Download - Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 1/7
Duke University Press and American Dialect Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Speech.
http://www.jstor.org
merican Dialect Society
Jewish Dialect and New York DialectAuthor(s): C. K. Thomas
Source: American Speech, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Jun., 1932), pp. 321-326Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/452953Accessed: 20-02-2016 03:43 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 2/7
VOLUME
VII
NUMBER 5
domeric n
peech
JUNE
-
1932
JEWISH
DIALECT
AND NEW YORK
DIALECT
C.
K.
THOMAS
Cornell University
URING
the
past
four
years
I
have
worked with some
hundreds
of
university
students
in
an
attempt
to
improve
the
quality
of
their
speech.
A fair
proportion
of
these
students
have
been
Jews
from
New
York
City
and its suburbs. Their
social
and
scholastic
levels
are about
the
same as those
of
other
New
Yorkers,
but
their
speech
is
distinctly
inferior,
and this
inferiority
raised
the
question
whether there
might
be
a
clearly
defined
dialect which
was
character-
istic of
New
York
Jews.
The students
with whom
I
have
worked
do
not,
of
course,
constitute a true cross-section of either New York or
Jewish
speech;
such
a
cross-section
would
have
to be
obtained in
New
York itself. Those who
can afford
to travel
250
miles for
their
educa-
tion
represent,
on the
average,
a
higher
social and
economic
level
than
those who
stay
at
home and who are
able,
in
many
cases,
to
earn
a
larger part
of
their
expenses
than
is
possible
in
a
small
town.
Because
of
this
higher
level,
and because few
of
the
New York
Jews at
Cornell
speak
any
language
but
English,
their
dialect is
by
no means as
extreme
as
that
of
the
peripatetic
Mr. Klein
so
carefully
studied
by
Miss
Benardete,1
or even as extreme as that of the
general
run of Jewish
undergraduates
in the
New
York
City
colleges. Many
of
them,
how-
ever,
have
complicated
their
speech
problem
with tricks
acquired
in
the
elocution
schools that
are
at
present
so
popular among
the
higher
class
Jewish
families
of
New
York.
Traditional
Jewish
and
traditional
New York
pronunciations
alike
are in
some
cases
conspicuously
absent.
Moreover,
most of the students with whom
I
am
familiar
are
to
some
extent
conscious
of their
speech,
for
the
greater
number
of them
are
sent
1
Dolores Benardete, Immigrant Speech-Austrian-Jewish Style,
AMERICAN
SPEECH, October,
1929.
321
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 3/7
322
American
Speech
to
me from
courses
in
public speaking
and dramatics. All of
these
factors
complicate
the
problem
of
analysis,
and make the
results less
conclusive.
For
purposes
of
comparison
I
divided
my
students into three
groups:
(1)
Jews
from New
York
City
and
its
suburbs, (2)
Gentiles
from
the
same
area,
(3)
Jews
who had lived
all
their lives at a distance from
New
York
City.
After
discarding
all
doubtful
cases, namely,
those of
uncertain
racial
origin,
those who
had lived both
in
New York
City
and
elsewhere,
and those who
lived
in
the
typically
Jewish summer
resorts
of
the
Catskills,
I
was
left
with the
records of
112
students,
of
whom
75
were New
York
Jews,
19 were
New York
Gentiles,
and
18 were
Jews
from other
parts
of
the
country.
Thus
approximately
67
percent
of
the
total
was
in
group
1,
17
percent
in
group 2,
and 16
percent
in
group
3.
A
normal
distribution of dialectal
peculiarities,
or
errors,
would
therefore result
in the same
percentages,
but when
the
errors had
been
classified
it was
found
that,
out of
a
total
of
673,
the
New York
Jews
had made
522,
the New
York
Gentiles
71,
and the
Jews
from
other
parts
of the
country
80.
In
other
words,
group
1
made
78
percent
of
the
errors,
group
2
made 10
percent,
and
group
3
made
12
percent.
Thus, in comparison
with an
average distribution,
the
speech
of
group
1
was
distinctly
inferior to that
of
the
other
two
groups,
as
the
following
summary
shows:
Group
1 2 3
Total
A Number
of cases
in each
group.........
75
19 18 112
B
Percentage
of
cases...................
67 17
16
100
C Number of errorsin each group ....... 522 71 80 673
D
Percentage
of
errors..................
78
10 12 100
E
Percentage
above
or below
average
dis-
tribution2.............
.......
+16
-38 -26
In
considering
the distribution
of
particular
errors
among
the
three
groups,
one
must
refer to line
D in the
above
table
as a
basis for
com-
parison.
If
the
percentages
for the
particular
error do not
vary
greatly
from those
of
line
D
it is obvious that
they
give
no
information
regard-
2
These figures represent the variation from 100 of the quotients obtained by
dividing
the
figures
in line
D
by
the
corresponding
figures
in line
B;
in
all
calcula-
ions
the
percentages
were
carried
to
two extra
decimals.
