18,000

53,000

99,000

136,000

214,160

32,000

198,600

283,520

279,040

1,428,820

2,435,700

533,760

37,211

74,577 105,808 339,900

294,737 109,833

1,740,866

951,793 47,110

29,347

15,193 154,373 d 131,905 e

69.07

42,249

68,619

173-97 35.06

75,749

9.25 53.07

6-78,293 1,242,233

190,067

94.50 212,696

103-75 20.76

27.40

87.07

133.58

40.94 7,369 563,703 101,115

24.72

122.17

64.53

(-4.37)

5,029

63,884

- 5,946

212,023

15.83

83.11

(-6.82)

22,103 -11,327

(-44.40) (-27.78) 187.22

48.65

4 3 , 29 6 71.19

64,754

105,975 432,016 786,312

20.22

33.76

15 3.44 172.68

141,165 215,855 59,o88

(-16.44)

17.87

87.89 (-11.10)

1,124,125

30.02 120.51 397,698

— 168,309

36.33

45,155 37,225

72.83

104.05

1 22.46

(-1.47)

(-.60)

21,974 22,264 — 706

84,744

-59,487

-43,197

55,016

57,335 3 5,488

-45,875

12,000

8,847 624,995

8o,6o2e

70,272

6,083

10,228 e

91,799 23,585 59,800

205,426

39,786 c

117,970

763,859 310,654

344,918

1,359,503 388,232

5,896,983

823,154

33.16

12.25

40,45

257,524 217,911

276,153

172,675 194,575

2.01

-356,333

(-8.89)

274,150

95,460 121,080

7,535 11,695

762,651

607,267

841,859

77,280

166,000

3.45 (-20.31)

374,040

6,673,628

344,240

798,350 — 2,474,187 -30,565

18,897,837

22,686,204b

(Decrease)

Change

(Decrease)

1910

1920

Change

1960-1970 % Increase

1960-1970

% Increase

1940-1970 1940-1970

6,721,433 658,589

12,181,040

23,157,580

1940

89,000

175,000

125,000

92,000

1,516,000

1,279,000

330,000

124,000

62,000

187,000

141,000

24,312,263

(est.)

1960

Table 21. Mother tongue of the native of foreign or mixed parentage for 25 languages, 1910-1970, with percent increase (de crease), 1940-1970 and 1960-1970

TABLES - USA 465

9,963,900

52,760 10,677,960

1940

1920 46,582

1910 13,859

78.25 21.70 10.79

1,075,207


41,285

1940-1970 Change

3,400,6938

44,045 4,078,9868

1960-1970 Change

44.80

88.09 46.00


Includes Flemish. Separate figures for Flemish are 1910: 19,026; 1920: 42,194; 1940: 17,840; 1970: 29,024. Includes 791,058 persons classified in 1920 as of "Mixed mother tongue" for whom a more detailed classification is not available. Includes Ruthenian. Includes Lettish. Includes Estonian and Lappish Before 1960 separate figures were reported for Serbian and Croatian as follows: 1910, Serbian: 3,424, Croatian: 20,161; 1920, Serbian: 16,074, Croatian: 58,503; 1940, Serbian: 18,300, Croatian: 58,980. [g] Includes Armenian because although 1970 data is available, no census data was reported for Armenia in 1960. Sources: 1910-1960 data from Language Loyalty in the United States, J.A. Fishman et al., 1966. 1970 data from PC(2)-1A, 1973.

7,590,000

11,039,107

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f]

50,000 8,868,000

94,045 12,995,400

Arabic Total Non-English Total Non-English Other than Spanish

1960 (est.)

1970

Continued

Mother Tongue

Tabel 21.


169,634,926 49,312,43 5 204,822 113,119

145 ,275,265

— 40,000 17,000

8 4 , 124,840

7 8 ,352,180

Total

English

1970

1960

102,777

34,744 58,124 5,166 170,174

8,000 4,000 2,000 39,000

1,880

9,400

14,880

2,060

52,980

Lithuanian Finnish

Rumanian Yiddish

13,785

22,662

10,000

2,780

Ukrainian

Armenian

—

30,665

3,000 18,000

5,780 13,980

Russian

Slovenian

117,194

43,244 3,106

25,344

11,905

19,882

221.20

150.78

290.62

269.62

633.24

715.18

119.35

3,260 16,685

295.72

197.16

82.18

260.74

181.45 169.00

131,174

3,166

26,744 54,124

—

12,662

12,665

17,095 6,040

76,950 36,156

583,335 114,944

1,900, 394

28,777 1,077,130

23,089

219.66 56.20

96,119

42.37 236.06

164,822

—

24,359,661

101.65 90.57

(Decrease)

Change 1960-1970

1940-1970 % Increase

363.37 56.40

18,895

52,156

7,000

5,200 24,095 9,040

16,000

13,180

Magyar (Hungarian)

Serbo-Croatian

Slovak

1,563,354

57,690 38,976

29,260

Czech

2,488,394

86,950

34,000

81,760

Polish 10,000

87,000

185,820

German

36,977 941,350 484,5M 67,184

588,000

925,040

French

79,459 19,989

123,662

85,510,086 70,960,255

Change 1940-1970

670,335 148,944

74,000 383,000

65,80c

518,780

Dutch 1,460,130

29,089

6,000

Swedish

Danish

81,160

3 3,660 9,100

Norwegian

Mother Tongue

1940

(Estim)

336.34

158.30

334.30 1353.10

—

201.33 70.36 126.62

244.21

225.98

769.50

338.07

323.70 670.50

281.23

38.89

565.41 384.82

412.06

—

16.77

(Decrease)

% Increase

1960-1970

Table 22. Mother tongue of the native of native parentage for 25 languages (1940-1970), with percent increase (decrease) 19401970 and 1960-1970

TABLES - USA 467

Continued

25,765 10,646,702

4,000

2,198,800

1,516,000 6,475,652

1940—1970

592.61

4,276,852

194.51

264.89

22,045 7,728,922

447.03

384-35 480.13

822.71

% Increase (Decrease)

50,872

5,452,070

480,585

50,679

Change 1940-1970

4,945,867

7,826,017

21,765

55,252

2,880,050

44,839 458,625

1960-1970

Change

1960-1970

328.41

544.13 278.80

789.31

233.09

311.99

373.66

% Increase (Decrease)

Sources: 1940 and 1960 data from Language Loyalty in the United States, J.A.Fishman et al., 1966. 1970 data from PC(2)-1A, 1973

minus Spanish

Total Non-English

2,807,000

3,720

Arabic

Total Non-English

2,917,780

62,252

7,000

4,171,050

1,291,000

11,380

Portuguese

Spanish

718,980

56,839 605,625

12,000 147,000

6,160

1970

125,040

1960

Italian

1940

(Estim)

Greek

Mother Tongue

Tabel 22.


TABLES - USA

469

Table 23. Persons reporting English as current language. (Numbers in thousands) Foreign born

Native

Mother Tongue

Total English French German Italian Polish Spanish Yiddish Other Not reported Total Non-English Total Non-English minus Spanish

Total persons Total 198,214

161,787 2,179 5,835 4,3 6 4 2,382 6,700

Current language English

Current language English

Number Percent Total

Number Percent

187,333 158,954

179,192 158,386

95.7 99.6

1,801

1,547 4,65 3 2,982 1,916

85.9 96.8 94.8 96.7 36.4 98.2 91.5

4,809 3,47 1,982 4,878

1,774

1,620

1,142

1,122

9,767 3,581 36,428

7,111

3,5o6 28,376

6,506 304 20,804

29,728

23,498

19,030

10,882

7,335

67.4

2,833 378

2,813

99-3 57-7 84.5 59-5 59.2 18.7

218

1,025

866

1,218

725 236

399 1,822

341 72

73-3

478 2,655 74 8,042

1,727 37 4,522

81.0

6,22o

4,I8I

8.7

77.8 65.1 50.0

56.2 67.2

Source: Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics, Series p.20, no.221, April 30 1971. Characteristics of The Population by Ethnic Origin, November 1969.

470


Table 24. Estimated change in non-English mother tongue claiming 1970-1979 Language

1970

Est. 1979

English Celtic Norwegian Swedish Danish Dutch French Breton German Polish Czech Slovak Hungarian Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Dalmatian Albanian Finnish Lithuanian Russian Ukrainian Georgian Rumanian Yiddish Gypsy (Romani) Greek Italian Spanish Portuguese Basque Armenian Persian Hebrew Arabic African Turkish Altaic Hindi

160,717,115 88,162 612,862 626,102 194,462

170,636,000

412,637 2,598,408 52,722 6,093,054 2,457,938 452,812 510,366 447,497 239,45 5 82,321 9,8o2 17,582 214,168 312,568

334,615 249.551 757

56,590 1,595,995 1,588

458,699 4,144,315 7,823,583 365,300 8,108 100,495

79.46 601,892 556,104 175,016

587,879 2,780,550 55,04 5,486,186 2,562,273 522,771 597,128 523,571 280,162 87,260 10,390 22,597 192,751 551,522 391,500 264,312

886 59,985

Est. % change 6* — 10 -2*

-11*

-10 -6 7* 7 -10* 5* 15* 17 17 17

6 6

5° —10

6 17

6 17

6

1,214,942 2,064 574,612

-24*

4,551,550 11,400,525

5* 46*

474,890 9,486

30*

5° 25*

17

25.925 101,686 195,520

117,579 27.99° 610,116 226,418

15,785

18,465

17

59.54 974

45,997

17

1,140

17

26,253

45,945

75

17 17 500 17

471

TABLES - USA Table 24. Continued Language Other Indo-Aryan Dravidian Korean Japanese Chinese Tibetan Burmese Thai Malay Tagalog Polynesian Amerindian All Other Not Reported Total EMT Total (EMT, English, Not Reported) % EMT % EMT without Spanish

1970

Est. 1979

Est. % change

26,839 10,510

17 75 30*

345,431

93,674 531,055 645,963

352

412

17

1,581 14,416 10,295

1,850 25,228

17

22,939 8,983 53,528 408,504

9,317,873 33,175,172

4,384 381,337 36,202 348,667 1,056,935 8,386,086 38,242,647

203,210,158 16.3 12.5

217,264,733 17.6 12.4

217,907 20,687 268,205 880,779

17

87*

75

30 75 75 30 20*

—10* 15 7 1.4

— .1

[*] Exact percent increase/decrease for ages 14 and over derived from Table 4, Special Studies Series p. 23, No. 116, 1982 and utilized in calculating 1979 figure (total for all ages).

2.9

4.5 2.2

4.8 2.4

4.7

— 7.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

511

2,4 17

5,138 475 4,100

442

2,452

0.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

550

1,180

5,569

6,084

3.7 9.3

0.4

7.1 10.9

100.0

409

7,652

1.5

13.8

0.8

100.0

514

449 590

16.9

6.4

100.0

15.2

10.3

03.6

2.0

20.6

4.7

5.1

9.7

9.3 7.3

6.0

9.7

4.1

17.9

9-4 10.5

100.0 16.4

18 t o 2 4

13 1 , 8 6 4

14 t o 17

170,398

Total

30.9

31.6

26.1

19.6

(-)33.5

27.8

( - ) 29-6

398*

33,117*

12,124

2,528

6,781 32,153

278 1,069

501 46,655*

760 7 9 , 5 51

25 1,011

733 2,996

1,327 5,781

1,070

Greek

1,746

Yiddish

48

16

Rumanian

11,301

6

14,392*

1,959 605

1,1640

Finnish

50,449* 20,077

1,297 19,974

1,355

9, 5 5

30,373*

213

1,716

1,026

Lithuanian

4,343

359 128

117

Ukrainian

State and regional tables: Yiddish and five other languages (1970)

NORTHEAST (9) New England Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut Middle Atlantic New York New Jersey Pennsylvania NORTH CENTRAL ( 12) East North Central Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Víl scons in West North Central Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota

Table 27.

474


Continued

Nebraska Kansas SOUTH (17) South Atlantic Delaware Maryland District of Columbia Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida East South Central Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi West South Central Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas

Table 27.

524 151

158

56 232 544 1,280

168

1,056

155

97

305 390

285

133

55 79 57 525

100 237 302 1,160

78 64 6

82

170 151 144

192

270 502

158

2,020

154

5,928

430

112 32

240

651 5,926

164

3,311

245

121

43 5

423 401

371 152

150 274

225 1,020

1,465

1,021

42 719

159 1,540

647 5,895 457

120

241

1,319

208

516

Rumanian

3,559 198

228

1,852

Finnish

204

Lithuanian

421

Ukrainian

1,149 10,805

2,578

206

5,527 1,770 504

1,977

75,105

5,430

2,041 1,365

565

8,500

4,814

46,252

2,229

2,152

2,035

Yiddish

6,208

1,550 810

458

458

2,506

1,581

588

12,574

5,160

2,448

4,322

2,122

6,660

1,979

4,755

1,521

993

856

Greek

TABLES - USA 475

Continued

28

97 5,915* 26 33

220

Source: PC(1) — CI, 1972. * A state that must be counted in order to account most parsimoniously for 50% of claimants of indicated language.

1,595,995 2

56,590 4

214,168 4

292,820 4

249,351

5

Totals

*/Language

61,061 7,570

49*599

23,794

17,54

62,280 164,465

458,699 4

117,441 168,593

4,467

12,380

19.535

13,084

201,794

18,081 26,470

217,917

310

181

42,208*

2,182

3,610

1,195

5,954

620

5,198 1,830

747

636

390

Greek

39,436

1,059,141

197

161

2,095 145,008*

3,209

5,490 611 411 811

92 6,178

83

119

Yiddish

112,753

248

191

16,451

394

7,379 20,911* 856

955

2

12,290

2,582

15

56

343

264

54

520

320

1,584

1,208

51

94

Rumanian

328

345 94 284

144,997 104,494

150,541

120

1,905 891 11,050

186

191

183

1,267

57 1,017

94

1,122

1,030

1 ,016 623

2,544

107

Finnish

196

Lithuanian

563 108

Ukrainian

68,213

NORTHEAST NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH WEST

Totals

WEST (13) Mountain Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado Arizona New Mexico Utah Nevada Pacific Washington Oregon California Alaska Hawaii

Table 27.


TABLES - USA Table 28.

477

Ethnic mother tongue publications by language and frequency of publica tion.

Language Albanian Amerindian Arabic Aramaic Armenian Bulgarian Byelorussian Cambodian Cape Verdean Carpatho-Rusyn Chamorro Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Estonian Finnish French Frisian German Greek Haitian Creole Hawaiian Hebrew Hmong Hungarian Irish Italian Japanese Judezmo Korean Laotian Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Norwegian

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Other*

No Data

Total

%

   

I

3

5

1

1O

0·9

ι

2

2

1O

15

4 

5

8

17

1·5 1.6

1

 

4

7

7

     

   

I

9 

5 34

0.5

5

I

O.l

I

3

4

0.4

3 

2

I 1

I

0.1

9 

5

0.5

2

0.2

l6

42

4.1

2

12

1.2

4

27 6

2.6

2

I





15

8

I

2



2

I

4

4 10

4 8  

I

4

2

I

2

2

6

 ι

I

4 

5 

5  4

8  

M 8  

I

3

2



2

  

23

1.6

I

2

2

16

3.3



2

     

6  

I 2

0.6 0.5 0.7

5

5 7 13

7

21

2.0

2

2

0.2

8

52

5.0

22

2.1

3

1·3

I

I

2

0. 2



2

2

0.2

I

3

1



I

2

7 3

0.7



1

15

5

14

42

4-1

 ι

2

7 

1

17

1.6

15 4 

13

14

4

12

45

4.4

I

1

9

22



1

1

1

I

   

10

22

2.1

7 

10

0.9

1

Ο.Ι

8

38

3.7

1

Ο.Ι

12

1.2

7  10  

 I

2

5

 

I I

3  12

 6

I I





3

2

0-3

2.1 0.l


478 Table 28.

Continued

Language Pa. German Persian Pilipino Polish Portuguese Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbian + Sicilian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Tai Dam Thai Turkish Ukrainian Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish Total Percent

Daily    4  

Weekly  



1

4

I I

9 

2

2





  I



Monthly 4

14

3 3 6 

N o Data

Total

%

ι  

4

9

0·9

2

2

0. 2

4

13 

25

9 65

6.5

12

24

3 4 

2

8

5

19

1.8

2

2

0.2

0·9 2.3 0.8

2

1

2

0

5

0.5

 6



1

0

t

0.1

4 

4

27

2.6

0

9 174 13

Ο.9

12

6

   

3 36 4   

2

5

10

 

I

8

10

Other*

 8

4° 5   2

16    

72

4

16.9 1.3 0.1

I

I

2

2

0.2

0

2

0.2

7 3

8

32

33

45

3.1 4.4

I

I

0

2

0.2

10

17

0

56

3.5

66

212

247

151

6.4

20.6

24.0

14-7

*Other Quarterly, semi-annually, annually, irregularly + Includes Serbo-Croatian Source: Fishman et al., 1985

355 34.4

1,031 100.0

2,871

275,853

19.703

1

10,000

10,000

Laotian

Lithuanian

18,125

3

Korean

56,250

9.333

6

Japanese

2

9.83

59,000

28,000

1

Latvian

10,045

68,000

10,045

68,000

1

22,558

Italian

22,558

Hungarian

Hebrew

1

Greek

5

1

1

4

11

13

1

19 5

3

French

German

2

Estonian

3 1

2,000 2

2,000

Danish

1

2

Dutch

Czech

Croatian

4 12

3.850 29,267 10,946

7,700 87,800

5,877 8,325 1,412 3,000 11,900 5,700

76,400

3,000 11,900 28,500

91,576 5,648

8,715 5,000

43,575 5,000

207,968

2

5,600

3,900 11,200

3

13

I

14

6

5

1

4

2,370 3,900

7,110

3,900 9,726

7,450

36,290

2,483

2,792

5,881 24,545 30,000

3 5,286

8,294 25,260

5,375

1,030

4,750 3,200

343, 6 25 30,000

99,530 126,300

21,500

1,030

6,400

77,807 19,000

6

1

5

3 6

1

3

4

1

5

1

11,700

1

3

12

1

4

3 8

2

3

22,750

7,000

1,833 5,000

5,500 5,000

739 1,200

8,669

7,584 30,000

739 1,200

34,675

30,337 30,000

2,600 4,500

5,200

X

4,500

Circulation

7,225

7,000 43.350 45.5O0

1

6

Chinese

14

Chamorro

1

3 10,750

2

Carpatho-Rusyn

21,500

Cambodian

4 1

5,438

1

4

Byelorussian

21,750

3,767

11,300

1

2

1

4

6,000

995 6,000

X

Bulgarian

Armenian

14,354

3

Arabic

5

1

Aramaic

1

Amerindian

Circulation

1,167

3,500

3,500

7,000

6,983 10,500

52,500

15,600

46,800 41,900

7,083 4,000

10,250

41,000 21,249 4,000

1,200

5,200

26,000

1,200

1,000 4,700

1,οοο

1,240

1,000

1,371

18,8οο

1,240

3,000

16,452

1,010

1,010

550

967

2,900

1,100

Circulation X

3

26

12

31

25

1 2

35

1 1

17

21

25

n

n

Total

X

n

Circulation

n

n

Albanian

Language

Total

1,459 2,680

7,450

108,040

11,900

3 1,000

5 5 5,701 98,148

163,631

196,435 51,800

338,747

9.930 150,300

17,600

2,483

4,155

11,900

8.179 7,750

17,926

6,294

12,950

16,369

4,664 9,678

2,483

4,400

4,580

22,900

112,917

8,444 6,642

15,247

6,935 7,000

1,853

759 1,050

5,489

5,331 30,000

χ

76,000

320,185

27,740 7,000

5,500

739 4,200

87,231

42,647 30,000

7,295 13,400

Circulation

TOTAI

OTHER**

MONTHLY Total

WEEKLY Total

DAILY

Total

Table 29. Circulation of ethnic mother tongue publications and Anglo-Jewish publications by frequency of publication*

TABLES - USA 479

1

2

54

54

1,34.57*

1,313,572

24,325

24,325

25,363

8

235

63

172

15,381 254

55

24,101

1,518,306

3,614,534

7 199

15,931 12,187

127,450 2,096,174

16,510

25,315

1,392,320 4,193,604

10,211 14,077

71,480 2,801,284

166

45

121

12

6

M

4

[*] Ns reported include only publications for which circulation figures are available. [**] Quarterly, semi-annually, annually, irregularly and no data on frequency. [***] Serbian includes Serbo-Croatian Source: Fishman et al., 1985

Jewish

Total + Anglo-

Anglo-Jewish

Total E M T

Yiddish

25,563

2,500

1

1

2,742 2,500

16,450

6

Ukrainian

Welsh

5,564

775

6,429

Vietnamese

27,821

32,144 2,456

5

5

41,823

1,380,172

19,650

20,500

5 33

5,409 5,846

1

2

3

2,162

11

3

I

n

2,550

43,275 29,230

7,650 10,811

11,323 4,100

950 7,150

25,467

8

41,000

21,435

7,45

24,710

41,700 709,711

8

5

3

12,too

147,203

21,450

950

76,400

1,550

2

3

32

X

2

Turkish

Swedish

Spanish

17,542 13,900

105,250

4,650 16,160

9,300 16,160

85,000 3

13

7,609 10,625

60,875

8 8

3

61,567

22,500

4,125

Slovenian

615,667

45,000

6 0 , 500

3

1

3

Circulation I

2,300

70,930

18,201

5 3,000

2,385,000 3,021,463

5,458 5,260

2,560

636,463

65,500

15,361

9,719

8 45,791

28

709

.63

546

289,793

12,143,173

6,847,493 5,295,680

17,127

32,489

12,541

10,350

2,742 2,500 2,500

16,450 6 1

4,944

775

6,697

32,582

103,832

53,579 1,550

2,932,341

21

2

90 8

9,446 8,866

1,000 170,025

18 5,375

21,500

9,287

69,121 1,000 1

1,000

1,000

8,845

9,418

27,860 3

12

1,337 5,850

4,010

950 16,863

2,44 5,760

11,700

2,300 10,372

X

9,650

4

339,078 97,300

93,350 950 67,450

2,000

4

1

9

Circulation

2,000

1,150

Total n

36 11

X

TOTAL

6,409

70,)00

3,450

Circulation

Total

Total n

OTHER**

MONTHLY

46,000

46,000

2,300 4,500

2,300

X

13,500

1

6

10

2

4

I

3

Circulation

n

X

n

Circulation

Total

Slovak

Sicilian

Serbian***

Russian

Rumanian

Portuguese

Polish

Pilipino

Pa. German

Norwegian

Macedonian

Language

WEEKLY Total

DAILY

Table 29. Continued


5 7

IOO.O

75.0

8.0

10.0

5.6

IOO.O

3.5

4.1

3

2

2

1

2

4

7

60

45

1 28 42

39.5 35.5

2

27.2

3

71.4

5

10

3

II.I

5

35.0

20.0

IOO.O

IOO.O

2

I

I

100.0

3

1

4

50.0

9

IOO.O

1

I

4

39.0 20.0

4.3

1

8

2

I-3 n

21.4

hour %

9

8.6

I

1

50.0 15

n

3

/2

1

6

/2 hour n %

1

24.9

24.5

7.1

l8.1

27.8

15.0

20,0

22.0

20.0

17.3

11.4

35.3

hour %

5

5

I

12

15

8.9

18.4

27.8

20.0

IOO.O

17.1

3-19 hours °o

21

n

A. Radio

1

2

5

.6

1.8

7.1

2

2

8.0

2.9

16.7

44

14

3

26.0

12.3

21.4

54.6

IOO.O

2

6

27.8

40.0

24.0

25.0

27.7

60.0

39.0

31.4

5

8

6

1

5

3

9

22

1

20-83 hours 84-168 hours No Data n % n % n °o

Radio and television "Stations" broadcasting in non-English languages (hours per week of broadcasting)

Albanian Amerindian Arabic Aramaic Armenian Basque Bengali Bulgarian Byelorussian Cambodian Carpatho-Rusyn Chamorro Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Estonian Finnish French German

Language

Table 30.

169

114

14

2

II

2

l8

20

25

I

I

4

I

I

I

3

18

5

23

70

6

Total

TABLES - USA 481

Continued

Greek Haitian Creole Hawaiian Hebrew Hindi* Hmong Hungarian Ilocano Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Korean Laotian Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Maori Mien Norwegian Pennsylvania German Persian Pilipino Polish

Language

Table 30.

2

6.2

2

3

100.0

50.0

50.0

14.3

6.7 4.7

I

2

2

I

I

II

2

100.0

49

2

20.0

38.5

90

20.9

14-3

3

1

40.0

14.3

100.0

13.3

42.9

50.0

50.0

2

1

4

14.3

4

21.4

40.0

2

1

23-5

4

40.0

50.0

2

23-5

18.8

22.4

22.5

8.1

35 6

2

4

11.8

2

25.0

11

3

6

59 8

3.9

12.5

36.7 37.8

18

4

29.7

II

5 47

2

2

7

23

20.0

33.3

7-1

11.8

21.9

14.7

10.2

100.0

2

5

5.4

2

1

1

5

3.2

.4

3.1

1

6.7

2.0

1

6

18

8.1

5.0

3 36

2

1

12

3

2

5

4

28

2

5

I

3

1

20.0

1

30.0

6

13.3

40.0 1

30.0

25

6

2

2

40.0

50.0

26.7

4

2

25.0

1

1

33-7 20.0

30

5

3.4

n

4.3

3

%

2

10.1

n

13.3

2

%

2

9

21.3 40.0

η

15.4

20.0

28.6

5

20.0

7 15 234

4

4

1

28

42.9

5

1

4

60.0

17 50.0

32

156

49

1

2

29.4

12.5

17.9

28.6

100.0

2

37

20

48.6

15

5

5

89

Total

33.3 10.0 50.0

20.0

28.0

oo

20-85 hours 84-168 hours No Data

20.0

9

%

3-19 hours n

1

ł

%

I-3 hour n

3.4

/2—1 hour n %

1

3

/2 hour n %

1


Continued

[*]

20.6

40.0

174 6

27.3

3.4

3 2 9

50.0

100.0

16.7

I

I

6

3

158

7.5 18.8

100.0

I

6

4.3

2

600

12.5

2

313

16.7 12.5

504

85

7-2

33.3

75

67

1

7.9

1.6

13

3

7

162

9 4

2

1

2

5

16

5

50.0

15 60.0

I

46.7

845 19.2

I 1

19

13

3

17

1O

2

64

100.0

36.4

47.4

15·4

33.3

11.8

50.0

25.0

382

I

3

6.3

8.3

529

31.3 31.3

33-3

36.1

2,333

16

3 16

36

2

I

I

2

6

61

I

6.3

2

1OO.

40.0

22.5

9.1

17.7

4

20-83 hours 84-168 hours No Data η % η oo n % Total

50.0 I

2

190

1

3

50.0

15.6

3-19 hours %

10

η

100.0

18.8

66.7

3 5

2

50.0 22.2

8

I

I

19.2

162

9.1

5.3 18.2

1 2

36.9

1

100.0

30.8

11.8

7

4

2

10.5

38.5

17.7

39.

1-3 hours %

2

2

5

3

25

η

33.3 15.4

41.2

3 7

20.0

9.4

hour %

I

2

30.0

6

/2 I η

3.1 50.0

1

2

—1/2 hour n %

Includes Serbo-Croatian

Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbian* Sinhalese Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tagalog Tai-Dam Tamil Thai Tibetan Tongan Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Yiddish Totals - Radio

Language

Table 30.

TABLES - USA 483

Continued

Albanian Amerindian Arabic Aramaic Armenian Basque Bengali Bulgarian Byelorussian Cambodian Carpa tho-Rusyn Chamorro Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Estonian Finnish French German Greek Haitian Creole

Language

Table 30.

—yhour n %

9·°

IOO.O 12.5 12.J

1

I 1 I

-1 hour n %

2

ι

^·ζ

1-3 hours n %

3

2

2

7·3

IOO.O

3-19 hours 20-83 hours 84-168 n % n % n

. T.V. hours °'0

IOO.O

2

7 5

»7-5 loco

45-5

IOO.O

2

5

100.0 4

No Data n %

8 5 

I

I

    

11

2













2



4

2



Total


Continued

Hawaiian Hebrew 1 Hindi* Hmong Hungarian Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Korean Laotian Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Maori Mien Norwegian Pennsylvania German Persian Pilipino Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian

Language

Table 30.

4

36.4

25.0

25.0

27.2 11.1 20.0

3 3-3 33.3 18.1

1

3 1 1

1 1 2

—1/2 hour 1/2 —Ihour n % n % I—3 n

2 1

1

18.1 11.1

5°·°

hours %

1 5 3

1

9.1

9.1 5 5.5 60.0

1

3-19 hours 20—83 hours 84-168 n % n % n

50.0

66.7 66.7 36.4 100.0

2

2

45.5 22 2 · 20.0

100.0

50.0

2 4

1

2

5

1

2

 4 2  1   u 9 5           3 3 n  2

hours No Data % n % Total

TABLES - USA 485

3 158

37-5 18.8

16.7

6

6

IOO.0

100.0

j

I

13-3

2

50.0

9-7

M

1

100.0

/2

1

1

-1/2 hour n %

[*] Includes Hindustani [**] Includes Serbo-Croatian Source: Fishman et al., 1985

Russian Samoan Serbian Sinhalese Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tagalog Tai-Dam Tamil Thai Tibetan Tongan Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Yiddish Totals - Radio

Language

Table 30. Continued

600

18.8 3 Ï-3

5

2

3

22.2

66.7

8

50.0

40.0

6

j

8.4

hour %



I n

85

3-9

75

13

8.4

13

3

7

76

46.7 60.0

49.4

100.0

5

15



154







2

1

I

Total

12.5 12.5

16.7

382

I

3

6.3

8.3

529

3 1.3 31-3

2,333

16

16

36 3

36.1 33.3

2

50.0

I

1

1

2

504

6

2

Data °o

2

100.0

40.0

7-1

100.0

20-83 hours 84-168 hours No n % n °o n

50.0 1

2

I I

I

3-19 hours n %

100.0

13.0

2

6

1

1

20

1-3 hour n %


TABLES - USA Table 31.

487

Ethnic mother tongue schools by language and frequency of attendance

Language Albanian Amerindian Arabic Aramaic Armenian Bulgarian Byelorussian Cambodian Carpatho-Rusyn Chamorro Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Estonian Finnish French German Greek Haitian Creole Hebrew

Daily n

Weekday Afternoons* n /

0/

/()

N o Data n 1

37

I 2

107

25.7

13.8

6

46.2

5

2.9

I

100.0

3

3.5

15

8.7

I

6.7

I

7.7

2

33.3 100.0

3

75.0

ι

25.0

I

100.0

1

1

50.0

I

50.0

2

7

53.8

13

18

10.5

134 8

77.9

172

6

53.3 46.1

3

100.0

M 13 3

1

100.0

1

9 3 95

56.2

16

6 40.0 6 46.1

43.8

3

80.5

118

369

73.7 83.5

442

23

.8

1.7

39

21.3

135

7.0

22

5.0

I

501

19.4

1,659

64.1

406

15.7 80.0

20.0

I

100.0

1

83

I

1.2



16.9

66

79.5

4 8

5.3

7 9.3 29 17.2 5 4.1

62

82.7

122

72.2

116

95.9 100.0

61

4.7

2

4.0

I

2.0

13

26.0

I

I.I

2

2.4

18

21.2

99.8

2,589 5

1

I

584

183 1

4

5.9

2

I00.0

3

IO

7 1

31

2.7

4

29

3.3

100.0

87

49.4

4.5 100.0

2

74.3 71.4

43

20

6l

1

144

5

19.5

2.4

100.0

28.6

23 6

2

Total

2

7

Hindi Hawaiian Hungarian Hutterite Italian Japanese Korean Laotian Latvian Lithuanian Norwegian Pennsylvania German Persian Pilipino

Saturday/ Sunday** n 0/ /0

75 169 121 1

34 64 5

68.0

50

75.3 100.0

85

1

.2

585

5

1

100.0

1

5

100.0

5

488 Table 31.

Language Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romani Rumanian Russian Sanskrit Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Tibetan Ukrainian Vietnamese Yiddish Totals

YIDDISH: TURNING TO LIFE Continued

Daily n 9 I

2

54

6

Weekday Afternoons* n%

/o 7.1

2·3

10.0

7.4

3 7

I

2

Saturday/ Sunday** No Data η

2.4

14

15.9

I

0/ /0

n

I I.I 2.3

100

35

/0

79.4 79.5

Total 126

44

1

100.0

1

2

100.0

2

2

100.0

2

I

14.0

6

86.0

7

I

100.0

1

I

25.0

3

4

5.0

I

5.0

16

50.0

6

•3

6 3

.4

672

2

17.0

10

75.0 80.0 50.0 91.9 83.0

5

100.0

5

2

100.0

2

42

47.7 89.0

88

6.8

40 I

45.5 11.0

108

25.6

284

67.3

30

7.1

1,45 3

22.2

2,027

30.9

743

11.3

8

20 12

731 12

9 422

2,330

35.7

6,553

[*] This column includes all classes meeting two or more times per week including a Saturday or Sunday. [**] This column includes all classes meeting once per week or less. Source: Fishman et al., 1985

TABLES - USA

489

Table 32. Response to the question: Does your school presently teach Yiddish?

Statistic

# Respondents Yes No NR % Yes

Sunday

Weekday Afternoon

Day

30 4 7.5% 26

229 38 71.7% 191

-

-

13.3

16.6

67 11 20.8% 53 3 16.4

Orthodox Conser Reform Other Total vative 35 6 11.3% 27 2 17.1

142 18 34.0% 142

12.7

91 58 326 21 53 8 15.1% 39.6% 16.3% 83 36 270 1 3 36.2 16.3 8.8

Source: AAJE 1980.

Table 33. Response to the question: Would your school teach Yiddish if proper mate rials and teachers were available?

Statistic

# Respondents Yes No NR % Yes

Sunday

Weekday Afternoon

Day

30 13 9.5% 14 3 43.3

229 96 70.1% 85 48 41.9

67 28 20.4% 29 10 41.8

Source: AAJE 1980.

Orthodox Conser Reform Other Total vative 35 12 8.8% 15 8 34.3

142 60 43.7% 62 20 42.3

91 58 326 46 19 137 33.6% 13.9% 42.0% 34 17 128 22 61 11 42.0 50.5 32.8

490


Table 34. Projections of the limited English proficient ("LEP") population for school age groups (x 1000) LANGUAGE/ /AGES

1976

1980

PROJECTION YEARS 1985 1990

1995

2000

NAVAJO 5-11 6-13 5-14

16.8 21.4 26.6

15.1 19.7 24.3

15.0 19.0 23.5

17.1 20.8 25.6

19.2 23.0 28.1

18.7 22.9 28.1

POLISH 5-11 6-13 4-14

17.7 21.1 26.3

16.0 19.4 24.0

15.8 18.7 23,2

18.1 20.5 25.3

20.2 22.6 27.7

19.7 22.6 27.7

PORTUGUESE 5- 9 5-11 6-13 4-14

14.2 18.3 20.3 26.1

12.7 16.5 18.6 23.8

12.8 16.3 18.0 23.1

15.1 18.7 19.7 25.1

17.1 20.9 21.7 27.5

16.4 20.4 21.7 27.5

886.1 354.3 549.0 1240.5 1390.0 1789.5

839.8 344.9 540.7 1185.4 1350.1 1727.6

904.1 352.2 539.4 1255.9 1397.9 1794.3

1140.5 402.0 562.2 1539.2 1642.3 2092.7

1379.6 469.4 625.8 1843.9 1938.6 2455.8

1422.6 509.6 711.7 1928.6 2073.0 2630.0

VIETNAMESE 5-11 6-13 5-14

19.4 18.4 27.3

17.5 16.9 24.9

17.3 16.3 24.1

19.8 17.9 26.2

22.2 19.8 28.8

21.6 19.7 28.7

YIDDISH 5-11 6-13 5-14

18.2 17.8 24.6

16.4 16.3 22.5

16.2 15.8 21.8

18.6 17.3 23.7

20.8 19.1 26.0

20.3 19.0 26.0

TOTAL LEP 5- 9 10-11 12-14 5-11 6-13 5-14

1246.8 494.0 779.5 1740.8 1963.0 2520.4

1162.6 373.3 755.2 1637.0 1875.8 2394.2

1228.4 474.5 738.8 1702.2 1905.5 2439.9

1522.9 532.3 756.0 2050.4 2199.3 2795.9

1811.9 611.5 827.2 2416.0 2552.8 3226.6

1838.2 653.6 925.5 2486.7 2685.6 3400.0

SPANISH 5- 9 10-11 12-14 5-11 6-13 5-14

Source: Oxford 1981

TABLES - USA

491

Table 35. Projections of the non-English language background ("NELB) population for contiguous age groups (x 1000) LANGUAGE/ /AGES

1974

1980

PROJECTION YEARS 1985 1990

PORTUGUESE 0- 4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-54 55 + TOTAL

24.0 49.6 77.6 67.6 118.0 151.7 488.5

24.9 45.2 80.7 77.5 123.3 168.5 511.9

29.2 43.8 74.8 85.4 137.1 179.2 536.7

RUSSIAN 35-54 55 + TOTAL

59.1 131.9 227.7

61.7 146.5 238.6

SCANDINAVIAN 15-24 25-35 35-54 55 + TOTAL

36.8 29.2 134.2 440.9 661.1

SPANISH 0- 4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-54 55 + TOTAL VIETNAMESE 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-54 TOTAL YIDDISH 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-54

55+ TOTAL

Source: Oxford 1981

30.2 47.7 67.4 88.1 157.7

1995

2000

18 4 .9 561.3

29.2 5 2.3 65.2 81.8 180.9 190.6 582.6

27.7 52.2 71.1 73.8 196.8 201.2 600.2

68.6 155.8 250.2

78.9 160.7 261.6

90.5 165.1 271.5

98.5 174.9 279.8

38.2 32.3 140.3 489.7 692.7

35.4 35.6 156.0 520.7 726.2

31.9 36.7 179.4 537.2 759.5

30.9 34.1 205.8 552.0 788.3

33.7 30.8 223.9 584.8 812.2

1113.4 2396.4 2054.4 1766.7 2251.5 1026.5 10608.9

1220.3 2313.5 2255.9 2136.2 2486.4 1203.5 11745.5

1531.9 2402.9 2244.1 2521.0 2959.5 1370.6 13191.3

1696.9 2802.5 2170.5 2784.9 3641.8 1515.2 14778.9

1757.8 3288.7 2254.5 2774.3 4469.2 1668.4 16436.6

1793.0 3522.0 2629.4 2687.9 5205.8 1893.2 18145.2

36.5 38.3 27.8 25.2 150.0

33.3 39.8 31.9 26.3 157.1

32.2 36.9 35.2 29.3 164.7

35.1 33.3 36.2 33.7 172.3

38.5 32.2 33.6 38.6 178.8

38.4 35.1 30.4 42.0 184.2

40.8 68.4 50.5 155.5 517.0 852.1

37.2 71.1 57.8 162.6 574.2 892.9

36.1 65.9 63.7 180.8 610.5 936.1

39.3 59.4 65.7 207.9 629.9 978.9

43.1 57.5 61.0 238.5 647.3 1016.2

43.0 62.7 55.1 259.4 685.7 1046.9

492


Other countries/worldwide

Table 1. "The worldwide Jewish press in various languages for the years 1557-1920" (Probst 1922). Of the 3827 publications listed, 1443 are in Yiddish, 635 in Hebrew, 538 in German, 495 in English, 200 in Russian, 105 in French, 103 in Judesmo, etc. Of the 177 dailies identified, 150 are in Yiddish.

Source: Mayzl 1923.

INDEX G=German; H=Hebrew; J=Jews, Jewish, Jewry; Lk=Loshsn-koydesh; Y=Yiddish A ABSTAND (language[s]), constrasted to Ausbau: 282 ACCENT, American; Y as proported despoiler of: 126 ACCULTURATION (also see modernization, assimilation), Y remains vernacular only among those resisting: 143 ACROLECT, not necessarily best school variety: 189, Y literary standard as: 212 ADULT EDUCATION COURSES, teaching Y; in USA: 79, 330 AFRIKAANS, attainment of autonomy: 30 AGNON, Shmuel Y.; describes N. Birnbaum's election defeat: 240 AGUDAS ISRAEL/AGUDES YISROYEL (also AGUDE), Y journal of in USA: 136, sponsors N. Birnbaum's second visit to USA: 136, reorganized 1922: 253, Birnbaum becomes first Executive Secretary of after its reorganization: 253, advo cates J political representation in Eastern European parliaments: 275, more moder nized sector experiences difficulty maintaining Y-Lk translation method in studying sacred texts: 298, published political literature in Y: 317 A(K)HAD HA'AM/AKHED HO'OM, lack of first-hand familiarity with American Jewry: 162, negative reaction to Tshernovits Conference: 280; recommends that Hebraists entirely ignore Tshernovits Conference: 284 ALEXANDER I, CZAR; acclaimed by Tuvye Feder: 47 ALIYAH, requires prior ties with J culture for its success: 169 ALSACE, remains pocket of Western Y: 83 AMERICA, Y in: 6, 75-179, N. Birnbaum's second visit to (1921): 170; N. Birnbaum's first visit to (1908): 246, future of Y in: 280-297. AMERICANISM, requires encouragement of immigrant languages and cultures: 167, false Americanism results in stifling uniformism: 169 AMERICANIZATION, use of Y as a vehicle of: 92 AMERINDIANS, hispanization of: 55 ANSHEY SHLOMEYNU, only Y spoken between: 316 ANTI-SEMITISM, fostered (rather than calmed by) J assimilationism: 161 ARAMIC/JUDEO-ARAMAIC, spread of: 4, transition to from H: 27, not always viewed as on a par with H: 62, last major PEJL prior to Y: 313 ANGLO-JEWISH PRESS, circulation of in USA in early 60's: 107-108 ARCHAISMS, in H, G, E and Y: 336, not particularly common in Y: 337 ARGENTINA, Js in lack common language with American Js: 146 ARN b'r SHMUEL OF HERGERSHAUSEN, Y prayerbook possibly banned by rab bis: 61

494


ASH, SHOLEM; participation in Tshernovits Conference: 164, 263, arrested for disor derly conduct during Tshernovits Conference: 290 ASHKENAZ I, writing conventions of continue to be followed in Ashkenaz II: 208 ASHKENAZ II, more distant from linguistic correlate: 24, long continues to observe writing conventions of Ashkenaz I: 208, coincides with period of Y in a Slavic co-ter ritorial context: 208 ASHKENAZIM/ASHKENAZI(C), demographic and modernization leadership of: 16, N. Birnbaum's view as to anomolous language situation of: 30, diversification of ver nacular literacy among: 34, efforts to revernacularize H: 54, Y intricately intertwined with for 1000 years: 83, traditional position of Y and Lk/H in: 255; Y more accepta ble to youngsters in Israel than among Sefardi: 306 ASHKENAZI GERMAN, rather than Standard German; as replacement of Y in Cen tral Europe: 329 ASSIMILATIONISM, in democratic countries, weakens Y: 53, via "copy cat" Germanization, Polonization or Russification: 240 ATTITUDES, NEGATIVE TOWARD Y; among assimilationists: 7, among Com munists: 7, among neo-(Modern) Orthodox: 7, among Socialists: 7, among Zionists: 7, among Sefardi youngsters in Israel: 306, among non-religious youngsters in Israel: 306, similarity to those re all PEJLs: 314, among most rabbinic spokesmen: 315 (also see: rabbinic culture) ATATURK, KEMAL PASHA, "Great Sun Theory" of corpus planning: 225 AUSBAU, of Y re G: 22, 65, of most PEJLs; greater in spoken than in written varieties: 23, Lefin Satinover's goal: 46, compared with Abstand: 65, maskilic infusion of New High Germanisms complicates struggle for re Y: 210, degree of is an issue re literary standard Y: 212, extra burden among weak Ausbau languages: 227, defined and con trasted with Abstand: 282 AUSTRALIA, Y secular efforts in: 79, Ashkenazi community in: 83 AUSTRIA, Ashkenazi community in: 83 AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY, haskole in: 40, N. Birnbaum recognizes J situation as different than in USA: 166, opportunity for J cultural autonomy: 240, advocacy of Y as language of J cultural autonomy: 241, other (non-J) struggles for cultural autonomy: 241, N. Birnbaum's failure in the election of 1907: 242, question of "eight or nine minority peoples": 250, minority rights and minority languages: 251, N. Birnbaum's patriotism toward: 253, cultural politics penalizing Y and Ukrainian/Ruthenian: 260-261; perceived as model of cultural pluralism: 267; closest to Western-style democracy for Eastern European Js: 280 AUTHENTICITY/AUTHENTIC, interpretive nature: 57, defined post-hoc in accord with the winning alternative: 58 AUTONOMY, of PEJLs: 22 (also see: PEJLs, dialect status of), assumed to be lacking in PEJLs: 30, standardization of Y contributes to achieving: 183, of Y orthography relative to G or H conventions: 186 AVEK FUN DAYTSH!, slogan of modern Y linguistics: 22 (also see: Ausbau) AYZENSHTAT, SHMUEL; attends Tshernovits Conference while still a student: 263, 265

INDEX

495

 BABYLONIAN EXILE, impact on H as a widespread vernacular and mother tongue: 149 BADER, GERSHOM; reacts positively (in H) to the Tshernovits Conference: 286-287. BAL-SHEM-TOV, YISROYEL; founder of hasidism: 282 BALEY-TSHUVE, English speaking enclaves within American Ultra-Orthodoxy: 77, N. Birnbaum as first eminent Western re-discoverer of Orthodoxy: 162 BALFOUR DECLARATION, refers to a rather than the J national home in Palestine: 281 BALTIC STATES, initially observe and subsequently disregard their World War I tre aty obligations towards their minorities: 94 BARON, SALO W.; criticized by S. Dubnov for not foreseeing J cultural autonomy in the USA: 169 BAVARIA, Ashkenazi community in: 83 B'DARKEY HATOYRE, Ultra-Orthodox Y journal: 20, advocates exclusive vernacu lar use of Y: 323 BELGIUM, Y secular efforts in: 79 BEN YEHUDA, ELIEZER; concern for "purity" of revernacularized H: 23 BERDITSHEV, local Y variant: 83, berditshever daytsh, humorous reference to Ger manized Y: 210 BESSARABIA. Y in; example of dialect/standard switching: 304-305 BIBLE (Old Testament), Lefin Satinover's Y translations: 42-48 ІK, Yankev Shmuel; early 19th century positive view of Y: 41, defense of Lefin Satinover and of Y: 49-53, letter to Tuvye Feder: 51-52, contributions to haskole: 50, tolerance toward Hasidim: 50, unwilling to replace J Gemeinschaft with maskilic Gesellschaft: 50, posthumous publication of letter to Feder: 65 BILINGUALISM, in Y schools: 3, and language shift: 139, and domain overlap during successive stages of immigrant acculturation: 140, domain overlap and separation in speakers of Y and E: 306, domain overlap and separation in speakers of Spanish and E:306 BIRNBAUM, Shloyme Α., helped prepare minutes (subsequently lost) of Tshernovits Conference: 267, defends Y among the Ultra-Orthodox: 316 BIRNBAUM, NATHAN; reinterprets Y to Germanized Js: 30, defense of Y: 65, foresees positive future for American J: 75-75, view of American J: 161-171, differ ences with Theodore Herzl: 163-165, introduced to Theodore Roosevelt: 165, criticizes Zangwilľs Melting Pot: 166, anticipates Horace Kallen's advocacy of cul tural pluralism as true Americanism: 167, rejects melting pot goal in USA: 168, chas tizes Dutch J for not recognizing oncoming Holocaust: 168, becomes refugee from Nazi Germany in Netherlands: 168, anticipates Marcus Hanson's three generational theory: 169, major architect of Tshernovits Conference: 234, 257-261, post-Confer ence Secretary General for follow-up and implementation: 237, champion of cultural autonomy: 239-247, rejection of Zionism after Second Zionist World Congress: 240, failure as candidate in Austro-Hungarian election of 1907: 242, leads huge protest march against Austro-Hungarian census of 1911: 244, 251-252, always positive toward H while championing Y: 244-246, proposes use of Latin letters for writing Y:

496


245, organizes first university-affiliated student organization for Y: 245, organizes "evenings" for Y writers throughout Germanized Galicia: 245, defends Y from attacks of Eastern European Zionists: 245, rejects "real"/"not real" and "living"/ "not living" characterizations of H and Y: 245, supports (and, perhaps, originates) the Tshernovits Conference's minimalist resolution: 246, relates Y to the "absolute Jewish idea" as he becomes Orthodox: 246-247, Ukrainian/Ruthenian support for: 246-247, diaspora manifesto (1905): 251, plan for a "Diaspora Parliament": 252-253, contrasts Westjuden, Ostjuden and Afro asian Js: 252-253, views Tshernovits Confer ence as a contribution to J cultural autonomy: 253, view of diglossia relationship between Y and Lk: 253, becomes first Secretary General of reorganized Agudes Yisroyel: 253, rejection of Yiddishism in his Ultra-Orthodox stage: 253, defense of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy:253, impoverished financial circumstances: 258, ideological changes throughout his lifespan: 273, genuine return to tradition rather than mere utilization thereof for modern purposes: 278, claims authorship of the a vs. the compromise at the Tshernovits Conference: 285, defends Y among the UltraOrthodox: 316 BIROBIDJAN, Soviet-J "autonomous" region in Siberia: 183, Zhitlovski becomes sup porter of in his old age: 273 BLACKS, replace Js as members of labor unions: 122 BLACK DEATH (1348), markedly increases separation between Js and non-Js: 155 BLACK ENGLISH, as language of classroom interaction: 190 BOOKS, in Y, see: Publications BOOKSTORES, Y; on or near Second Avenue (Lower East Side): 103 BOREKH/BARUCH, Yitskhok-Leyb; author of a Hebraist critique of Tshernovits Conference: 288-289 BOROUGH PARK, Orthodox neighborhood in Brooklyn: 75 BOVE-BUKH, masterpeice of Old Y literature: 84 BRANTSHPIGL, a major moralistic work in Y: 317 BRATSLEVER, Rabbi Nakhmen; Y tales published verbatim: 207 BUKOVINA, the region of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in which Tshernovits Confer ence transpired: 156, overrepresented at the Conference: 241; Austro-Hungarian cultural politics re Js in: 260, traditional/ Zionistic orientation of most Js in at time of Tshernovits Conference: 262, "Germanness" of many of the Js living in: 262 BUND/BUNDIST(S) (=Jewish Workers Bund of Russia, Poland And Lithuania), proY resolution of 1905: 65, 235, 269, 278, 280, J cultural autonomy goal in Eastern Europe: 87, reverberations of pro-Y resolution in comparison to pro-Η resolution of Labor Zionists in Palestine: 235, participation in and response to Tshernovits Con ference: 237, opposition toward the Tshernovits Conference's resolution declaring Y "a national J language": 265, realizes that spread of Y requires econopolitical power: 275, many former members of in USSR become Communists: 275, advocates J polit ical representation in Eastern European parliaments: 275, organizes "zhargonishe komitetn" to educate workers via Y: 278, founded same year as First World Zionist Congress (1897): 280, early clashes with Bolsheviks: 280, becomes mainstay of Ysecular cultural efforts: 280

INDEX

497

BYELORUSSIA/BYELORUSSIAN, negative attitudes toward: 14, support for Y cul ture under Soviets to help offset impact of Russification influences: 157, Ausbau efforts vis-a-vis Polish and Russian contemporary with Y efforts re New High Ger manisms: 211  "CAFE ZIONISTS", among Germanized Js; according to N. Birnbaum: 239 CAHAN, AB(RAHAM); Forverts editor: 158, champion of "potato Y": 158, literary accomplishments in E: 165 CALQUE/CALQUE VARIETY, of PEJL; used in study of Pentateuch via translation: 23, functions of reflected in naming of PEJLs: 34, in study of Talmud: 314 CANADA, Y secular circles in: 79 "CATHOLIC VERNACULARS", hypothetical; would be viewed as totally unneces sary in modern Western Europe: 40 CELTS, de-celticized: 55 CENSUS, Czarist 1897: 86, Soviet 1959: 94, mother tongue USA, 1920-1940; by gener ation: 130, USA 1970, 1940-1960 and 1960-1970: 174-175, Austro-Hungarian 1911; N. Birnbaum leads protest march against: 244, resistance to Austro-Hungarian 1911 already under discussion at Tshernovits Conference: 261 CHANGE (LINGUISTIC), in Y; recently greater than in H or in major European lan guages: 203-204, re type-face employed: 204-206, vis-a-vis proximity of written to spoken Eastern Y: 204, counteracting the flood of unnecessary New High Ger manisms: 204-205, development of a linguistic standard: 205, more slowly in written than in spoken varieties: 213 CHAMBERLAIN, STUART HUSTON, pseudo-science of racism: 240 CHICAGO, Y theatre groups: 115, Y cultural organizations: 121 CHILDREN'S CAMPS, Y; mid-60's: 119, 121- 124 CHINA, vernacular L not only indigenous variety: 56 CHMIELNITSKI POGROMS, Ukraine (mid-17th century); mark end of middle-Y period: 155 CHORUSES, Y; in USA: 76 CHRISTOLOGICAL CONNOTATIONS, lexically avoided in earliest Y: 82 CINEMA, Y; in USA: 77 CLOSED NETWORKS, dialect/standard and informal/formal switching among mem bers of: 304-305 COLLEGE ATTENDANCE, IN USA; mid-60's: 128-129 COLLEGE COURSES, teaching Y in USA: 77, in Soviet Union: 93, blossoming of in USA since late 40's: 100-101, teaching H (modern or biblical): 152-154, worldwide post-Holocaust growth of re Y: 214-215, in Israel, USA and elsewhere: 330 COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD, H examination: 153 COLLEGE LEVEL TEXTBOOKS, E-Y: 186, H-Y: 186 COMMUNISM/COMMUNISTS (also see: Yevsektsiye): destruction of Y-speaking society: 53, espouses use of Russianisms: 216, many of them ex-Bundists: 275, realize that spread of Y depends on its econotechnical and political functions: 275, surpression of Y after mid-30's: 329

498


COMPONENTIALITY, of J vernaculars: 191 CONFERENCE OF NATIONALITIES (Vienna, 1905), N. Birnbaum "represents" the Jewish nationality in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: 241, 252 CONGRESS FOR J CULTURE, WORLD (Alveltlekher yidisher kultur kongres); in USA: 116-117, branches in Paris and Buenos Aires: 158, adherance to literary stan dard: 187, views itself as heir of Tshernovits Conference: 271 CONSERVATIVE J, USA; resolution affirming cultural role of Y: 127, Y in adult edu cation courses: 127, award honorary doctorate to Y writer: 128, leadership often pro ficient in H but synagogue services do not require proficiency: 151 CORPUS PLANNING, in Y: 183,229, primarily propelled by secular-nationalist needs: 183, compulsory compliance with in Soviet Union: 184, uncentralized and voluntary outside of USSR: 184, Soviet centers closed with consent of Yevsektsiye: 184, primarily ongoing in USA since end of World War II: 184, greatly weakened in USA due to Holocaust: 185, ongoing modernization constantly requires: 187, traditional sources contain huge resources that can be utilized: 188, modeling rationales: 217229, purported impossibility/undesirability of: 218, purported simplicity: 218, re stylistic varieties, number systems, pronoun systems, verbal systems and phonologi cal patterns (rather than only nomenclatures): 219, acceptance of by speech com munity as the acid test of success: 220, modernization/traditionalism tension: 220221, in developing countries: 221, avoidance of Germanisms and other foreignisms: 221, traditionalism alone not sufficient for: 221-222, rationales and rationalizations: 222-224, compromises in: 222-224, overdoing and notorious failures: 226-228, avoi dance of E influences: 226, Latin root not sufficient for designating a word as an acceptable internationalism: 226, difficulty of: 229, rationalism as the sole principle: 223, Ataturk's "Great Sun Theory": 225, requires social science training in order to gauge popular acceptance of innovations: 229, emphasized in agenda originally plan ned for Tshernovits Conference: 259, tensions with status planning: 274, defined and illustrated: 280 CORRELATE/COTERRITORIAL CORRELATE LANGUAGE, vehicle for literacy among pidgin/creole speakers: 28, presence of both for most PEJLs and pidgins: 31 CULTURAL AUTONOMY, goal of Bundists, Sejmists, Folkists in Eastern Europe: 87, espoused for Is in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: 250, 267, N. Birnbaum views Tshernovits Conference as a contribution toward: 253, on unofficial agenda of Tshernovits Conference: 260 CULTURAL BOUNDARIES, for protection of ethnocultural minorities; weakened by social mobility: 172, increasingly dependent on political boundaries: 172, not secured by secondary cultural efforts: 177, unfashionable but necessary concern among ethnocultural minorities: 178-179 CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS, USA: mid-60's: 115-121 CZARIST EMPIRE, see: Russia CZECHOSLOVAKIA, Ashkenazi community: 83 D DAS VOLK, N. Birbaum's short-lived German monthly in Tshernovits: 258 "DAUGHTER OF HEAVEN", as designation for Lk: 256

INDEX

499

DAYTSH/TAYTSH, as designation for Y and/or G: 216 DAYTSHMERISH, preferred by maskilim: 210, avoided in literary standard: 212, suggested origin of word: 215 DEATH, LANGUAGE; of Y frequently predicted: 8, Y assumed to be dead: 325-339, other minority languages purported to be dead: 327, early 19th century maskilic views re Y: 328, 20th century Hebraist, Zionist and Socialist views re Y: 328, pre dicted by Leo Wiener even prior to flowering of Y literature: 329, predicted by Yahudem and secular Socialists alike: 329, an unsavoury metaphor: 332, being dead to Y does not imply that Y is dead: 334, as a self-renewing stereotype: 337, inapprop riate metaphor for cultural phenomena: 338 DECAY, of the national language; feared in the USA, Israel, French Canada: 217. DE-ETHNIZATION, Y reinforcement efforts reflect: 144 DEMOGRAPY, concentration of speech community; Y in USA (1970): 174, Chinese in USA (1970), Spanish in the USA (1970): 174, 18th and 19th century explosion of Y speech community: 321, stabilizing at about a quarter million speakers at end of 20th century and then expanding: 330 DESCRIPTIVISM, bias favoring; in Western linguistics: 217 DETERMINANT LANGUAGE, recognizable for both pidgins and PEJLs: 31, Ger manic determinant of Y undergoes independent development: 313-314, implies an initial period of close contact with coterritorial population: 194 DETROIT, Y cultural organization, mid-60's: 121 DIALECTS (for "J DIALECT" see J vernaculars), three major groupings within East ern Y: 184 DIASPORA, Zionist Hebraizing goal may be unattainable: 154, Parliament for; N. Birnbaum's plan to convene: 252-253, functions of Y in: 346 DICTIONARIES, Y; monolingual Y: 185, bilingual Ε-Y, French-Y, Spanish-Y, Russian-Y:185, trilingual Y-E-H: 185 DIGLOSSIA; Haitian Creole/French: 14, Swiss German/High German: 14, uniqueness of the H/Y case: 14, Vernacular Arabic/Koranic or Classicized Arabic: 14, Demotic Greek/ Katharevusa: 38, Vernacular Chinese/Classical Mandarin: 38, dissolution of by modernization: 54, Hi varieties of as channels of modernization: 56 (also see Hi variety, L variety), Hi/L status reversible: 190, increased functions for L disruptive of: 199-200, tradition Y/Lk case: 255-257, disruption of from above (via spread of Hi) or from below (via spread of L): 257, language spread movements not always related to prior intragroup diglossia: 274, . A. Ferguson's original conceptual defin ition: 277, J.H. Gumperz's and J. A. Fishman's expansion of concept: 277, pre-Fergusonian use by M. Weinreich: 306 DOKTER BIRNBOYMS VOKHNBLATT, short-lived weekly in Tshernovits: 258 DRAMA, Y; newly found fondness for in Israel: 17 DREYFUS AFFAIR, shocked many assimilationist J intellectuals: 161 DUBNOV, Shimen; criticism of Salo W. Baron for not recognizing "the inevitability of cultural autonomy" of American J: 169, invites Y. L. Perets to St. Petersburg to speak about Y: 267 DUTCH Js, N. Birnbaum chastizes for not recognizing the oncoming Holocaust: 168

500


E EARLIEST Y (-1250), period in the history of Y: 4, written records re: 83 EASTERN EUROPEAN Js, meager familiarity with G: 43, Js in Lithuania, White Rus sia, Ukraine and Rumania: 83, Y remains dominant J language: 88, immigration of to USA: 88, Y as link with American Js: 147, political, literary, religious and folkloristic understanding of possible only via Y: 148, massive use and cultivation of Y between both World Wars: 329 EASTERN Y, proximity of written to spoken variety: 63, changes in Y in print due to growing use of: 207-209, N. Birnbaum considers as incomparably superior to vesti gial Western Y: 244 EDUCATION, Y as vehicle of popular religious: 84, Y as vehicle for modern adult: 91, impossible without use of Ls for classroom interaction: 191 ELABORATION, lack of in L hampers spread to H functions: 274 ELITES, appropriateness of the study of: 60, Y data useful for studying differentiation from masses: 308 ENDOCENTRIC FACTORS, in language change; of primary importance re Y: 203216, origins of change in type-face: 206, increasing approximation of written Y to spoken varieties: 209, in development of Y literary standard: 212. ENGLAND, Y secular circles in: 79 ENGLISH, in Israel; major growth of: 69-70, translations to from Y and H: 76, in USA; influenced by Y: 78, in USA; influence upon Y: 78, translations accompanying theatre performances in Y: 79, Y still a more functional lingua franca for Js than: 147, status in USA different than that of official state-languages in Europe: 167, compared to Y by N. Birnbaum: 170, influences on Y particularly in newspaper ads: 186, creoles and pidgins of; as languages of classroom interaction: 190, viewed as undesirable influence in Y corpus planning: 226, N. Birnbaum compares Y to on basis of their common fusion nature: 244, used more in private than in public in Israel: 303 ESTER, see : Frumkin, Ester "ESTHETIC POINT OF VIEW", Y purportedly found lacking from: 280-281 ETHNIC REVIVAL, impact of on Y: 172-179, of mid-60's worldwide: 176 EUROPEANIZATION, Y used for purposes of: 85 EXOCENTRIC FACTORS, in language change; not more important re Y than the endocentric factors: 203-204, 213-214 EXPANSION AND NATIVIZATION, relevant to Creole but not to J language genesis: 26 F FAMILIARITY ETHOS, among Js, narrows repertoire distinctions between occasions and interlocutors: 304, impact of as a promising research area: 304 FARBAND (Yidish natsionaler arbeter farband), Labor-Zionist fraternal order, 121 FARSIC/PARSIC, relatively minor incorporation of Lk elements: 15, still a relatively major PEJL today: 313, modernizing intellectuals speaking in transfer to Persian: 318

INDEX

501

FEDER, TUVYE; view of Y: 41, opponent of Lefin Satanover:46, 50, follower of Moses Mendelssohn's preference for florid Lk or High German: 48, rejection of rab binic scholarship and khasidic mysticism: 49 FEMALES, ostensible consumers of traditional PEJL publications: 28, traditionally not formally educated: 63, use of Y in their education and popular religious literature: 84, taytsh-khumesh for: 193, texts ostensibly for women foster Eastern Y in print: 207, references to in justifying patterned evasion of Lk use: 215 "FIRST WORLD CONGRESS OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE" (1909), response to Tshernovits Conference: 237 "FIRST WORLD CONFERENCE FOR THE YIDDISH LANGUAGE" (Ershte velt konferents far der yidisher shprakh), see: Tshernovits Conference (1908) "FIRST ZIONIST WORLD CONGRESS" (1897), N. Birnbaunťs address at: 170, con vened in same year as founding of Bund: 280 FOLK PATTERNS, dislocation of leads to language shift: 90 FOLKISTS, cultural autonomy goal: 87, advocate J representation in Eastern European parliaments: 275 FORVERTS (FORWARD), decline and moderation of a once feisty daily: 103. negativism toward Tshernovits Conference: 268 FORMAL/INFORMAL USAGE, among bilinguals one of whose languages does not make this distinction: 305-306, native and non-native speakers of Y compared: 305307 FRAKTUR, displacement of in G: 206 FRANCE, Y secular circles in: 79 FRANCIZATION, Quebec example of a notorious corpus planning faux pas: 228 FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN; Poor Richard's Almanac translated into Lk by Lefin Satanover: 42 FRENCH, consciousness of among Frenchmen: 37, Y a better J lingua franca than: 147, Y outlives international ascendency of: 333 FRIESLAND/FRISIAN, hypothetical role in the integration of Netherlands: 54 FRUMKIN, ESTER; Bundist leader, participates in Tshernovits Conference: 263; men tioned in Hebraist satire re Tshernovits Conference: 287 FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICITY, in multilingual settings (also see: diglossia, L variety, Hi variety): 308, former pattern between H and Y now reversed in Israel: 342-344, proposed for modern Y in Israel: 346 FUSION ("MIXED") LANGUAGE (also see purity), non-J: 21, harmony between components in PEJLs: 21, in earliest Y: 81, decreasingly attributed to Y: 100, simi larities between Y and other: 144, E compared to Y: 170, characterization still encountered: 191, used non-pejoratively by Sholem Aleichem: 191, falsely assumed to change primarily due to exocentric factors: 203-204, N. Birnbaum compares Y and E because both are: 244, Y referred to as a zhargon because of being: 266, three basic linguistic components of all PEJLs: 314 G GAELIC/NEO-GAELIC TYPE-FACE, displacement of in 20th century Irish: 206 GALICIA, haskole in: 40, diverse views re Y in: 41, Feder and Lefin Satinover both born in: 47, relatively early modernization of Js in comparison with Eastern Europe:

502


62, Js from overrepresented at Tshernovits Conference: 241, Zionists in willing to participate in "Gegenwartsarbeit": 242, N. Birnbaum organizes "evenings" by Y writers throughout Germanized area: 245, Austro-Hungarian cultural politics re Js in: 260, Tshernovits Conference interpreted as being political in: 268 GALKHES ("tontured script"), unknown to the majority of Js: 43 GEGENWARTSARBEIT, Galician Zionists willing to undertake and participate in: 242 GEMEINSCHAFT, transition to Gesellschaft in J Eastern Europe: 334 GENERATIONAL PATTERNS, in USA; first generation: 122-123, second genera tion: 123-124, third generation: 124-125, greater respect for Y among third than among second: 143, "new second generation" less rebellious than earlier second gen eration: 143, among J. organizational leadership in USA: 159, among G, Ukrainian and Polish organizational leaders in USA: 159, Marcus Hanson's theory of: 169, remain independently important even after other related factors have been con trolled: 175 GERER REBE, lacked first hand understanding of American J: 162 GERMAN IMMIGRANTS to USA, mid-19th century; mass immigration compared to that subsequently by Eastern European Js: 142 GERMAN-JEWISH INTELLECTUALS, response to Tshernovits Conference: 237 GERMAN LANGUAGE, advocacy of instead of Y: 16, writing in delayed by con tinued use of Latin: 38, Eastern maskilem widely read in: 43, displacement by Y among Eastern European Js during interwar period: 94, no uniform standard for until 16th century: 206, displacement of Fraktur type-face in print: 206, N. Birnbaum's speech at Tshernovits Conference peppered with Yiddishisms: 259, and Bukovina J: 262, differences between Y and G a source of pride for Khsam soyfer and of shame for haskole: 316, Y outlives international ascendancy of: 333 GERMANIC, component of Y: viewed as indicating corruption of Y: 14, romanization of populations in Gaul: 55, interactions with populations in the genesis of Y: 309 GERMANY, Ashkenazi community in 83 Geshikhte fun der yidisher shprakh, Y and E versions: 323 GLATSHTEYN, YANKEV, major Y poet, novelist and journalist in USA: 129, 131 GOLDFADEN, AVROHM, "father of the modern Y theatre": 112 GORDEN, YANKEV: playwright and co-signer of the original call to the Tshernovits Conference: 259 GREAT TRADITION, see: High Culture GREECE, modern efforts to vernacularize the H variety: 54, vernacular L not the only indigenous variety: 56 H H(IGH) VARIETY (also see: Diglossia, L variety), the myth of exclusive appropriate ness for school: 190, competition with L variety for Hi functions: 255, disbelief that Y could serve as: 263, multiplicity of competitors with Y for Hi functions: 274, exam ples of triumph of: 344 HABIMA, special performances in Y during recent years: 295 HABSBURGS, believers in J assimilation and assimilability: 87

INDEX

503

HALACHA (HALOKHE)/HALACHIC (also see: rabbinic culture), Y in print accept able to for purposes of popular education: 257, definition of: 277 "HANDMAIDEN", see: "Servant girl" HANSON, MARCUS; theory of third generation return to first generation's language and culture: 169 HAPGOOD, HUTCHINS; author of book about J Lower East Side: 166 HASIDIM/HASIDIC, Lefin Satinover's struggle against: 42, reaction to rabbinic for malism: 62, growing number of Y speaking youngsters in Israel today: 71, voting bloc in the USA: 75-80, Y as vehicle of a maximally separate life style in USA: 133137, in USA; mostly come from Hungary, Carpatho-Ukraine or Poland: 133, 136, last natural reserve of Y-speaking children in USA: 136, future of Y in USA may depend upon: 137, children for whom Y is chief language: 176, raised the prestige of Y via their songs and tales: 156, emphases on home-neighborhood-community fac tors for intergenerational mother tongue transmission: 179, tales of hasisidic rabbis foster use of spoken Y in print: 207, defined and related to Y: 282, tales published first, simultaneously or quickly in Y: 282, schools qualify for bilingual education funds: 311 HASKALA, see: Haskole HASKOLE (also see: enlightenment, modernization): 21, in Austro-Hungarian Monar chy: 40, in Eastern Europe: 40, in Galicia: 40, in Czarist Empire: 40, in Germany: 40, view of Y: 46, Lefin Satinover's contributions to: 50, references to gentiles as models: 52, general reluctance to use Y: 64, 145, introduces New High Germanisms: 186, views Y as handmaiden/servant girl to H: 193, reintroduces many Germanisms/ archaisms displaced by simple ("pure") Y movement: 209, detractors and advocates of Y both realize their need for it: 235, Y acceptable for modernization purposes: 257, definition of: 277 HEBRAIST(S), opposition to Y: 53, Y viewed as deterrent to hebraizing the diaspora: 145, negative reactions to Tshernovits Conference: 269-270, 287-290, positive reac tions to Tshernovits Conference: 286-287 HEBREW, spoken; demise of: 4, conflict and struggle with Y: 13-72, in Israel today; unthreatened by Y: 69-71, in Israel today; struggle against Anglicisms: 69-70, weakening of in USA not interpreted as H dying: 76, elements in earliest Y: 81, unsubstitutable in hallowed texts: 82-83, in America: 148-155, not vernacular of any pre-Israel wave of J immigrants to USA: 149, instruction in J schools of various types; USA mid-60's: 152, no more than rudimentary reading or speaking ability among most American Js: 155, meager press in USA and no theatres or neighbor hoods: 155, attitudes towards PEJLs: 192-194, the "real" but "non-living" J lan guage: 245, claimed as mother tongue in protest by Galician and Bukovinian Js: 261, as J lingua franca: 295, valued because associated with Refusniks and Israel in preperestroika USSR: 297 HEBREW-ARAMIC, see: Loshn-koydesh HEBREW LANGUAGE ACADEMY, accused in recent times of fostering a laughably hypercorrect variety: 217 HERDER, JOHANN G.; German philosopher and advocate of ethnocultural authen ticity: 169

504


HERZL, THEODORE; belatedly awakened to J sensibility: 161-162, lacked first hand familiarity with American J: 162, differences with N. Birnbaum: 163-165, N. Birnbaum's former followers flock to: 239, lack of J knowledge or life-style: 239-240, founds Y weekly in order to reach Eastern European Js: 278, not initially convinced that J homeland need necessarily be in Palestine: 279, expected roles for Y and other PEJLs in future J homeland: 282 "HIGH" (or "GREAT") CULTURE/TRADITION: language of: 89, lack of associa tion with Y among most J immigrants to USA: 141, attracting a following to for a language of everyday life: 255-283 HIGH GERMAN COMPONENT, in earliest Y: 81 HIGH SCHOOLS, PUBLIC; teaching H in USA: 153, in Israel: teaching Y: 330 HILLEL FOUNDATION, student organization on American college campuses; Y courses at: 121 HISTORICITY, assumed lacking in PEJLs: 29 HISTORY OF THE YIDDISH LANGUAGE, (1980 [1974]); landmark in the sociology of Jewish languages: 4 HOLOCAUST, impact on ILY struggle: 16, impact on Y per se: 16, 76, 95, impact on Orthodoxy: 16, impact on Y in Eastern Europe: 92, Y "colonies" come to the fore after: 95, weakens Y language planning: 185, impact on Y courses at tertiary level: 214, sociology of Y subsequent to: 301-302, Y only PEJL to survive into the 21st cen tury: 324, uproots last pockets of Western Y: 324 HOME LANGUAGE, Y as; among children: 175 (also see: intergenerational mother tongue transmission) HUNGARIAN, advocacy of instead of Y: 16 HUNGARY, Ashkenazi community in: 83, pockets of Western Y: 83

IDEOLOGY/IDEOLOGICAL, left wing J influenced by Yiddishism: 66, factors re use of Y: 90-91, 306, role of in the selection of a type face for Y: 206 IMMIGRATION, assimilatory consequences of: 90, Y no longer associated with: 144 INDUSTRIALIZATION, weakens cultural and political boundaries: 172 INTELLECTUALS, creativity of in Y liquidated during later Soviet period: 93, those creating in Y compared to those using other languages in USA: 142 INTERGENERATIONAL MOTHER TONGUE CONTINUITY, of interest groups not transmissible: 79, depends chiefly on family-related influences: 79, 174, 234, of Y as home language of children: 175, of Spanish, Navajo, Amish-, Mennonite-, Hutterite German in USA: 175, of French in Ontario: 175, primary and secondary factors contributory to: 177-178, unlikely for Y in USSR today notwithstanding organiza tional revival: 297 INTERGROUP COMMUNICATION, in pidgin and PEJL genesis: 25, in the genesis of Y: 309 INTERTRANSLATABILITY, of Y; with E in all ordinary walks of modern life: 187, with New York Times: 187 INVEYNIKSTE TSVEYSHPRAKHIKEYT, M. Weinreich's notion of traditional J diglossia (pre-dates Ferguson): 306

INDEX

505

IRAQI Js; vernacular J language (also see: Yahudic): 16 ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, various efforts to vernacularize Classical Arabic H: 54, ver nacular L is not the only indigenous variety: 56 ISRAEL, STATE OF: impact of founding on Y: 6, language issues in: 68-71, impact on H: 16, situation of Y today: 70-71, universities and organizations concerned with Y: 71, Y secular circles in: 79, Ashkenazi community in: 83, H as official language weakens Y in J education in diaspora: 128, many J inhabitants lack common lan guage with American Js: 146, supports and motivates study of H in the diaspora: 154, future of Y in: 296-296, Y culture clubs and theatre in: 295, Y revival in: 295, both Y and E used more in private than in public: 303, Y more acceptable to Ashkenazi than to Sefardi youngsters: 306, possible recognized functions for Y in: 342-349, desirability of cultural pluralism within the J fold: 347, languages other than H that are necessary in: 347-348, can cultural/linguistic pluralism be afforded?: 348 ITALKIC, Judeo-Italian: 30, influences earliest Y: 33, self-designated as "Jewish" ("Judio"): 35, writing in Latin letters dates only from 19th century: 201 ITALIAN/ITALIANS, written functions delayed by Latin: 38, traditional vernacular functions of: 39, efforts to vernacularize H: 54, replace J members of labor organiza tions in USA: 122 IVRE-TAYTSH, Bible (or prayerbook) translation variety of Y: 32 IVRIT, excessive influences stemming from rejected by Y Ausbau tradition: 20, shel shabat; still preferred by some members of the Hebrew Language Academy: 217 J JARGON/ZHARGON, see: fusion ("mixed") language Jewish Book Annual, records annual Y book production throughout the world: 331 JEWISH ENGLISH, influence upon other PEJLs: 32, in contact with Y: 78 JEWISH DIASPORA LANGUAGES, see: Post-Exilic Jewish Languages JEWISH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (also see: labor organizations): Y activities in; mid-60's: 121-122 JEWISH "MODERNS", N. Birnbaum's term for Westernized Js that retain J interests: 161, 250 JEWISH NATIONAL WORKERS ALLIANCE (Farband, Yidish natsionaler arbeter farband), founds first Η-Y Zionist oriented J schools in the USA: 96 JEWISH PEOPLES ORDER: Communist oriented J fraternal organization; schools of: 157 JEWISH POPULATION CENTERS, post World War II: 173 JEWISH UNIONISM, see Jewish labor organizations JEWISH WORKERS BUND (OF RUSSIA, POLAND AND LITHUANIA), see Bund JEWS, N. Birnbaum's comparison between Western European, Eastern European and Afroasian: 253-254 JUDEO-ARABIC, see Mugrabi, Yahudic JUDEO-ARAMAIC, see Loshn-koydesh JUDEO-FRENCH, see Zarfatic JUDEO-ITALIAN, see Italkik

506


JUDEO-PERSIAN, see Farsic/farsic JUDEO-SPANISH, see Judezmo JUDEZMO (also JUDESMO, DZHUDEZMO; also see LADINO), relatively minor incorporation of Lk elements: 15, geographic dispersion contributes to Ausbau: 24, long association with literacy: 29, influence on Y in Old Yishuv: 32, mutual influence re Mugrabi/Yahudic: 32, vernacular functions of today: 68, 71, writing in Latin characters dates only from 19th century: 201, Herzl foresees role for in future J homeland; 281, still a major PEJL today: 313, modernizing intellectuals speaking transfer increasing to publishing in French or Spanish: 318  KABBALISTIC WRITINGS, in Y: 155 KADIMAH, first university linked Zionist student organization: 162 KALLEN, HORACE; his cultural pluralism as true Americanism idea anticipated by N. Birnbaum: 167 KHASIDIC/KH(A)SIDIM/KH(A)SIDEM, see: Hasidic/Hasidim KHSAM SOYFER, rabbi; defends fusion nature of PEJLs: 20, defends Y in particular: 65, opposes shifting to G: 316 KIEV, Philological Section of the Institute for Jewish Culture of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences: 180 Kine af gzeyres-ukrayine, earliest source using the designation Y: 201 KLOSS, HEINZ; proposes that status of modern languages depends on their non-fic tional literatures: 319 "KONGRES DAYTSH", humorous label applied to unnecessarily Germanized Y (par ticularly that of early Zionist Congresses): 210 KREMER, ARKADI; Bundist founding figure, advocate of Y for mass educational purposes: 278 KULTUR KONGRES, see Congress for Jewish Culture L L VARIETY (also see: diglossia, vernacular functions), often elevated to Hi status: 190, 344, struggle for Hi functions: 255, 264, 274, spread of hampered by lack of codifica tion and elaboration: 274, econopolitical and econotechnical factors pertaining to possible elevation to Hi functions: 276 LAAZ(IC)/LOEZ(IC), influences on earliest Y: 33, spoken immediately before the genesis of Y: 194, elements of in contemporary Y: 314 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, use of Y in pre-World War I America: 91, laborite over tones in Y secular nationalist schools: 97, socialist labor orientation related to use of anglicisms in Y: 216 LADINO (also see Judezmo), translation of Bible into: 32 LANGUAGE ACADEMY/ACADEMIES, several devoted to Y between the two World Wars: 183, in Minsk and Kiev: 183, as agencies of corpus planning: 280 LANGUAGE AND ETHNOCULTURAL IDENTITY, Y vs. H: 37-66 LANGUAGE CHANGE (also see: Change in Y), exocentric and endocentric factors in: 203-216

INDEX

507

LANGUAGE CONSCIOUSNESS, loyalty and/or opposition; greater re Y than re other PEJLs: 315-323 LANGUAGE DEATH, see Death LANGUAGE GENESIS, of PEJLs differs from pidgin/creoles: 24, Y data useful for the study of: 308 Language Loyalty in the United States (1966): 3 LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE AND LANGUAGE SHIFT, in USA; theoretical recapitulation: 137-139, 1940-1960 comparison in secularist circles: 138, maintenance strongest among those Js maintaining own cultural boundaries relative to mainstream society: 141, detraditionalization of immigrants conducive to shift: 141, increasing atypicality of maintenance-oriented networks: 144-145, Y data useful for the study of: 309-311, variety of societal indices available for the study of re Y: 310 LANGUAGE MOVEMENTS, only Y and H have been associated with: 300 LANGUAGE PLANNING: CORPUS PLANNING; rejected by some adherants of Y: 212, rejected by various schools of linguistics: 217, need and opportunities for re Y: 312 LANGUAGE PLANNING: STATUS PLANNING: 7, 52, negative re Y among assimilationists: 7, negative re Y among Neo- (Modern-) Orthodox: 7, negative re Y among Zionists; 7, negative re Y among Communists, negative and positive re Y: 311-313 LANGUAGE POLICY, see: Language Planning: Status Planning LANGUAGE SHIFT, see: Language Maintenance and Language Shift LANGUAGE SPREAD, new users and new uses: 253, Y data useful for the study of: 308 LANGUAGE STRUGGLE (also see: riv haleshoynes for struggle between advocates of Y and advocates of H, Polish or Russian), within Y secular circles: 87, LANGUAGE SURVIVAL, not merely measured by external/objective criteria: 148 LATE-MODERNIZING LANGUAGES, in Eastern Europe: 183, Y among others: 183 LATIN LETTERS, proposed for writing Y: 245 LATIN ROOTS, considered insufficient for designating a new Y word as an inter nationalism: 226 LEAGUE FOR YIDDISH; continues former Yivo tradition of authoritative lexical elaboration: 187 LEFIN, MENDL; see Satinover, Mendl Lefin Lev-toy v, famous moralistic work in Y: 317 LEXICAL PLANNING, engaged in by Y "language academies" in Vilne, Minsk and Kiev: 183, recommendation of neologisms: 186, the struggle against New High Ger manisms, the struggle against Russianisms, Frenchisms, Spanishisms, Englishisms and Ivritisms: 186, constantly required for modernization: 187, examples of notori ous failures in Y, H and French in Quebec: 228 LEXICONS, viewed by linguists as being of secondary importance: 29 Liblekhe tfile, unique Η-Y prayerbook; opposition to: 61, set in oysiyes mereboes: 64 LIBRARIES, major collections in Y; throughout non-Soviet interwar Eastern Europe: 94

508


LIFSHITS, Y. M., reprints Y. S. Bik's defense of Lefin Satinover in the former's reply to Tuvye Feder: 65, as transitional pro-Y ideologist: 257, compiler of excellent YRussian and Russian-Y dictionaries: 281 LIKHTENSHTEYN, RABBI HILLEL: pupil and follower of Khsam Soyfer: 20 LITERACY, pidgins/creoles and PEJLs compared re intra-group role: 26-29, facilita tion of by means of adopting a single type-face: 206, Y meets requirement of post World War I U.S. immigration laws: 235 LITERARY Circles, Y; blossoming of in America: 91; literary cafes on Second Avenue: 113, written language of much admired but seldom mastered: 187 LITERATURE, Y; newly found fondness for in Israel: 177, entertainment nature of earliest Y: 84, in pre-World War I America: 91, greatly emphasized in secular nationalist schools: 98, fondness for on the part of parents of pupils in secular nationalist schools: 99, American-Y since 1914: 109-12, religious (at both educated and folk levels), pedagogic and entertainment genres develop early and extensively: 317-318, political literature for religious parties: 317, secular; fiction and non-fiction: 318 LITTLE (or LOW) CULTURE/TRADITION: 89, seriously weakened among J immig rants to USA: 141 LOCAL RELIGIOUS UNITS; USA, utilizing Y in early 80's: 178 LOSHN-ASHKENAZ, designation for either H or Y: 216 LOSHN-KOYDESH, co-presence with Y: 13, 255-257, only J language generally associated with literacy in Orthodox, Zionist, Hebraist circles: 28, literacy in as a barrier to language shift: 34, advocated for modern oral and written purposes: 39, 257, for elevated discourse and advanced publications: 85, N. Birnbaum's view of diglossic partnership with Y: 253, as sole independent language of sanctity: 255, in constant association with Y: 255-257, characterized as "dead" at Tshernovits Confer ence: 265, revolutionary nature of Tshernovits Conference vis-a-vis: 273, undergoing its own revernacularization and modernization at the very time of the Tshernovits Conference: 276, titles for Y books: 282, elements in PEJLs undergoes grammatical indiginization and lexical expansion: 314, larger component in Y than in other PEJLs: 317-318 LOTER (LORRAINE), area of J settlement just prior to development of Y: 190 LOWER EAST SIDE, former Y area in Manhattan; now primarily Black, Hispanic and Oriental: 113 LUBAVITSHER KH(A)SIDIM/KH(A)SIDEM (also see: Schneerson, Rabbi M. M.), influence of in New York and Israeli politics: 75, rebe uses traditional scholarly Y: 187 M MAYSE BUKH, masterpiece of Old Y literature: 84 MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, can be filled for J purposes only via Y media public ity: 147 MAGREBIC Js, vernacular J language of (Mugrabi): 16 MAIMONIDES' Guide to the Perplexed, Lefin Satinover's translation of: 65

INDEX

509

MALES, semi-literate; ostensible target-population of PEJL publications: 28, use of Y in religious literature for: 84, references to in patterned evasion of Loshn-koydesh: 215 MARKUZE, MOYSHE; translator into Y of Lk book on popular medicine: 63, uses plain ("pure") Y to reach a larger public: 207-208 MASKILIM/MASKILEM/MASKILIC, advocating or pertaining to haskole; see: haskole MELITSE, florid Lk style rejected by Lefin Satinover: 48 "MELTING POT", undesirability of according to N. Birnbaum: 168 MENCKEN, HENRY L.; Y influences discussed in his American Language: 17 MENDELE MOYKHER SFOREM, usage appealed to in legitimizing current lexical recommendations: 224, non-attendance at Tshernovits Conference: 283 MENDELSSOHN, MOSES; teacher of Mendl Lefin Satinover: 41, G translation of and commentary on Bible: 43, views Y as corruption of G: 43, views Y as unesthetic: 48, father of Western European haskole: 277-278 METHODOLOGY, issues in the study of cultural identity and language alternatives: 58-60, disciplinary parochialism and ethnocentrism re: 58-60, use of historical case material: 58-59, influence of similarity between observers and observed: 59 "MIDDLE RANGE" SECTOR, among American Js (i.e., neither secular nationalist nor Orthodox); Y in mid-60's: 125-131, Conservative, Reformed, unaffiliated and nominally-Orthodox: 125, generational differentiation re Y: 126-127, ideals of American democracy do not clash with ethno-religious patterns of: 141 MIDDLE Y (1500-1750), plentifully documented: 83 MINHOG/MINHEG, PEJLs as part of (rather than of din): 83 MINORITY LANGUAGES, status planning required for fostering: 174, and minority rights in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: 251 Mirkeves hamishne, early translation of Bible into Y: 51 MISNAGDEM, early opponents of Hasidism: 282 MIZES, MATESYOHU (MATES)/MIESES, MATTHIAS, participates as linguist in Tshernovitser Conference: 263, charactizes Lk as being dead: 265, purportedly pre sents "first scientific paper on Y and in Y": 281 MODELING RATIONALES, in corpus planning (also see: Language Planning: Cor pus Planning): 217-229 in Hebrew, Hindi, Nynorsk, Filipino, Greek: 221 MODERNIZATION, goal of the haskole: 39-41, requires only minor adjustments in Tuvye Feder's view: 49, diversity of language views among adherants of: 53-54, not a constant or unalterable goal: 222 MODERN Y (1750 - ), also documented in H and in non-J sources: 83 MODERNIZATION, Jewish; Ashkenazim as leaders in: 16, vernacular debate among Js and non-Js: 39, and traditionalism viewed as incommensurate: 57, impact of indus trialization and urbanization: 85, provides fashionable rationale for acculturation and language shift: 142, impact on Y: 172-179, "with a J face" associated with Y: 319, associated with movements on behalf of Y and H, controlled from within the speech-community: 326, as a factor undercutting traditional J multilingualism: 345 MONISM (LINGUISTIC), fostered by modernization and nationalism: 345 Morgn-frayhayt, Communist oriented Y daily: 103

510


MOROCCO, Js in; lack common language with American Js: 146 MOSAIC CONFESSION, Germans, Slavs, Hungarians of; assimilationist euphemism: 161 MOTHER TONGUE, factors reflecting vs factor fostering: 77, estimated number of claimants re Y (1980): 340 MUGRABI (also see: Yahudic), relatively minor incorporation of Lk elements: 15, mutual influences re Judezmo: 32, in Israel today: 71, vehicle of serious religious poetry and prose: 149 MULTICOMPONENTIALITY OF PEJLs, see: Fusion ("mixed") Languages MULTILINGUALISM, the constant state of Y-speaking communities: 308, makes "either-or" choices unnecessary among Js: 338, undercut by nationalism and moder nization: 345 MUSAR WRITINGS, in Y: 155, monumental works in Y were either originally pub lished in that language or simultaneously with H version: 317 N NACHT, DR. YANKEV; author of Hebraist critique of Tshernovits Conference: 289290 NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT, support for college level H instruction: 153 NATIONAL LANGUAGE, of Js; Perets' view: 30, Y as a or the: 87, 246, 265, 285-286, compromise about at the Tshernovits Conference: 266, Zionist view of in connection with Tshernovits Conference: 281 NATIONALISM, Y used for fostering J: 85, American; primarily non- or supra-ethnic: 14, only Y and H associated with J ideologies related to: 321, as a factor undercutting traditional J multilingualism: 345 NATIVE SPEAKERS, bilingual; compared with non-native re formality/informality distinctions: 305-306 NATURALIZED SPELLING, Soviet system for spelling Hebraisms in Y: 196 NAZISM, ethnocidal impact of on Y : 53 NEOLOGISMS, high proportion of in Y literary standard: 212, apologetic justification for: 224 NEO-(MODERN-) ORTHODOX(Y), and future of Y: 8 NETHERLANDS, pocket of Western Y in: 83 Never Say Diel (1981), book that attempts to overcome the death myth re Y: 332 NEW HIGH GERMANISMS, favored and re-introduced by maskilim: 209-210, sub sequently opposed and criticized: 210-211, taboo in current Y corpus planning, even if widely accepted: 225 NEW YORK CITY, functions as hub of Y in America: 78, 101-102 NEW YORKISMS, Y influences on: 78 NEWSPAPERS, in Y; see: publications NOMBERG, HERSH D.; Y essayist and journalist, participant at Tshernovits Confer ence: 164, 263, formulates compromise resolution at Tshernovits Conference: 266, disputed claim to authorship of compromise resolution at Tshernovits Conference: 285, mentioned in Hebraist satire re Tshernovits Conference: 287

INDEX

511

 OFFICE DE LA LANGUE FRANCAISE, role in francization and corpus planning in Quebec: 217-218 OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, Y recognized as by Kerensky regime after the fall of the Czar: 93, H in Israel: 128 OLD YISHUV, Judezmo influences on Y during: 32 OPEN NETWORKS, dialect/standard and informal/formal switching among members of: 304-305 ORTHODOX(Y), in Israel: 6, spokesmen favoring Y: 65, voting bloc in USA: 75-80, growing consciousness of Y in interwar Eastern Europe: 94, day schools in USA; number offering instruction in/via Y (between 1952-1961):134-135, synagogue ser vice primarily in H: 150, Y press, USA; mid-60's: 136, 158, speaking H during Sab baths and holidays: 201, serious co-sanctity uses of Y are of long standing and con tinue today: 215, over-represented among "guests" at Tshernovits Conference: 253, resistance to being studied by sociolinguists: 307, includes 20th century defenders of Y: 316, relatively greater modernization in Europe then elsewhere has had an impact on type of Lk impact on Y: 318, ORTHOGRAPHY, G influences on Y: 102, reform in; arguments against: 144, stan dard for modern Y developed between the two World Wars: 183, decisions by Y "Language Academies" in Minsk and Kiev: 183, decisions by Yivo in Vilne: 184, major similarities between Yivo and Soviet systems: 184, 186, Orthodox system remains most discrepant: 184, Unified Yiddish Spelling (of Yivo): 186, the multiplic ity of Orthodox norms: 186, autonomy from G or H conventions in modern Y: 186, "toward H" and "away from H" influences in Y: 195-198, "naturalized spelling" of Hebraisms in Soviet Y: 196-197, "toward G" and "away from G" influences in Y: 196-197, phonological vs. etymological principles: 197, four different systems illus trated: 201 OSTJUDEN, purportedly the only direct beneficiaries of Zionism (in the view of Ger manized Js): 239, N. Birnbaum's contrasts of with Westjuden and Afroasian Js: 252 OYLIM, N. Birnbaum's organization to de-routinize Orthodoxy: 171 OYSIYES MEREBOES, square H letters not originally used for Y in print: 44, sub sequent use for Y: 44, 205, represent the shared textual heritage of all J languages: 205, switch to in Y uncommented upon by contemporary rabbis: 208, serious/cosanctity use of Y predates switch to: 215 Ρ PALE OF SETTLEMENT, reverberations of Tshernovits Conference throughout: 235, Russificatory pressures within: 272 PARSIC, see: FARSIC PEJLs, see: Post-exilic Jewish languages PENTATEUCH (=khumesh), traditional study of via translating into PEJL calque variety: 23 PERETS, YITSKHOK LEYBUSH, view of Η and Y at Tshernovits Conference: 161, 237, 263, fails in St. Peterburg to raise funds for Y projects: 267, criticized by Heb raists for his vacillations at the Tshernovits Conference: 284, 287-288

512


PERETS, Y. L. SHRAYBER FAREYN, association of American Y writers: 109 PERIODICALS, in Y; see: publications PERL, YOYSEF; student of Lefin Satinover: 43 PHILOLOGICAL SECTION, INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH CULTURE AT THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (Kiev): 183 PHILOLOGICAL SECTION, Yivo (Vilne period); orthographic rules: 184, nominally re-established in New York after World War II: 184 PHONOGRAPH RECORDS, Y songs and recitations on: 124 PIDGINS/CREOLES, development of compared to PEJLs: 20-35, Y as phenomenological pidgin: 191; pidginization/depidginization: 189-201, Y data useful for studying difference between and PEJLs: 308 PIETISM, Y used for fostering among Js: 85 PINSKI, DOVED; Zionist and Y novelist: 163, co-sponsors call to Tshernovits Confer ence: 163-165, extensive contacts with N. Birnbaum prior to Tshernovits Confer ence: 258, hopes to depolitize the Tshernovits Conference: 259, did not attend the Tshernovits Conference: 263, champion of J cultural renaissance and unwavering Zionist: 273 PODOLYE, area east of Galicia; region whose Y Lefin Satinover preferred: 46, impact of G on Y less than in Galicia: 65, examples of dialect/standard switching among speakers of local dialect: 304 POETRY, Y; becomes increasingly sophisticated in America: 91 POLAND/POLES, initially honors and then disregards its World War I treaty obliga tions to Js and other minorities: 94, part of J intelligentsia used state language during interwar period: 94, post World War II support for Y "showcase" institutions: 95, Austro-Hungarian cultural politics re (in Galicia): 260 POLISH, advocacy of instead of Y: 16, displacement of among Js by Y during interwar period: 94, part of J intelligentsia adopt during interwar period: 94, Js spuriously registered as speaking in Galicia: 260 POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, major modern support for cultural boundaries: 173 POLITICAL PARTIES, use of Y in pre-World War I USA: 92 POLONISMS in Y, fewer than Anglicisms: 78 PORTUGUESE, and monogenesis theory of pidgins: 28 POST-EXILIC JEWISH LANGUAGES (PEJLs), negative attitudes toward: 14, liber ation from Lk/H hegemony over: 15, fusion ("mixed", "unpure") or multicomponential nature of: 20, 191, hyphenated vs. independent names for: 20, semantic change in relative to co-territorial correlates: 20, development of compared to pidgins/ creoles: 20-35, purported "dialect" nature of: 22-24, as media of instruction in tradi tional J schools: 27, structural and functional distancing from co-territorial corre lates: 33, attitudes towards influenced by cultural position of H: 192-194, viewed as "handmaidens" or "servant girls" of H: 193, make changes relative to their linguistic determinants in novel and specifically J directions: 314, develop their Lk elements in accord with their own grammatical structurers: 314, incorporate and further develop features from prior and concurrent PEJLs; 314, functional and attitudinal similarities across all PEJLs: 314, difficulty in defining intuitively: 322 "POTATO Y", characterization of highly interfered Y style of certain writers, speakers or publications: 102

INDEX

513

POYALEY AGUDES YISROYEL, political literature in Y prepared by: 317 PRAGUE, see: Prog PRILUTSKI, NOYEKH; linguist-folklorist, participates in Tshernovits Conference: 263 PROG, local Y variant: 83 PROFICIENCY, of spoken Y; decreasing in USA during mid-60's: 137-139 PROLETARIANISM, in Eastern Europe; Y related to among first generation in USA: 125 "PROTESTANT VERNACULAR", hypothetical; would be considered superfluous in modern Western Europe: 40 PROVENCE/OCCITANIA, hypothetical role in the integration of France: 54 PROVENSE (three syllables), as a J language and culture area: 60 PUBLIC SCHOOLS, assimilatory effect of; in German, Russian, Polish, Hungarian or English: 171 PUBLICATIONS, in Y (books or periodocals); in the USA: 76, in pre-modern period: 85, in pre-World War I USA: 91, in USA since World War I: 101-112, daily Y press in USA never champions Y: 103, circulation of USA periodical press during mid60's: 104-107, book market in USA and elsewhere: 109, number of books published 1945-1960 by American Y authors (by literary field): 111, number and circulation drops: 143, earliest date back to before the use of print for H: 216, on agenda of the Tshernovits Conference: 260-261, custom of giving G titles to Y periodicals: 281, custom of giving H titles to Y books: 281, over 100 books still published annually: 331, periodical press as major carrier of Y literature to a mass reading public: 331 PUERTO RICANS, replace J members of labor organizations in New York area: 122 PURIM PLAYS/PUREM SHPILN , as first Y (and still ongoing Ultra-Orthodox Y) theater: 331 "PURITY" (also see: Fusion ["mixed"] Language, assumed lacking in PEJLs: 30, of lit tle concern re Y in most yeshivas in USA, mid-60's: 133 R RABBINIC culture/authorities, Lk literacy highly valued: 15, generally low regard for PEJLs: 27, 29, views concerning halachic uses of PEJLs: 33, differing views concern ing Aramic: 39, Tuvye Feder's rejection of rabbinic scholarship: 49, opposition to Liblekhe tfile prayerbook: 61, Kabbalistic, musar and responsa literature in Y: 155, use of Y in trials: 215, opposition to scholarly texts in Y: 215-216, use of Y in ser mons: 256, use of Y in print acceptable for popular educational purposes: 257, view of Y and other PEJLs as "maid servants": 316-317 RADIO/T.V. PROGRAMS, Israeli broadcasting in Mugrabi: 71, Israeli broadcasting in Y: 71, Israeli broadcasting in Farsic: 71, Israeli broadcasting in Yahudic: 71, Israeli broadcasting in Judezmo: 71, Israeli broadcasting in Judeo-Kurdish: 71, Y broad casting in USA: 77, 115-116, number of stations broadcasting in Y in the USA (19561960): 116, number of stations broadcasting in Y in USA (early 80's): 177-178 RASHI-KSAV, traditional type-face for rabbinic texts and commentaries: 205 RAWIDOWICZ, SIMON; J philosopher, characterizes Js as the eternally living, everdying people: 294

514


REBE (plural: rebeyem), hasidic rabbis; relationship to Y: 252 REFORM Js, in the USA; mid-60's: 125, award honorary doctorate to Y writer: 128, leadership may be proficient in H but synagogue services do not require H profi ciency: 151 REGIONAL LANGUAGE, Y as in contrast to H: 315 REGIONALISM(S), preference for in order to distance PEJLs from non-J correlates: 22, continued value for the J national ethos: 348 RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES (also see: Ideology/Ideological): Yiddish not consciously valued by in J Eastern Europe (although much employed) : 88 RESEARCH INSTITUTES, in Y; in early Soviet period: 93, in non-Soviet interwar Eastern Europe: 94 RESPONSA LITERATURE (also see Rabbinic culture/authorities) in Y: 155 REYZN, AVROHM, Y poet; participant in Tshernovits Conference: 164, 263 Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival (1985): 5 RIV HALESHOYNES (also see: language struggle), between H and Y (rather than between H and any other PEJL): 321 ROMANCE ELEMENTS, IN EARLIEST Y: 81, among pre-Germanic components in Y: 81-82, "traditionalized" words in earliest Y: 82 ROZNFELD, MORIS; Y poet, reports sarcastically on Tshernovits Conference: 268269 RUMANIA, initially observes and then disregards its World War I treaty obligations re Y: 94, segment of J intelligentsia utilizes state language during interwar period: 94, state support for symbolic Y institutions after World War II: 95, Austro-Hungarian cultural politics with respect to Js in Bukovina: 261 RURALITY, contribution to language maintenance: 175 RUSSIA (includes Czarist and Soviet periods), haskole in: 40, efforts to vernacularize H: 54, Revolution fosters Y: 92-93, J situation different than in USA: 166, longstanding prohibition agains Y dailies: 235, positive and negative status planning re Y in the post World War II era: 235-236, lack of democratic and ethnocultural rights for Js in: 280, "revival" of Y with glasnost and perestroika: 296-297, Y "con taminated" by association with Communist regime: 297, association of H with resis tance to Communist regime and with Israel: 297 RUSSIAN (language), advocacy of instead of Y: 16, writing in delayed by Old Church Slavonic: 38, displacement of by Y among Js outside of USSR during interwar period: 94, authorities resist granting permits for Y periodicals: 209 RUSSIANISMS in Y, fewer than Anglicisms: 78 RUTHENIAN/RUTHENIANS, see: Ukrainian/Ukrainians S SAM-HAKHAYEM, famous moralistic work in Y: 317 SATINOVER, MENDL LEFIN (also see: Tuvye Feder, Yankev Shmuel іk); Ausbau views of: 22, view of Y: 41-50, translation of books of the Bible: 42-48, translation of books on popular medicine, 63, comparison of his Y Bible translations with those of others: 64 SCHNEERSON, RABBI MENAKHEM M. (also see Lubavitsher khasidem); influ ence in New York and Israeli politics: 75, uses scholarly Y: 187

INDEX

515

SCHOOLS, RELIGIOUS; weekday afternoon or Sunday; do not teach Y in mid-60's: 128, willingness to teach Y in early 80's: 177 SCHOOLS, Y SECULAR NATIONALIST; in the USA: 76, in early Soviet period: 93, in non-Soviet interwar Eastern Europe: 94, in USA after 1914: 96-101, number of schools and their enrollment (1945-1960): 97, traditionalization of after Holocaust: 98, 199, curriculum of 98-99, graduates of have not become readers of Y press or lit erature; 103, weakened numerically: 143, schools teaching Y, early 80's: 178, secular nationalist schools teach adapted traditional texts entirely in Y: 199, role of in inter war Poland in establishing (with Yivo) the literary standard: 211 SECOND AVENUE, "the Y Broadway": 112-113 SECOND COMMONWEALTH, H ceases to be mass vernacular in Palestine during: 149 SECULAR-NATIONALIST Js, future of Y among: 8, self-definition similar to that of other Eastern European nationalities: 86, territorial component in self-definition: 86-87, growing positiveness toward traditional observances and studies: 99, main source of support for a variety of pro-Y causes: 100, maintenance/shift (1940-1960): 138, overlooking home-neighborhood-community nexus of Y mother tongue trans mission: 179 SECULAR-NATIONALIST (orientation/ideology), among supporters of Y in Israel: 6, admired in USA but viewed as a thing of the past:77, brought to USA by pre- and post-World War I immigrants: 87, lacked coercive power gained by other Eastern European nationalisms: 89, Hebraist/Zionist branch of: 90, language consciousness in: 90, blossoming of in early Soviet period: 93, evaluation of from the school perspective: 98, as both strength and weakness of Y in mid-60's: 129, Y related to more than any other PEJL: 318, Y related to as much as modern H: 318 SEFARAD II, more distant than Sefarad I from linguistic correlate: 24 SEFARDIM/SEFARDI(C), vernacular J language (s) of: 16, "revolt of" in Israel con tributes to interest in non-Ashkenazi vernaculars: 71, Y less acceptable to among youngsters in Israel than among their Ashkenazi counterparts: 306 SEJMISTS, cultural autonomy goal: 87, advocate J political representation in Eastern European parliaments: 275 Selbst-Emancipation!, N. Birnbaum's Viennese weekly: 162 "SERVANT GIRL(S)", traditional designation for PEJLs relative to Lk: 29, haskole view of Y relative to Lk/H: 193, G unable to compete with Y: 195, Tshernovits Con ference upsets prior relationship of Y to H: 246, efforts to liberate Y from status as: 256, usual rabbinic view of Y and other PEJLs as: 316 Seyfer refues, book of popular medicine in "plain'7"pure" Y: 63, 207-208 SHAYLES UTSHUVES, role of in recording spoken Y: 207 SHENIRER, SORE; founder of Beys-yankev schools for girls, defends Y among UltraOrthodox: 316 Sheyris yisroyel, 18th century historical treatise in Y: 317 Sheyvet yehude, justifies its use of Y on grounds of its intended readership among simple folk and women: 207 Shmuel bukh, a masterpiece of old Y literature: 84 SHOLEM ALEICHEM/SHOLEM ALEYKHEM, non-attendance at Tshernovits Con ference: 263

516


SHOLEM ALEICHEM FOLK INSTITUTE, non-partisan Y secular nationalist schools maintained by in New York: 96-97, other activities, mid-60's: 121, schools outside of New York (Detroit and Chicago): 157 SHTETL, exodus from in modern period: 86, disappearance of (literally and figura tively): 128 "SIMPLE Y" (="plain Y"), role of in fostering Eastern Y in print: 207 SINGER, I. B.; 1978 winner of Nobel Prize for literature: 277, distinguishes between death and ill health of Y: 329, still creatively active: 331 SLANG, in Israel; losing Yiddishisms: 311 SLAVS/SLAVIC, Eastern and Southern; variations on ethnocultural consciousness among: 37, Y among co-territorial Slavic populations defines Ashkenaz II: 208 SLOBODKER DAYTSH, humorous reference to unnecessarily Germanized Y: 210 SLOVAKIA, pocket of Western Y: 83 SOCIAL CLASS, role of in the evaluation and maintenance of Y: 306 SOCIAL MOBILITY. of Js; weakens cultural boundaries between Js and non-Js: 172, weakens Y in America: 329 SOCIALISM/SOCIALIST(S), espousal of Germanisms and Anglicisms in Y: 216, use of Y for indoctrination purposes: 257, do not aspire to Hi functions for Y in USA: 269, only Y and H associated with J movements on behalf of: 321 SOCIOLINGUISTIC THEORY, sociological dimensions of: 302 SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE, non-English languages in the USA: 3, perspective on Y:302 SOCIOLOGY OF Y, course in: 5, perspective of: 302-312 SOKOLOV, NOKHEM; Zionist leader views Y as necessary vehicle of mass agitation and indoctrination: 278 SOLOVEITCHIK, RABBI JOSEPH; defense of Y: 65 SOMALIA, vernacular L not only indigenous variety in: 56 SONGS, Y; recent fondness for in Israel: 17, popular song recitals in USA: 77 SOTEK, I.; attends Tshernovits Conference while still a student: 263, 265 SOUTH AMERICA, Ashkenazi communities in: 83 SOUTHERN Y, examples of dialect/standard switching among educated speakers of: 304-305 SOVIET UNION (also see: Russia); support for Y to offset Ukrainian and Byelorussian cultural goals: 157 SPANISH, domain overlap and separation among Puerto Rican speakers of: 306 STANDARD VARIETY, special functions of: 89, Y literary standard admired but not mastered by most immigrants to the USA: 90, developed for literary functions: 211213, of special importance to Y secular nationalist schools in inter-war Poland: 211, generally favors Northern, but is not identical to any regional variety: 211, role of Yivo in establishment of: 211, functional rather than regional implications of spoken standard: 211, avoidance of New High Germanisms and other foreignisms in: 212, high proportion of neologisms and Loshn-koydeshisms: 212, Ausbau nature of: 212, as acrolect of Y secular nationalist sector: 212, as variety for modern econotechnical and sociocultural interaction: 212 STANDARDIZATION, assumed lacking in PEJLs: 30, standard literary variety of Y: 183

INDEX

517

STATISTICAL APPENDIX, Y in USA, Israel, Czarist Empire, USSR, Poland and other countries, throughout 20th century, 377-492, index to above: 379-383 STATUS PLANNING (also see: Language Planning; Status Planning), re Y: 233-290, rarely engaged in for most disadvantaged languages: 234, most attempts do not yield benefits for weakened languages: 234, generally ineffective for Basque, Frisian and Irish: 235, other than Tshernovits Conference re Y: 235-236, negative status plan ning re Y in rabbinic, Zionist, non-Bundist Socialist and Communist circles: 236, Tshernovits Conference agenda pays considerable attention to: 259-260, tensions between corpus planning and status planning: 274, defined and illustrated: 280 STEROTYPES, of Y; due to absence of and disregard for sociolinguistic data: 327 STEWARTIAN ATTRIBUTES (sociolinguistic dimensions originally suggested by William Stewart), 29-31, applicability to Ultra-Orthodox children: 302, in differen tiating between points of view at Tshernovits Conference: 302, need of testing and refining: 302 SUMMER CAMPS, in Y; in USA: 76 SUTSKEVER, AVROHM; major Y poet still creatively active: 331 SWITZERLAND, pocket of Western Y in: 83 SYMBIOSIS OF MODERNITY AND TRADITION, only Y and H are appreciably associated with: 300 Τ TAGEBLAT, Orthodox Y daily in New York; negative toward Tshernovits Confer ence: 268 TALMUD, influence upon PEJLs: 23, traditional function of PEJLs in translation/ study: 39, consists of H Mishne plus Aramic Gemore: 61, instruction frequently con tinues to be in Y: 103, 131-133 TARGUMIC, see: Aramic TAT/JUDEO-TAT, J vernacular in Caucuses: 149 ΤAULI, VALTER; advocate of completely rational corpus planning: 223 TAYTSH, "translation (into Y)": 193, taytsh-khumesh, Y version of Pentateuch, osten sibly for women and uneducated men: 193 TERRITORIALISM/TERRITORIALISTS, non-Zionist movement for planned J resettlement in countries other than Palestine: 87, split away from Zionist movement in 1905: 279 THEATER, in Y; in Israel: 17, in USA: 76, 77, 91, 112-115, Y repertory in pre-modern period: 85, in early Soviet period: 93, in interwar Poland: 94, age of American Y actors (as of 1945-1960): 114, N. Birnbaum's constant interest in: 165, N. Birnbaum's critique of G-J theater: 244, on agenda of Tshernovits Conference: 261, currently once more attracts young actors both on and off Broadway: 299, still active in vari ous parts of the world: 331 Tog, Morgn Zhurnal, Y daily; combines Zionism and Orthodoxy: 103 TRADITIONALISM, insufficiency of as exclusive model for corpus planning: 221-222, not a totally constant goal even for those that pursue it: 222 TRANSLATABILITY, of Y literature; as a problem for those Yiddishists who also believe in the Whorfian hypothesis: 308

518


TRANSLATION(S), Lk into Y when studying sacred texts: 298 (also see: UltraOrthodoxy, Khumesh, Talmud); of Y books become best sellers: 299, of Y into H in Israel (reversal of prior diaspora pattern): 346 TRANSLITERATION, Y into E; Library of Congress system: 322 TSARFATIC, see Zarfatic/Zarphatic Tsene-(u)rene, popular Y Pentateuch for women: 5, constantly reprinted since 17th cen tury: 84 TSHERNOVITS (City); Js in dominated by Zionist and German language/culture senti ments: 241, location within general and J geography: 279 TSHERNOVITS CONFERENCE, 1908; Perets' ambivalence at: 30, Y as a or as the J national language: 87, dignification of Y via an international conference: 156, first call to co-sponsored by Y literary figures in USA: 163, prime example of status plan ning re Y: 233, 290, did not reject co-role of H: 233, primary and secondary sources for research on: 237, G-J response to: 237, Hebraist response to: 237, Bundist and Communist response to: 237, upsets "servant girl" relationship of Y to H: 246, pre cursor conference of 1905: 251, post-Conference protest march: 251-252, conceived of as a contribution to J cultural autonomy:: 252, over-representation of Orthodox Js among guests attending: 253, additional research on N. Birnbaum needed in order to fully understand: 254, locus of last encounter between four views re Y: 258, partici pants at (by name and region): 263-264, reaction to in American Y press at the time: 267-269, least understood and appreciated in USA: 268, "spirit of Tshernovits lives on" in Y cultural efforts everywhere: 272, viewed as confluence of various ideologies: 273, weak Bundist presence at: 276 TSISHO (Central Yiddish School Organization [in interwar Poland]), considers Tsher novits Conference irrelevant: 271 TURKISH, corpus planning; expulsion of Arabisms and Persianisms, but importation of Frenchisms and internationalisms: 225 U UGANDA, proposed as autonomous J region, instead of Palestine: 279 UKRAINE/UKRAINIAN(S), negative attitudes toward: 13, support for Y culture under Soviets to offset impact of Russification efforts: 157, Ausbau struggle vis-a-vis Russian (contemporary with Y struggle against New High Germanisms): 210, strug gle for cultural autonomy in Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: 241, nationalist support for N. Birnbaum's candidacy in elections of 1907, "Young Ukrainians" support N. Birnbaum after Tshernovits Conference: 246-247, "Old Ruthenians" favor Russian as their literary language: 247, support for N. Birnbaum and other nationalistic J candidates in election of 1907: 247, Austro-Hungarian cultural politics re (in Galicia): 260 ULTRA-ORTHODOX(Y), and future of Y: 8, general lack of vernacular conscious ness among: 33, growing number of speakers in USA and in Israel: 17-18, 68-71, English influences on Y of in USA: 78, use of Y in USA; during mid-60's: 131-137, Y valued for gaining access to advanced Talmudic study: 131-133, Y valued as the vehicle of a life-style that is maximally separated from non-Ultra-Orthodox: 133-137, future of Y in USA may well depend upon: 136-137, display mastery of talmudic/

INDEX

519

medieval H and Lk: 150, increasing numbers of pre-school and school-aged speakers of Y: 172, uninterested in lexical elaboration: 187, traditional utilitarian view of Y: 257, focus on matters "above and beyond" language: 266, Y in Israel currently popu larly associated with: 296, absence of in Russia weakens intergenerational mother tongue continuity prospects of Y there: 297, young monolingual Y speakers now increasing: 199, 330, populations that most need to be studied are in USA and Israel; 307, Purim plays as culturally appropriate theater: 331 UNAFFILIATED Js, negative attitudes toward Y (in USA): 92, in mid-60's: 125 UNIFIED YIDDISH SPELLING ( of Yivo and Tsisho), major modern [and only for mally codified] norm: 186, followed in this volume: 322 UNIQUENESS OF Y, functional and psychological: 315-323 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, see: America URBANIZATION, impact on Y and on J life: 86, 172 V VARSHE, local Y variant of: 83 VAYBERTAYTSH/VAYBERKSAV, type-face originally used for Y: 44, similarity to script makes it simpler to read for the marginally literate: 205 VERNACULAR FUNCTIONS, for PEJLs: 39, among non-Js: 51-52 VERSAILLES/TRIANON TREATIES, guarantees re Y: 93, 94 VIENNA, Germanized J students at University of: 161 VILNE/VILNA/VILNIUS, local Y variant of: 83, headquarters of Yivo during the interwar years: 184 VITALITY, assumed to be lacking for PEJLs: 30 W WALES/WELSH, hypothetical role in the integration of Britain: 54 WARSAW, see: Varshe WEINREICH, MAX; influence on author: 2, major link between pre-World War II and post-World War II Yivo: 184, intellectual gifts to future generations of scholars: 301-302, gives examples of bilingual Y repertoires: 303, anticipates diglossia notion ("inveynikste tsveyshprakhikeyt"): 306 WESTJUDEN, N. Birnbaum's contrast with Ostjuden and Afroasian Js: 252 WESTERN Y, long remains model of Y in print for Eastern European readers: 63, 208, N. Birnbaum's views toward as being much poorer than Eastern Y: 244 WESTERNIZATION, see: Haskole WHITE RUSSIA/ WHITE RUSSIAN, see: Byelorussia/Byelorussian WHORFIAN HYPOTHESIS: i, z, 307-308, translatability of Y in the light of: 308 WIENER, LEO; predicts "death of Y" at beginning of the 20th century: 329 WILSON, WOODROW; promise of his "fourteen points" for Y: 94 WORKMEN'S CIRCLE (Arbeter-ring), schools; largest Y secular nationalist network in USA: 96, Y cultural activities more generally, mid-60's: 119-120 WORLDVIEW, see: Whorfian Hypothesis WRITERS, status of in Y secular nationalist circles equals that of rabbis elsewhere in J life: 319

520


WRITTEN FUNCTION/VARIETY, late development of for PEJLs: 24, reserved for H: 194, proximity of written language to spoken varieties: 207-209, Y develops ear lier and more fully: 316-318 WRITING SYSTEMS, orthographic conventions: 32 WRITERS, American Y; age by primary literary field (during the mid-60's): 110 Y YAHUDEM, Germanized Js; N. Birnbaum identifies with Eastern European Js in criticizing: 243, among the earliest to predict "death of Y": 329 YAHUDIC, long association with literacy; 29, still a noteworthy PEJL today: 313, mod ernizing intellectuals transfer to Arabic: 318 YEHOYESH, major modern translator of Bible into Y: 45 YEMENITE, vernacular J language of (Yahudic): 16 YERUSHELAYMER VELT-KONFERENTS FAR YIDISH UN YIDISHER KUL TUR, views itself as heir of the Tshernovits Conference: 271 YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, transitioning out of Y in talmudic studies (in mid-60's): 133 YESHIVAS/YESHIVES (and MESIVTAS/METIVTES), continued use of Y in many hasidic and non-hasidic schools in the USA (mid-60's): 131-137, number offering instruction via Y (1956-1961): 134-135 YEVSEKTSIYE, consents to closing of Y corpus planning centers in Soviet Union: 184 YEVALENKO, ALEKS; publisher and co-signer of original call to the Tshernovits Conference: 259 Yid, hasidic weekly: 136 YIDDISH, relationship with H: 6, history of: 6, in America: 6, 75-179, associated only with Ashkenazim: 17, linguistic adequacy relative to other vernaculars: 52, in need of both status planning and corpus planning: 52, "colonies" come to the fore after Holocaust: 95, international link for Js in Eastern Europe since World War I: 147, as intergenerational linK: 147, as avenue of selective identification with Eastern Europe: 147, satisfies literacy requirements of USA immigration laws: 235, viewed as "lively tongue" but not as "real language": 245, and the "absolute J idea": 246247, N. Birnbaum's view of diglossic partnership with Lk: 253, not independently related to sanctity in non-hasidic society: 256, traditional utilitarian view of among Ultra-Orthodox: 257, long-term use in print among Orthodox for moralistic and popular halachic education: 257, viewed as a major symbol and vehicle in its own right: 257, spread into Hi functions threatens rabbinic and Zionist hegemony: 275, variety of rivals for Hi functions: 275, purportedly found lacking from the "esthetic" point of view: 280-281, future of: 293-299, eternally living but ever dying J language: 294, as a factor in the functioning of Ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem: 296, considered "contaminated" due to association with Communist regime in USSR: 297, purported approaching death of: 298-299, young monolingual speakers now increasing among Ultra-Orthodox: 299, in small-group interaction: 303-305, reacted to as funny: 307, attitudes improve but use decreases in middle range J society: 311, how differs from other PEJLs: 315-323 "Y MOVEMENT", topicalization in American E: 78 YIDDISHISM/YIDDISHIST(S), influence on left wing J ideologies: 66, major growth over by World War II: 76, transplanted from Europe to Americas: 91, encouraged

INDEX

521

by more respectful climate toward Y after Holocaust: 128, linguistic separateness as a sine qua non for cultural separateness: 147, earliest mass support for from strongly hasidic regions: 156, traditional H sources taught only in Y: 199, religious adherants of oppose secularisms in Y: 216, purported overuse of neologisms and tendency toward hypercorrection: 218, rejected by N. Birnbaum: 253, Tshernovits Conference as a reminder and symbol of: 272 YIDDISH CULTURE CLUB (Los Angeles), mid-60's: 121 YIDDISH CULTURE ORGANIZATION (Philadelphia), mid-60's: 121 Y-DAYTSH, designation for Y: 216 YIDDISH (JEWISH) HISTORICAL-ETHNOGRAPHIC SOCIETY (St. Petersburg, 1909): 278 Yiddish in America (1965): 3 YIDDISH LITERARY SOCIETY (St. Petersburg, 1908): 278 Yidish far ale, pre-World War II Yivo journal: 223 YIDISHE KULTUR, first university-affiliated student organization for Y: 245 Yidishe shprakh, Yivo journal with prescriptive goals; purported excessive use of neologisms and stilted hyper-corrections: 218, examples of Y corpus planning recom mendations: 223 Yidishe vort, Ultra-Orthodox (Agudes yisroyel) monthly: 136 YIDISHER KULTUR FARBAND, see: Yikuf YIDISHER KULTUR KONGRES, ALVELTLEKHER; see: Congress for Jewish Cul ture YIKUF (Yidisher kultur farband), left-wing afiliated; views itself as heir to goals of the Tshernovits Conference: 271 YINGLISH, entertainment and humor in the USA, 127 YISROYEL BAL-SHEM-TOV, see: Bal-shem-tov, Yisroyel YIVO (Yidisher visnshaftlekher institut, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research), in the USA mid 60's: 117-119, in Vilne and in New York: 184, American Branch (Amopteyl) becomes headquarters after World War II: 184, role of in establishment of modern literary standard: 211, as unofficial Y university and ministry of culture of secular nationalist sector: 212, founded at 1925 Tsisho convention: 271, volume in honor of 20th anniversary of Tshernovits Conference approximates lost minuts of: 283 YUGNTRUF, Yiddishist student organization and journal; use of neologisms and hypercorrections: 218 Z ZAK, AVROHM; Y poet protests against the death myth/wish: 333 ZANGWILL, ISRAEL; drama, Melting Pot, criticized by N. Birnbaum: 166 ZARPHATIC/ZARFATIC, Judeo-French; influences on earliest Y: 33, traditional ver nacular functions: 39 ZHARGON/JARGON, see: fusion ("mixed") language ZHARGONISHE KOMITETN: early Bundist effort to spread literacy and Socialism via Y: 278 ZHITLOVSKI, KHAYEM; lacked detailed, first-hand familiarity with American Jewry (in 1907): 162, Yiddishist, socialist and diaspora autonomist: 163, 258, co-sponsored

522


call to Tshernovits Conference: 163-165, at the Conference proper: 237, 263-264, hopes to de-politicize Tshernovits Conference: 259, role in founding Y secular nationalist schools in USA and Canada: 267, ideological changes throughout his lifespan: 273 ZIONISM/ZIONIST(S), discrimination against Y: 17, low regard for Y: 29, opposition to Y: 53, Y viewed as deterrent to "ingathering of the exiles": 145, secularists display mastery of H: 150-151, pursues goal of Hebraizing the diaspora: 151, word coined by N. Birnbaum: 162, as a cultural movement: 163, 250, espousal of Ivritisms in Y: 216, among culturally Germanized Js: 239, against Y in Eastern Europe: 245, use of Y for indoctrination purposes: 257, negative reactions to Tshernovits Conference: 269-270, Labor-Zs advocate J representation in Eastern European parliaments: 275, Seventh Congress (1905) rejects Uganda offer by British: 279, somewhat positive recent attitudes toward Y and other PEJLs: 281

Yiddish: Turning to Life

Turning Life into Fiction

Turning Life into Fiction

Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature

Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English Dictionary (English and Yiddish Edition)

Turning

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

the Yiddish Policemen's Union

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

the Yiddish Policemen's Union

Complete Idiot's Guide to Learning Yiddish

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

Modern Yiddish Culture: The Story of the Yiddish Language Movement

Turning Idolater

Turning Points

Turning In

Turning Idolater

Turning Points

Turning Time

The Turning

Turning Wheel

Turning Point

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

The Yiddish Policemen’s Union

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

1001 Yiddish Proverbs

Life to Life

Life to Life

Turning Angel

Turning Paige

Yiddish: Turning to Life

Turning Life into Fiction

Turning Life into Fiction

Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature

Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English Dictionary (English and Yiddish Edition)

Turning

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

the Yiddish Policemen's Union

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

the Yiddish Policemen's Union

Complete Idiot's Guide to Learning Yiddish

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

Modern Yiddish Culture: The Story of the Yiddish Language Movement

Turning Idolater

Turning Points

Turning In

Turning Idolater

Turning Points

Turning Time

The Turning

Turning Wheel

Turning Point

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

The Yiddish Policemen’s Union

The Yiddish Policemen's Union

1001 Yiddish Proverbs

Life to Life

Life to Life

Turning Angel

Turning Paige

Recommend Documents