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 4/7
Jewish
Dialect
323
ing
the source of the
error;
but
if
the
percentage
for
group 1, consisting
of New York
Jews,
is
higher
than
78,
that
of
group 2, consisting
of
New
York
Gentiles,
higher
than
10,
and
that of
group 3,
consisting
of
Jews
from
other
localities,
lower than
12,
the distribution
creates a
strong
presumption
that
the
error
in
question
is
local rather
than
racial,
for
only
the
groups
which include New
Yorkers show a
higher
percentage
than
the
average
distribution.
Similarly,
if the
percentages
for
another
error are above
the
average
for
groups
1
and
3,
and
below
for
group 2,
the distribution
creates a
strong
presumption
that this
is a
racial,
rather than
a
local,
error,
for
only
the
groups
which
include Jews
show
higher percentages
than
the
average.
In
many
cases,
of
course,
there
are
neither
sufficiently
large
numbers
of instances
of the
error
nor
sufficiently
great
variations
from the
average
to warrant
any
definite
conclusion;
in
other
cases,
which
are
listed
below,
definite
conclusions
are
inescapable.
The most
frequent
error
among
these students was the
dentalizing
of
the alveolar
consonants
[t,
d, n, 1,
s,
z];
the error consists in
making
the characteristic
consonantal
obstruction
between the
tongue
and
teeth
instead
of between
the
tongue
and
gum
ridge.
The
acoustic effect
of
this
misplacement
is least
noticeable
for
[n,
1];
for
[s,
z]
it
suggests
a
slight lisp;
[t,
d]
sound
overexplosive
and
slightly
higher
in
pitch.
It
is
most
noticeable
when
several alveolar
consonants
appear
in
the
same
word,
as
in dental
and
slant. The distribution
of this
error
clearly
indicates that
it
is Jewish
in
origin: group
1
is 10
percent above,
and
group
3 is
5
percent
below,
the
average
distribution
of line
D;
but
group
2,
the Gentile
group,
is
66
percent
below
the
average.
In
short,
the
Gentile
group
is
remarkably
free
from
this
error, including
only
8
instances
out
of
a total
of
224.
The most
frequently
dentalized of
these
consonants
is
[1],
and
here the distribution
is
even more
clearly
Jewish:
10
percent
above the
average
for
group 1,
5
percent
above
for
group
3,
and 80
percent
below
for
group
2. The cause
of this
error,
whether
a
survival
from
Yiddish,
German,
or Slavic
linguistic
habit
or
otherwise,
is
not
within
the
scope
of this
paper.
Closely
associated
with
dentalization
is the
overaspiration
of
[t]
after
[n]
or
[1], particularly
at
the
beginning
of an unstressed
syllable
or at
the
end
of a
word,
as in
winter,
wilted,
went,
and wilt.
Here the
percentages
are
inconclusive,
but
it
seems
likely
that this error
is also
Jewish.
Letters
in
square
brackets
are
phonetic
characters,
which
refer
to
sounds;
those
in
quotation
marks
refer to
spellings.
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 5/7
324
American
Speech
Difficulty
with
[s]
seems
to be characteristic
of
Jewish
speech.
This
is
in
part owing
to the habit
of
dentalizing,
but
in
addition
there
are
other errors:
exaggerated
hissing,
substitution of voiceless
[1]
and th
[6]
as
in
thin,
and
occasionally
sh
[f]
as
in
she. There
are 35 instances
of these
variations,
of
which
only
3 are
Gentile.
Group
3,
consisting
of
Jews who do not
live in New
York
City,
has
the
greatest
difficulty
with
this
sound, being
68
percent
above
the
average
distribution.
Another
clearly
Jewish
error
is
the
substitution
of
[rig]
or
[i],
so
as,
for
instance,
to make
singer
a
rhyme
for
finger.
There are 35 instances
of
this
error
in
the
three
groups,
and
only
one
of
them
is
Gentile.
Furthermore, according
to
these figures,
the
Jews from New York do
not make this error
quite
as
persistently
as
do
those from other
locali-
ties. The
substitution
of
[ijk]
for
[rJ],
o
as,
for
instance,
to
make
sing
and
sink identical
in
sound,
appears only
8 times.
Though
this
is
the
traditional form
of
the
error,
perhaps
because it
can be
represented
more
easily
in the conventional
alphabet,
I
do
not
believe it
to be
nearly
as
common as
[rig].
Once
in
a
great
while
the
glottic stop
is
added
instead of
either
[k]
or
[g].
Loss
of
the
distinction
between
the
voiced
[w]
and
the voiceless
wh
[Ml,
so as, for instance, to make witch and which identical, is
quite
common
in
both
New
York
groups,
but
less common
among
the
Jews
from other localities.
The
distribution is
4
percent
above
the
average
from
group 1,
60
percent
above for
group
2,
and
29
percent
below
for
group
3.
In other
words,
the
Jews from
outside
of
New
York have
least
trouble with
the
voiceless
[M],
and
this
bears
out
the
traditional
notion
that,
although
this error
is
by
no means
confined
to
New
York,
it is there most
conspicuous
and
prevalent.
Similarly,
the
addition of
an
[r]
to
such
words as idea
and
law,
especially when the following word begins with a vowel, is, at least for
these
three
groups,
a
New
York
characteristic,
for
none
of
group
3
added
the
[r],
and
group
2,
the
Gentile
group,
added
it
more
consistently
than
group
1.
The error
is
not,
of
course,
limited to New
York
City,
but
is also encountered
in
New
England.
Errors
in vowels and
diphthongs are,
with some
doubtful
excep-
tions,
New
Yorkese rather than Jewish.
The
vowel
[o(v)]
is
distorted
into an
exaggerated
diphthong
which
can
best
be
indicated as
[ev]
or
[ev],
as in the
pronunciation [nevt]
for note
[no(v)t].
This is similar
to
the extreme pronunciation of Oxford, though it is drawled to a greater
length
in
New
York.
Group
1
is
2
percent
above
the
average
for
this
error, group
2
is
31
percent above,
but
group
3
is
42
percent
below.
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 6/7
Jewish Dialect
325
It
should
be
noted that
the
Gentile
group
has
the
most
trouble
with
this
sound.
Another
characteristic
error is
the
substitution
of the
compromise
[a]
for
the
flat
[m]
in
such words as
land,
man,
and
bad.
This
differs
from the
New
England
use of
[a]
and the Southern
British
use of
[a]
in
such words as
path, dance,
and
laugh,
and
is more like
certain Scotch
and
Irish
dialects.
A
possible
explanation
may
lie in the
concerted
efforts now
being
made
in
New
York
to teach
the
broad a
[a]
of
world
standard
English.
One who
acquires
this broad
a,
or
even the
compromise [a],
some
years
after
learning
to
speak English
is
likely to use
it in
the
wrong words,
and at
the same
time
to
get
the
impression
that
the
flat
a
[oe]
s
a
disreputable
sound,
to be avoided
whenever
possible.
At
any rate, group
3
is
least
susceptible
to
the
error,
and
group
1,
which has
had the
greatest
amount of
elocutionary
training,
the most
susceptible.
Substitution
of
[yev]
for
[av]
in such words
as
now, out,
and
power
appears
not
to
be a Jewish error.
Group
1 is
3
percent
below
average,
group
3
is
5
percent below,
and
group
2,
the
Gentile
group,
is
29
percent
above.
This error
is
characteristic
of the
South
and of rural New
England as well as of New York, and its significance in this study is
doubtful.
The
change
of the
diphthong
in
my,
fine,
and
light
from
[ai]
to
[aI],
or
to an
even more retracted
form,
appears
to
be a New York character-
istic,
though
more data
will be
required
for
certainty.
In its most
characteristic
form the
distortion
resembles
the
German
variety
of
the
diphthong
more
closely
than
anything
else.
Group
1
is
12
percent
above
the
average; group
2
is 10
percent
below;
group
3,
however,
includes
only
one instance
of
the
error.
Statistical figures on vocal quality are much less reliable, as the
qualities
themselves are so
variable.
In
general, however,
indistinct-
ness
resulting
from
inactivity
of
the
lips
appears
to
be
a
New
York
characteristic,
drawl
is
more
common
among
the
Jews,
and
throat-
iness
exclusively
Jewish.
Nasality
is
common,
and not
limited
to
either
group.
So
far, then,
as
can be
learned from the data of
this
study,
the
New
York Jew dentalizes
the
alveolar
consonants, overaspirates [t],
has
various difficulties
with
[s]
and
[ra],
and has a
drawling,
throaty
vocal
quality because he is Jewish; on the other hand, he uses the voiced
[w]
for the voiceless
[&],
substitutes
[ev]
for
[o(v)],
[a]
for
[em],
mev]
or
[av],
and
[ai]
for
[ai] adds,
the intrusive
[r],
and uses
his
lips
insufficiently
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/18/2019 Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jewish-dialect-and-new-york-dialect 7/7
326
American
Speech
because he is
a
New Yorker.
Obviously
these conclusions
are
tenta-
tive, and much more data will be required before any conclusions
approaching
finality
can
be
reached;
but it seems
evident, nevertheless,
that
a
good
bit
of what
passes popularly
for
Jewish
dialect
is
really
New
York
dialect,
and
that
details which
pass
unnoticed
in
Gentile
speech
are
more
apt
to
be noticed
in
Jewish
speech
because
of the lower
quality
resulting
from
the
mixture of
errors
from local
and racial
sources.
This content downloaded from 160.39.5.105 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 03:43:04 UTCAll se s bject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions