Yiddish as a Mixed Language: Yiddish-Slavic Language Contact and Its Linguistic Outcome 2022035089, 2022035090, 9789004423978, 9789004525214

Citation preview

Yiddish as a Mixed Language

Brill Studies in Language Contact and the Dynamics of Language Series Editor Robert Nicolaï (University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis)

Editorial Board Umberto Ansaldo (The University of Hong Kong) Peter Auer (University of Freiburg) Marianne Mithun (University of California, Santa Barbara) Patrick Seriot (University of Lausanne)

volume 3

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bscd

Yiddish as a Mixed Language Yiddish-Slavic Language Contact and Its Linguistic Outcome

By

Ewa Geller Michał Gajek Agata Reibach

With a contribution by

Anna Pilarski

leiden | boston

The project has been funded by the Polish National Science Center (ncn umo-2016/21/B/HS2 /02549). For detailed information s. https://polonjid.wn.uw.edu.pl/?lang=en. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Geller, Ewa, author. | Gajek, Michał, author. | Reibach, Agata, author. | Pilarski, Anna, 1971- author. Title: Yiddish as a mixed language : Yiddish-Slavic language contact and its linguistic outcome / by Ewa Geller, Michał Gajek, Agata Reibach ; with a contribution by Anna Pilarski. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2022] | Series: Brill studies in language contact and the dynamics of language, 2214-5613 ; volume 3 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2022035089 (print) | lccn 2022035090 (ebook) | isbn 9789004423978 (hardback ; acid-free paper) | isbn 9789004525214 (ebook) Subjects: lcsh: Yiddish language–Foreign elements–Slavic. | Yiddish language– Foreign elements–Polish. | Slavic languages–Influence on Yiddish. | Polish language–Influence on Yiddish. | Languages in contact. Classification: lcc pj5113 .g45 2022 (print) | lcc pj5113 (ebook) | ddc 439/.1–dc23/eng/20220728 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022035089 lc ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022035090

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. issn 2214-5613 isbn 978-90-04-42397-8 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-52521-4 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Ewa Geller, Michał Gajek, and Agata Reibach. Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface ix List of Illustrations and Tables Abbreviations xvi

xv

1 Max Weinreich and Slavic Component of Yiddish 1 Michał Gajek 1 Introduction 1 2 Max Weinreich on Slavic-Yiddish Language Contact—Attempts at Revision 3 2.1 The “French” Origin of Yiddish 3 2.2 Role of Slavic Languages in Formation of Yiddish 5 2.3 “Separateness, Not Segregation”—Contact with Slavic Majority in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 7 3 Slavic Elements in Subsystems of Yiddish 9 3.1 Lexicon 10 3.2 Morphology and Word Formation 11 3.3 Syntax 14 3.4 Phonology 18 4 Discussion and Conclusions 20 2 Yiddish in the Framework of the Mixed Language Debate 23 Ewa Geller and Michał Gajek 1 Introduction 23 1.1 Divergence vs Convergence Approach in Language Development 23 1.2 Place of Yiddish in Contact Linguistics 24 1.3 Structure of the Chapter 28 2 Defining Terminology 28 2.1 Language Contact 29 2.2 Substratum, Superstratum, and Adstratum 30 2.3 Convergence 31 2.4 Language Shift 31 2.5 Relexification and Matrix Language Frame 33 2.6 Replication and Grammaticalization 34 2.7 Borrowing and Transfer 35

vi

contents

3

4

5

6

7

Yiddish-Slavic Language Contact 36 3.1 Study of Pre-Ashkenazic Judeo-Slavic Languages 36 3.2 Knaanic—Medieval Language of Jews in Slavic Lands 38 Language Shift in Inception of Eastern Yiddish 41 4.1 Knaanic Language Shift in Weinreich’s Canonic History 41 4.2 Incomplete Language Shift from Knaanic to German 42 4.3 Slavic Substratum in Eastern Yiddish 43 Borrowing in Development of Eastern Yiddish 48 5.1 Contact with Specific Slavic Languages 49 5.2 Transfer Channels 51 5.3 Adstratal Linguistic Matter—Lexical Borrowings 53 Yiddish as Mixed Language 56 6.1 Identifying Mixed Language 56 6.2 Typology of Mixed Languages 58 6.3 Yiddish as Mixed Language 60 6.4 How to Distinguish Internal from Contact-Induced Changes 78 Conclusions 85

3 Role of Slavic Matter Borrowings in New Pattern Grammaticalization 88 Ewa Geller 1 Introduction 88 1.1 Research Subject 88 1.2 Surface-Level Outcome of Yiddish-Slavic Language Contact 89 1.3 State of Research 90 1.4 Hypothesis 92 2 Theoretical Framework 93 2.1 Matter- and Pattern-Borrowing 93 2.2 Substrate vs Adstrate 93 2.3 Internally vs Externally Motivated Language Change 95 2.4 Speech Production Model and Encoding Grammatical Information in Lexemes 96 2.5 Replication 98 2.6 Contact-Induced Grammaticalization 100 3 Method 100 4 Analysis and Its Results 103 4.1 Introduction of New Derivational Pattern and Reinforcement of Aspect Category: Case of: Y. horeven # onhoreven zix < P. harować # naharować się ‘work very hard’ 103

contents

5

vii

4.2 Replication of Full Imperative Paradigm and Optative Mood: Case of Y. (ne)xaj < P. niech(aj) 118 4.3 Replication of Adverbial Markedness Pattern: Case of Y. bokem < P. bokiem ‘sideways’ 130 Conclusions 142

4 De-Construction of German-Type Compounds 146 Agata Reibach 1 Introduction 146 1.1 Object of Study 146 1.2 State of Research 147 1.3 Structure of Chapter 148 2 Methods 149 2.1 Terminology 149 2.2 Typology of Compound Constructions 150 2.3 Research Material 150 3 Compound Types in Yiddish 151 3.1 Strategies of Deconstruction of N+N Synthetic Compounds in Yiddish 152 4 Compounds in Yiddish Component Languages 162 4.1 German Model 163 4.2 Hebrew Model 164 4.3 Polish Model 165 5 Results 168 5.1 Role of Head Origin in Choosing Compounding Pattern 168 5.2 Role of Semantic Function in Choosing Compounding Pattern 172 6 Conclusions 174 5 Core Vocabulary Borrowability Restrictions: Case of Semantic Field ‘Body’ 176 Agata Reibach 1 Introduction 176 2 Methods 178 3 Results 182 3.1 Comparison with Loanword Typology Project (ltp) 182 3.2 Comparison with Leipzig-Jakarta List (ljl) 185 3.3 Core and Peripheral Vocabulary 190 4 Discussion and Desiderata 191 Appendix 194

viii

contents

6 Convergence of Syntactic Structures of Yiddish and Polish Direct Interrogative Sentences: Remarks on Parametric Structure of cp and wh-Movement 202 Anna Pilarski 1 Introduction 202 1.1 Subject of Study 202 1.2 State of Art 203 2 Methods 203 2.1 Theoretical Framework 204 3 Analysis 209 3.1 Direct Interrogative Sentences in Yiddish 209 3.2 Polish and German Counterparts 212 4 Results 216 4.1 A cp Split in Yiddish in Comparison to Polish and German 216 4.2 Wh-Ex-Situ and Wh-In-Situ in Yiddish in Comparison with German and Polish 226 5 Conclusions 229 7 Yiddish as Donor Language for Polish 232 Michał Gajek 1 Introduction 232 1.1 Study of Yiddish Influence on Polish 232 1.2 Venues of Yiddish Influence on Polish in Contact-Linguistic Terms 234 2 Methodological Issues 238 2.1 Sources and Linguistic Material 238 2.2 Hurdles of Identification 239 3 Yiddish Loanwords in Polish—Integration and Assimilation 244 3.1 Formal Integration 244 3.2 Semantic Integration 247 3.3 Derivation—Development of Word Families 250 3.4 Utterance Modifiers 251 4 Yiddishisms in Polish Vocabulary as Example of Low-Variety Influence 253 5 Conclusions and Desiderata 256 References 257 Index 276

Preface Max Weinreich, the founder of Yiddish linguistic studies, clearly declared Yiddish as a fusion language, i.e. a de facto mixed one. Despite this statement, studies of Yiddish have so far been carried out primarily within the framework of traditional linguistics, based on the assumptions of the Language Tree Model. However, this research has failed to provide satisfactory answers to a number of questions concerning several typological characteristics of the idiom of Eastern European Jews. These distinguish Eastern Yiddish from the members of the Germanic family, and especially from German, its putative genealogical ancestor. It bears noting here that in this volume, we focus exclusively on Eastern Yiddish. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we use the linguonym Yiddish to refer to the historical and contemporary speech forms developed by Eastern European Ashkenazic Jews, as per generally accepted parlance. When discussing the Ashkenazic varieties used in Germany and Western Europe, we use the term Western Yiddish. The peculiarities of Yiddish in comparison to German varieties include grammatical features such as a more elaborate consonant system as opposed to the vowel system, aspectual forms, free word order, or word formation and syntactic patterns. Similarly in semantics, features like the lexically expressed continuum from hypocoristic to augmentative forms or the elaborated conditional mood are of particular interest. It is a linguistic fact that Yiddish shares these and many other elements with the Slavic languages. Conversely, the said characteristics are either absent or only marginally represented in German, including its historical and regional varieties. The matter of the straightforward interlinear translatability of Yiddish sentences into Polish or Ukrainian, both in terms of syntactic and pragmatic equivalence, also merits attention. Therefore, in this volume, we would like to shed new light on the study of the linguistic effects of long-term Jewish-Slavic social and cultural relations using the latest methods of contact linguistics. Moreover, research on the potential influence of the Slavic languages on Yiddish grammar and vocabulary, conducted by many scholars to date, has tended to address separate, selected phenomena. Those studies have been conducted in an “atomistic” manner, that is, without placing their results in the complex network of the language system. The latter consists of lexical, structural, semantic and pragmatic strands, which must be looked at holistically. It is true that in our book too, we limit ourselves to analyzing selected contact-induced effects and processes, illustrating them with empirical exam-

x

preface

ples drawn from contemporary Yiddish. However, contact phenomena such as lexical and structural borrowing, hybridization of vocabulary, introduction and modification of grammatical and semantic categories, as well as changes in sentence and word formation patterns, are shown as interdependent. It is hoped that the mechanisms of language change described in detail here will provide a broader context and allow for a fuller understanding of the role of Slavic languages on the emergence and development of Yiddish as inherently a contact or even mixed language. The research approach developed by contact linguistics over the past decades has produced a new methodological and theoretical apparatus. In our view, its application is more effective than the traditional, diachronic-comparative methods in explaining the systemic and typological convergences and divergences that can be observed between Yiddish and its component languages. The methods of contact linguistics appeal to such universal phenomena as replication, relexification, reanalysis, metatypy, and diffusion. These mechanisms have been described and explained by a number of researchers on the basis of analyses of many contact situations, regardless of the types of languages involved. What is more, the causes of these phenomena are sought in the cognitive basis of natural language processing. The effects of such processes on the language system can lead to far-reaching systemic changes. Sometimes they make it difficult to establish unambiguously the genealogical continuity of certain languages. Such idioms are generally called contact languages. When the origin of individual system elements or categories can be established and when their arrangement into interrelated areas of the language structure is recognized, they are referred to as mixed languages. This term, which once had a negative connotation, is now a neutral typological category, involving both historical and, above all, systemic processes. It is epistemically fascinating to study the mechanisms of the “blending” of linguistic elements and categories from different sources, resulting in the formation of a new language. Moreover, this research deepens our understanding of the processing and social functioning of a natural language under the influence of a different one. Needless to say that the use of the term mixed language in no way questions the autonomous status of a given idiom, neither in the systemic nor in the sociolinguistic sense. Thus, Yiddish is treated here as an autonomous language of the Jewish community that inhabited various parts of East-Central Europe for approximately eight centuries. Before the outbreak of the Second World War, there were nearly 12 million Yiddish speakers worldwide, and about one fourth of them lived on the territories of Poland The research into the history of the Jewish social relations with the Slavic world shows that contact with Polish lasted the longest and was the most

preface

xi

intensive. Unmistakable, idiosyncratic lexical and structural traces of this interaction were documented in Yiddish texts as early as the first decades of the seventeenth century. For this reason, we felt justified in choosing Polish as the model language for the Slavic influence on Yiddish. That is why, almost all language transfers into Yiddish discussed in this book, whether lexical or structural, are illustrated with Polish examples. This is not to say that the phenomena in question necessarily originated in Polish. Establishing their real source would require very detailed diachronic studies. These, in turn, would not guarantee reliable findings, due to the great similarity of the Slavic languages among themselves and the integration processes that took place in Yiddish. Therefore, the examples presented in this book are meant to show cases of linguistic material and pattern transfer from a language that is typologically different from German. In this sense, Polish only represents the group of the Slavic languages that interacted with Yiddish in the long history of the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe. This is reflected in the title of the volume. These vernaculars include, in chronological order, (Old) Czech, Sorbian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian. The monograph at hand is, in a sense, also a part of the debate about the origin and nature of Yiddish that heated up after Paul Wexler (1991) presented his hypothesis about the Slavic origin of the idiom thirty years ago. Although his theory attracted much controversy and criticism, it also raised some important questions. These addressed the diachronic, as well as systemic and typological issues mentioned above. In this light, explaining the causes and mechanisms of the emergence of the far-reaching structural changes observed in the Yiddish system should be considered of primary importance.

Structure of the Volume This volume consists of seven separate chapters by different authors. The first chapter is a catalog and description of the various Slavic influences on Yiddish as presented by Max Weinreich in his monumental History of the Yiddish language. It also includes a critical review of some of his conclusions. The second and longest chapter attempts to set the background for the thesis postulated throughout the book about the mixed nature of Yiddish. This section contains both the contact-linguistic theoretical foundations and the historical and sociolinguistic overview of the Polish-Yiddish relationships. All this forms an epistemic framework for the argument developed throughout the volume.

xii

preface

The following four chapters (3–6) are separate units that deal with different effects of the Slavic influence on various subsystems of Yiddish. They contain descriptions of the mechanisms of contact-induced changes within grammatical and semantic categories (chapter 3), word formation patterns (chapter 4), semantics (chapter 5), and syntactic structures (chapter 6). The processes and their effects corroborated in these chapters provide, in our opinion, arguments supporting the main thesis of the entire volume on the mixed nature of Yiddish. The monograph concludes with a chapter devoted to the impact of Yiddish on the Polish language, with which Yiddish remained in close and long-lasting contact that nevertheless found relatively little recognition in Polish studies. The description of this contact not only confirms the acknowledged principle that languages do not impact each other symmetrically, but also attempts to explain the reasons for this disproportion from sociolinguistic positions. The innovative contribution of this final chapter of the volume is the development of diagnostics for distinguishing between Yiddish and German borrowings, which has been one of the main obstacles in studying the influence of Yiddish on Polish. In addition to extensive example material presented throughout the volume (cf. especially the appendix to chapter 5), some new theoretical (chapters 3 and 7) and methodological approaches (chapters 2, 4, 5, and 6) for the study of Yiddish have been proposed.

Transliteration and Glossing In this volume, we have chosen to use the so-called linguistic transliteration system to record examples derived from Yiddish, rather than the yivo transcription currently in use also in linguistic papers. The yivo transliteration table was originally developed for pedagogical purposes, as an auxiliary tool for English-speaking Yiddish students (Weinreich U. 1949). Conversely, the linguistic transcription and transliteration system, also called philological, was widely acknowledged and used in linguistic papers on Yiddish worldwide until at least the 1960s. The advantage and reason for the popularization of the yivo transcription was the absence of diacritics, which in the early days of digital text processing might have posed a certain technical problem. Today, this problem is no longer relevant and the advantages of the philological transcription are evident. Above all, it better meets the requirement of the adequacy of one character to one sound, set for transliteration systems in general. Furthermore, this transcription is neutral in relation to the various meta-languages of descrip-

preface

xiii

tions and takes users of non- English orthographic systems into consideration. For the sake of consistency, we have also applied this system (with the inclusion of the grapheme ⟨ə⟩ for the Hebrew shwa) to other non-Latin scripts. The equivalence tables translating the philological transliteration into the yivo system can be found among others in Geller & Polit (2008: 13–14). The International Phonetic Alphabet was used for phonetic and phonological transcription. Historical forms were spelled according to standards accepted in the relevant philologies, with respect to the characteristic sounds of past language varieties. This book is amply illustrated with glosses and phrases in all languages relevant to the discussed subjects. Examples that are more complex than an enumeration of lexemes have been numbered and tabularly formatted throughout the volume. Comparative examples that demonstrate structural congruence or the lack thereof have been translated interlineally. As a rule, glossing abbreviations, based on the Leipzig Glossing Rules, were only used when English translation equivalents failed to adequately express all the relevant grammatical categories of the source word. Even then, only those categories not conveyed by the translation were made explicit. Additionally, an effort was made to visually pair together the lexemes which are equivalent in the compared languages. Hence, the gaps in some lines correspond to the elements of a given sentence that do not have surface-level and free exponents in the compared phrase. In some instances, the lack of corresponding units was further underscored by using the null morpheme sign (∅). In some cases, sentences that were highly incongruent with the rest of the example were separated with a horizontal line. Vertical lines were sometimes used to separate columns of short phrases where necessary. Equivalent standard translations were given at the bottom in single quotation marks, unless the given example required them to be positioned differently.

Acknowledgments This volume has been created as a result of work on the research project entitled “Long-Lasting Language Contact and its Lexical and Semantic Outcome Based on the Example of Polish Lexical Borrowings in Yiddish”, carried out at the University of Warsaw between 2017 and 2022, managed by Professor Ewa Geller.* However, the scope and subject matter of this publication far exceed * The project has been funded by the Polish National Science Center (ncn umo-2016/21/B/HS2 /02549). For detailed information s. https://polonjid.wn.uw.edu.pl/?lang=en.

xiv

preface

the objectives originally formulated in that endeavor. Thus, the book is the outcome of long-term research conducted both collectively and individually by its authors, Ewa Geller, Michał Gajek and Agata Reibach, who collaborated on the project. In addition to the project contributors, Professor Anna Pilarski from the University of Szczecin (Poland), author of chapter 6, was invited to collaborate on the monograph. Her unique, generativist perspective on Polish-Yiddish linguistic contact in terms of syntax is an important methodological contribution to the issues discussed in the volume. The research project, which led to the creation of the monograph, would not have been possible without the it support of our invaluable colleagues from the clarin-pl team, above all, Tomasz Naskręt, me, and Professor Maciej Piasecki. In the early stages of work on the monograph, we were assisted by Zuzanna Łapa, ma, another participant in the project, who contributed some inspiring ideas, for which we owe her our sincere thanks. We are grateful to Professor Mariola Jakubowicz of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Professor Mirosław Bańko of the University of Warsaw for consultations on Slavistic matters. Discussions with Professor Yaron Matras from the University of Manchester were helpful in organizing the theoretical concept of the volume. However, the greatest thanks are owed to the earlier scholars of language contact. We have benefited from their analyses and conclusions and were able to broaden not only the horizons of research on Polish-Yiddish contacts, but also the reflection on the functioning of language in general. Needless to say, that the authors alone are responsible for the integrity of their analyses and scientific statements presented in this volume. Ewa Geller, Michał Gajek, Agata Reibach

Illustrations and Tables Illustrations 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

Borrowed Score for Main Equivalent to ltp List 183 Borrowed Score for Synonymous Equivalents to ltp List 183 Distribution Between German, Slavic, and Semitic Elements in Main Equivalent to ltp List 184 Distribution Between German, Slavic, and Semitic Elements in Synonymous Equivalents to ltp List 184 Borrowed Score in ‘The Body’ Semantic Field from Leipzig-Jakarta List of Core Vocabulary (Extensive List) 188 Distribution Between Germanic, Slavic, and Semitic Elements in ‘The Body’ Semantic Field from Leipzig-Jakarta List of Core Vocabulary (Extensive List) 188 Borrowed Score in the ‘The Body’ Semantic Field from Leipzig-Jakarta List of Core Vocabulary (Short List) 189 Descritption of Human Body by Slavic-Derived Lexemes 193

Tables 1

Leipzig-Jakarta List of Basic Vocabulary. Semantic Field of ‘The Body’ in Yiddish 185

Abbreviations Language Names Br. cey. cy. D. E. F. G. H. I. Kn. L. mhg. mp. nhg. oc. op. ou. oy. P. R. S. Sl. T. U. WaY. Y.

Belarussian Central Eastern Yiddish Central Yiddish Dutch English French German Hebrew Italian Knaanic Latin Middle High German Middle Polish New High German Old Czech Old Polish Origin unknown Old Yiddish Polish Russian Spanish Slavic Turkish Ukrainian Warsaw Yiddish Yiddish

Glossing Abbreviations ∅ 1. 2. 3. acc.

null morpheme first person second person third person accusative case

abbreviations adj. art. aux. cmpr. cns. cond. conr. dat. def. der. dim. dir. f. for. fut. gen. imp. imprs. incep. inf. infl. inst. int. loc. m. n. ndef. nmz. nom. npfv. opt. pass. pfv. pl. pos. prep. prf. prs. ptcl. ptcp.

adjective article auxiliary comparative construct state conditional mood connector dative definite derivational morpheme diminutive directional feminine gender formal future tense genitive case imperative impersonal inceptive infinitive inflectional instrumental case intensifier locative case masculine gender neuter gender indefinite nominalizer nominative case imperfective aspect optative passive voice perfective aspect plural possessive preposition perfect present tense particle participle

xvii

xviii rel. rfl. sg. top. voc. v. vbz. ynq.

abbreviations relative reflexive pronoun singular topic vocative verb verbalizer yes-no-question interrogative

Grammatical, Stylistic Qualifiers and Others adj. adv. A.N aug. col. crim. dat. der. dial. dim. hon. hypoc. interj. iron. lit. mat-B matpat-B N. N.gen N.nom pat-B pej. perf. poet. vp

adjective adverb adjectival noun augmentative colloquial criminal dated derogative dialectal dimminutive honorific hypocoristic interjection ironic literal(ly) matter borrowing matter and pattern borrowing noun, nominal noun in genitive case noun in nominative case pattern borrowing pejorative perfective poetic Verbal Phrase

chapter 1

Max Weinreich and Slavic Component of Yiddish Michał Gajek

1

Introduction

Max Weinreich’s “Gešixte fun der jidišer šprax” (1973) or “History of the Yiddish Language” (1980, 2008) was certainly a pioneering work in the field of Yiddish studies. It was the first such a complex and comprehensive scientific description of the history of Yiddish. It presented in detail the languageinternal development against the backdrop of the evolution of Jewish society and culture, as well as the contacts of the Jewish community with its neighboring peoples. As the book was published in Yiddish, it also constituted an important declaration: the Jewish idiom was not a jargon or “broken” German, but a fully developed language capable of telling its own story. However, that meant that the potential readership was relatively limited. That is why, an English translation by Shlomo Noble duly followed in 1980. Nevertheless, it lacked the 750 pages of notes in which M. Weinreich would often provide a discussion of his own statements, express his doubts, and formulate desiderata for further study. It was not until 2008 that the full text of “History of the Yiddish Language” was published in English under the supervision of Paul Glasser. Obviously, the Slavic component in Yiddish is but one of the many facets of the history of the language described by M. Weinreich. Still, both main text and notes include a synthesis of what was learned about the social and cultural background of Slavic-Yiddish language contact, as well as its linguistic results, at the time. That is why the book may still be considered the required reading for anyone who wants to study the subject. Nonetheless, the statements presented therein should not be taken for granted without a proper critical perspective. It must be remembered that M. Weinreich was a Yiddishist not only in the scientific meaning of the word, but also ideologically. The idea of the emancipation of the Jewish people as a modern, enlightened, secular, and Yiddish-speaking nation, settled in the lands that it had inhabited for centuries, permeated his scientific work. It may be considered as an extension of the activities of the Jewish Scientific Institute (yivo) to which Weinreich was greatly committed. yivo, whose many members were scientists, as well as activists, served the Yiddishist nation-building project as much as it

2

gajek

assisted in gathering and dissemination of knowledge (Kuznitz 2014: 11). The same could be said about Weinreich’s Jugendforšung (Youth Study) project— a survey conducted among young Jews to study their “personality”—which, in fact, was a kind of social intervention to promote a particular view of the Jewish nation (Kijek 2011). In hindsight, this also seems to be true about “History of the Yiddish Language”. The aim of Weinreich’s studies on Yiddish was “to use scholarship to raise the social and intellectual prestige of Yiddish and, consequently, of its speakers” (Dawidowicz 1969: 64). Burko (2015) has even argued that M. Weinreich’s book was meant to be the founding myth of the “Yiddish” nation, which would explain its origins and give it a history to rally around and take pride in. Essentially, it was to become the “Bible of modern times”, as it were. How this found expression in “History of the Yiddish Language”, particularly in relation to Slavic influence, is summarized by Woodworth in a critical article: With his 1,000-year history, Weinreich thus removed the East European Jews from both the poor shtetls (the cliché associated with Jewish immigrants to America of the 19th and early 20th century) and their tragic end. Distancing them from their Slavic neighbors, who had little cultural cachet in America, and bypassing the association with Germany, which had become toxic after 1945, he placed their roots in glorious France. woodworth 2010: 112

It is evident that this nation-building effort often clashed with scientific consistency in “History of the Yiddish Language”. Moreover, research on the history of Yiddish has advanced significantly since the book was first published and new determinations and hypotheses have been put forward regarding SlavicYiddish contact. For the above-mentioned reasons, this chapter will recapitulate the information gathered by Weinreich on the Slavic component and place his interpretations of this data in the context of the more recent scholarship. The chaper will be divided into three basic sections concentrating on: 1) the extra-linguistic factors of Slavic-Yiddish language contact, verified critically against other research (cf. also Chapter 2, sections 3–5) 2) the Slavic linguistic elements in Yiddish, and 3) the discussion of the validity of Weinreich’s description.

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

2

3

Max Weinreich on Slavic-Yiddish Language Contact—Attempts at Revision

2.1 The “French” Origin of Yiddish According to M. Weinreich, Yiddish first came to be as a result of the fusion of four languages: Judeo-French and Judeo-Italian (which he collectively referred to as Loez, a Hebrew-origin acronym1 used in Yiddish mostly to designate Latin as the language of Christianity), Hebrew-Aramaic, and German. This process took place around the 9th century in what he called Loter—the new Rhenish homeland of Jews emigrating from France and northern Italy (M. Weinreich 2008: 1–2, 39). According to M. Weinreich, from that time on, Yiddish became a distinct language, which it would have remained even without contact with the Slavic environment. Thus, Yiddish spoken by Jews in the German lands (also referred to by M. Weinreich as Ashkenaz I) developed into the Western Yiddish Dialect. In Eastern Europe, where the majority of German or Ashkenazic Jews would ultimately come to live (thus making it Ashkenaz ii), contact with the Slavic languages led to the emergence of the second main dialect called Eastern Yiddish. Therefore, Slavic influence was a modification of an already existing idiom—an adstratum2—albeit a very substantial one (M. Weinreich 2008: 526). This perspective, now called the Rhine hypothesis, was directly or indirectly challenged on many levels by other scholars. The hypothesis brought forth several implications that had been a point of contention at one time or another: 1) the monogenesis of Yiddish, i.e., the assumption that what was later called Yiddish developed linearly from a single source language created as a result of a fusion of several others, 2) the autonomy of Yiddish from any other language, 3) the mixed or fusion character of Yiddish, 4) the merely adstratal character of its Slavic component. Not all of these facets of the Yiddish history as described by M. Weinreich bear equally on the subject of this chapter, so they will not be discussed in the same detail. However, assumption 1) is of key importance as it is the foundation on which all the others stand. It was challenged gradually by different scholars at different times. Weinreich’s contemporary, Jechiel Bin-Nun (vel Fischer; 1973), did not go against the idea of the monogenesis of Yiddish per se, but he was not as “optimistic” about the age of Yiddish as an independent language. Rather, he wrote about Jüdischdeutsch—Jewish German—that would 1 H. ‫לע״ז‬/laaz, unfolded as lašon-am-zaar ‘language of the foreign nation’. The acronym originated in rabbinic literature. 2 For a full explanation of this and other linguistic terms see Chapter 2, section 2.

4

gajek

have been spoken roughly up to the 13–14th century (Bin-Nun 1973: 38–46). At that point, this Jewish ethnolect became sufficiently different from German to be considered a separate language. Bin-Nun placed its complete emancipation from German influence in the East at the turn of the 15th and 16th century (BinNun 1973: 61–63). Later, in the 1980s and 1990s, a competing hypothesis on the origins of Yiddish—called the Danube hypothesis—was proposed and developed by Faber and King (1984), Katz (1985), King (1992), and Eggers (1998). It posited that Rhineland-Loter was not the cradle of Yiddish and that it had, in fact, diminished with time as the center of Ashkenazic Jewry. Instead, it was the Bavarian and Austrian communities, Regensburg being chief among these, which played first fiddle and the language spoken by these Jews would later develop into Yiddish. There was also a difference of opinion among the proponents of this hypothesis as to the time of the beginnings of Yiddish. Katz continued the “myth” of the 1,000 years of Ashkenazic Jewry, while Eggers (1998) proposed that the birthplace of Yiddish included both Bavaria and Bohemia and that the language first came to be in the 12th to 13th century. This was an important turn from the perspective of the Slavic component, as Eggers’s position essentially allows for the involvement of Czech, or a Jewish ethnoolect thereof, in the origin of Yiddish. Beider (2015: 5–7) seems to underscore the primarily linguistic basis of the Danube hypothesis. Its proponents, similarly to Bin-Nun, have analyzed the prominence of the elements of various German dialects in the system of Yiddish and could argue that the southern Austro-Bavarian ones are represented to a much greater degree than Rhenish. The relatively late polygenesis hypotheses were a complete turnover of Weinreich’s assertions. Paul Wexler’s (1991, 2002) relexification theory was the most radical of those. Basically, it proposed that Yiddish was, in fact, a Slavic language in which nearly all the lexicon was replaced with German material as a result of apparent language shift.3 The theory was illustrated by a substantial amount of linguistic material but the quality of this data and its interpretation was met with severe criticism (cf. Chapter 2, section 4.3). Most recently Alexander Beider (2015) proposed another, less controversial polygenesis hypothesis. He posited that the Jews who came to German lands from France developed their own language out of a conglomerate of different

3 Wexler came to the conclusion that two such relexification events took place in the history of Yiddish. The first one, giving rise to Yiddish, occurred in the 13th century as speakers of Judeo-Sorbian attempted to adopt Judeo-German. The second one further modified the language as the Jews speaking a variety of Kiev-Polissian (an Eastern Slavic dialect still spoken today along the border between Ukraine and Belarus) adopted Yiddish (Wexler 2002: 1–2).

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

5

German dialects they spoke with Franconian being the dominant one. Naturally, Hebrew and Romance elements were also present. This language became Western Yiddish, but its connection to Eastern Yiddish, developed separately in Bohemia and Poland based primarily on local German and Slavic varieties, was not genetic. Rather, the two idioms exerted mutual contact influence. Beider has provided solid arguments for his assertions on polygenesis, especially in the form of an analysis showing that Western and Eastern Yiddish have no elements that can be traced back to a common origin.4 2.2 Role of Slavic Languages in Formation of Yiddish As it can be seen above, the more recent studies of Yiddish history tend to place the beginnings of the language away from Rhineland-Loter and at a later point in time, when the Ashkenazic idiom came in contact with the Slavic tongues. Moreover, this scholarship tends to entertain the possibility of Slavic influence on the birth of Eastern Yiddish. M. Weinreich (1956) did acknowledge and analyze the Slavic component and its possible sources. Indeed, his account of the Slavic, and especially Judeo-Slavic, influence could be said to have been revolutionary at the time. However, it was, ultimately subordinate to his goal of creating the foundational myth of the “Yiddish” nationality. As M. Weinreich (2008: 525) stated, meaningful contact between Yiddish and the Slavic languages was first brought about by the great migration of Jews from the German lands into Slavic territory, which began in the 13th century and lasted into the 16th. Two groups of people encountered there could have been the providers of the Slavic elements taken over by the Yiddish speakers. One was obviously the native Slavic population. The other were the Slavicspeaking Jews referred to as Knaanim.5 The picture of the Knaanic communities, particularly the West Knaanim, which emerges from M. Weinreich’s description is that of non-trivial cultural “presence” that left its mark on the Jewish customs in the surrounding region (Weinreich M. 2008: 82). Nevertheless, he himself judges their linguistic influence on Yiddish to be rather modest. It seems limited to a few words related to Jewish customs, particularly the ritual slaughter (s. section 3.1 in this chapter). On the other hand, according to Weinriech, most Slavic vocabulary can just as easily be explained as borrowings from the co-territorial languages. Nevertheless, external, adstratal Slavic influence is depicted by him as profound and

4 For a detailed discussion of Beider’s assertions s. Chapter 2, sections 3–4. 5 For a detailed and critical discussion of Weinreich’s statements on the Knaanic communities and their languages s. Chapter 2, sections 3–4.

6

gajek

permeating deep into all subsystems of the language: lexicon and phraseology, word formation, syntax, morphology, and phonology. This discrepancy between the “weight” of Knaan and the apparent minuteness of its linguistic influence on Yiddish could perhaps be explained by the relatively small number of Knaanim noted by Weinreich (2008: A71, A136). However, this argument seems not to be convincing, as small, easily dominated populations rarely exert cultural influence on larger and dominant groups. This inconsistency in Weinreich’s narrative prompts questions on the possible size of the Knaanic population and the character and scale of its influence on Yiddish.6 It seems that later scholars do not doubt the existence of a Knaanic substratum in Yiddish, though Bin-Nun (1973) also explicitly admits its existence (s. Chapter 2, sections 3.1 and 4.3). Thus the question is more about the scale of the Knaanic substratum influence. Beider believes that it is primarily West Knaanic that should be considered as the Slavic substratum of Yiddish. Yet the remnants of the Jewish-Slavic language would be mostly lexical and onomastic. According to Beider, grammatical influences, which he considers limited in the grand scheme of things, are a result of contact with Gentile Slavs. Moreover, he concludes that neither the Knaanic substratum, nor the Slavic adstratum, or any other incorporated “stratum” for that matter, breaks the genetic connection of Yiddish to the Germanic family (Beider 2015: 28–37). This statement places Beider’s work within the larger Germanistic approach, prominently represented by Timm (1995, 2005), Neuberg (1999), Aptroot & Gruschka (2010), Fleischer (2013), and others. While relatively recently some of these scholars have acknowledged the existence of Slavic substratal elements in Yiddish, they generally follow the traditional route in explaining the systemic peculiarities of this language. Namely, they identify patterns in German dialects, or other Germanic languages, that indicate a potential for specific internal developments which may yield the structures observable in Yiddish. Hence, they deem postulating Slavic influence as an explanation for these phenomena as unnecessary.7 In this discussion, Wexler (2002) represents the other extreme. He essentially proposes that the grammar of Yiddish is Slavic, while the morphological content it organizes is German.

6 Straten (2011, 2013) has suggested that rapid increases of Ashkenazic populations are consistent with the absorption of another, large group of Jews. Nevertheless, his methodology did not stand up to criticism. The size and rapid growth of Jewish populations in Eastern Europe is still a subject of debate (cf. Polonsky 2010: 113–117). However, these discussions refer mostly to the Early Modern period. 7 For a critique of this approach s. Chapter 2, section 1.2.

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

7

While also stressing the significant role of the Slavic component in the formation of Yiddish, Geller represents a less radical, middle position. She follows the traditional, contact-linguistic outlook. According to it, language shift usually results in substratal grammatical influence in the target language. She has identified several schemes in Yiddish morphological, word-formational, and semantic structures that may be considered Slavic, though covered beneath a layer of Germanic morpho-lexical matter ( e.g. Geller 1999, 2001, 2008a, 2009, as well as section 3.2 in this chapter). What is particularly innovative in her approach is consideration of Germanic structures larger than a word or morpheme as possible paradigmatic replacements for elements of a Slavic morphosyntactic frame (cf. Geller 2009: 65). According to Geller’s approach, in example (1), the analytic predicate hot gehat ‘had’ is treated as one syntactic unit, equivalent to P. miał ‘idem’. (1) Y. Ven er zix hot when he rfl has P. Kiedy się when rfl ‘When he was well.’

vojl well dobrze well

gehat. had miał. had.m

In the Polish sentence, the subject is omitted on the surface, because the verb encodes grammatical information on person, number, and gender. Nevertheless, the subject is present in the subsurface structure. Essentially, what this example shows is that once surface-level exponents are omitted, the underlying structures may be seen as remarkably similar. 2.3

“Separateness, Not Segregation”—Contact with Slavic Majority in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth The kind of influence that we see in the Slavic component of Yiddish was only possible under conditions of intense, direct, and interpersonal contacts. This, as M. Weinreich argued, testifies against the ghettoization of the Jews in Eastern Europe. “Separateness, not segregation” was the norm in Jewish-Slavic relations (M. Weinreich 2008: 534). The Jews were separate due to their religion, culture, and language, but not physical borders. This has been corroborated by modern Polish historians (cf. Zaremska 2010, 2011, Wijaczka 2010). The Jews were prohibited from settling in some cities. Sometimes the Jews would seclude themselves in walled settlements, where, in turn, Christians were forbidden to live. A prime example of this was Kazimierz near Cracow (now a district thereof). Usually, however, the Jewish street or district was not separated in any way from the rest of the town.

8

gajek

The Jews did not assimilate, like large parts of the German burgherdom who were also present in Poland since the 13th century, but they were not closed to Slavic influence either. They were able to speak local dialects in addition to Polish as the state and administrative language, as most of the Jews resided within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A linguistic fact testifying to the strength of Jewish-Slavic contact are the fluid switches between Slavic, Yiddish, and Hebrew elements in Jewish proverbs and (even religious) lyrics: e.g., P./Y. rejdele jak rejdele, abi dobre mejnele ‘be the words what they be, as long as the intent is good’; U./Y. jak jidiš to pojidiš ‘if Jewish, you will go farther (lit. if you ride, you will go farther)’; or R./Y.(< H.) mi piom, mi guljajem veato mejlex xaj vekajem ‘we drink and make merry and you are king eternal’ (Weinreich M. 2008: 535–536).8 This mode of language use, in which elements of more than one code are used deliberately, creatively, and expressively (code switching) is indicative of fluent bilingualism. Another indication of the intensity of Jewish-Slavic contact were cultural loans, such as shared superstitions and folk beliefs that might have originated with either of the two groups. M. Weinreich (2008: 536) stated that elements of Slavic culture penetrated into nearly all facets of Jewish life, including fashion, cuisine, folk tales, and even religious music and synagogue architecture. M. Weinreich mentions several examples of forms of contact between Jews and Slavs that might have contributed to such intimate influences. In the Early Modern Period, the Jews traded regularly with the lower social strata, but also provided services to the nobility. Jewish itinerant traders and craftsmen contributed further to the linguistic exchange. This was especially true for members of the latter group, who would sometimes stay at peasants’ homes for several days, performing simple jobs. Again, some works of later historians not only confirm Weinreich’s statements, but also expand on them. An interesting notion, propagated among others by Haumann (1990), is that of the Jews functioning as middlemen between the diverse social groups and strata of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the early modern period. As (traveling) traders, Jews facilitated communication between the cities and the countryside. They were the carriers of news and knowledge. As agents of landlords, Jews mediated between the nobility and the peasantry. As innkeepers, they interacted with all social strata. This in-between position as a quasi-fourth estate of the realm could have certainly broadened the scope of linguistic interaction with the Gentile society.

8 An article devoted to code switching in Jewish folk songs has recently been published by Verschik (2021).

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

9

Providing goods and services to Gentiles was not the only way to create opportunities for language contact. Hiring non-Jewish servants by Jews was also a common practice. M. Weinreich stated that both Slavic men and women working for Jews were capable of speaking Yiddish to a degree. He underscores the importance of non-Jewish childminders and governesses, who spoke Yiddish with their charges and possibly were the source of many forms of endearment, e.g., personal names, such as Xajimke, Mojšenju, Berčik, and other forms of address, like harcinke ‘love (lit. little heart)’ (cf. P. serdeńko ‘idem’), klejninker/klejničker ‘little one’ (cf. P. maleńki, maluczki ‘idem’), or verbs like šlofinken ‘hypoc. to sleep’ (cf. P. dial. spatuńkać ‘idem’). M. Weinreich also attributes the many Slavic or Slavic-derived Jewish female names like Y. Zlate, Černe, Margoše, and Slove to this avenue of contact (Weinreich M. 2008: 536– 537).9

3

Slavic Elements in Subsystems of Yiddish

First of all, it has to be noted that M. Weinreich often refrained from precisely identifying specific Slavic languages as the sources of given contact phenomena, referring instead to more general notions of the “Slavic elements”, “Slavic influence”, and “Slavic component”.10 Though he described it as desirable to specify source languages wherever possible, he gave three reasons why this is problematic when it comes to Slavic languages: 1) the Jews encountered a number of different Slavic languages in their eastward migration, 2) some elements of these languages are so similar that the distinction cannot be readily made, 3) elements of different Slavic languages became fused into indistinguishable forms as they entered Yiddish (M. Weinreich 2008: 539–540). M. Weinreich does point to the existence of certain distinctive features that allow researchers to identify the etymology of a given word at first glance. For example, the presence of reflexes of nasal vowels clearly indicates Polish origin, as it is the only Slavic language to have retained them in some form, e.g., Y. vonces < P. wąsy [vɔ͜ʊ̃sᵻ] ‘mustache’. Nonetheless, he does seem to suggest that such certainty is the exception rather than the rule. M. Weinreich formulated this statement without providing a systematic test for distinguishing the source

9 10

On the subject of Slavic female names in Yiddish cf. Beider (2001: 33–36 and passim), and Geller (2010b). For this reason, the various Slavic languages that had their impact on Yiddish may confusingly appear as a monolith, especially when set against German, itself being an umbrella term for wildly different varieties, not all of them mutually intelligible.

10

gajek

languages of different Slavisms. It can be postulated that refinement of identification criteria for the Slavic-derived vocabulary is possible through a detailed and diachronic comparative study of the dialects that had influence on Yiddish. For example, Gajek (2013) has attempted to explore possibilities of identifying some Slavisms based on the development of one specific phoneme, the proto-Slavic /ě/, in relevant Slavic idioms. Taking into consideration the later research on historic Yiddish phonology (Jacobs 1990), it has been possible to tentatively narrow down the range of source forms that could have yielded the Y. kvejt ‘flower’, klejt ‘shop’, zejde ‘grandfather’, and mejre ‘a measure (of matzo dough)’ to Old Czech or Kiev-Polissian etymologies. 3.1 Lexicon The Slavic-derived vocabulary is the most vivid sign of contact in Eastern Yiddish. M. Weinreich groups this vocabulary into several chronological layers based on the languages that the Ashkenazic Jews encountered in their eastward migration. The oldest layer is made up of the Knaanic-derived words, which Weinreich describes as borrowings, taken over before the shift to Yiddish, rather than substratum relics. In this group, he especially mentions butchery terms, such as Y. prejdik ‘fore-quarter meat’, zodik ‘hind-quarter meat’, and trejbern ‘to cleanse meat of ritually impure elements’. These words were unlikely to have been borrowed from non-Jews due to their Jewish religious connotations. Y. nebex! ‘poor thing!’ might also belong to this old layer (M. Weinreich 2008: 542–544). Weinreich wrote that all other Slavic-origin words can just as well be explained as borrowings from Gentile Slavs. He considers the earliest of these to be of Old Czech provenance as Bohemia and Moravia were the earliest areas of Ashkenazic settlement in the Slavic territories. Polish borrowings may be taken into consideration from the 13th century onwards. They make up a very considerable part of the Slavic-derived vocabulary in Yiddish, as they kept being taken over into the language throughout the rest of its history in Eastern Europe. The East Slavic words would be the last ones to start entering Yiddish, though their borrowing ran parallel to that of Polonisms. Russian words were the latest in this group, with strong influence starting practically with the partitions of Poland in the last decade of the 18th century. As such, they make up a relatively thin layer of the Slavic-derived vocabulary. An important statement made by Weinreich (2008: 527) concerned his contesting of the stereotypical assignment of the Slavic-origin lexicon to the domains of the familiar, the mundane, and the vulgar. He pointed out that Slavisms were present among religious terms, e.g., Y. praven ‘to perform, observe (rites etc.)’ ~ P. odprawiać ‘idem’, Y. mejre ‘a measure of matzo dough’ ~ P. miara

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

11

‘measure (also a measure of something)’. More importantly, he also asserted the penetration of Slavic lexical elements into such functional areas of the lexicon as the particle inventory (e.g., Y. xoč[be] ‘[al]though, at least’ < P. choć[by] ‘idem’), conjunctions (e.g., Y. [a]xibe ‘unless’ < P. chyba [że] ‘idem’), and prepositions (Y. vedlik ‘according to’ < P. według ‘idem’). Only articles, pronouns and numerals are declared by Weinreich as free of Slavisms, though this is not strictly true if the dialects and colloquial usage are considered. For example, Geller (2008a: 687) has shown hybridization and possibly even replacement among personal pronouns in the Warsaw dialect of Yiddish: a) 1.sg.nom. Y. ix ‘I’ > WaY. jax (cf. P. ja ‘idem’), b) 1.pl.nom. Y. mir ‘we’, > WaY. mije/mi (cf. P. my ‘idem’), c) 2.sg.nom. Y. du ‘you’ > WaY. di/ti (cf. P. ty ‘idem’), d) 3.sg.dat./acc.m. Y. im ‘him’ > WaY. nim (cf. P. inst. nim ‘idem’) e) 3.sg.dat./acc.f. Y. ir ‘her’ > WaY. no (cf. P. Inst. nią ‘idem’).11 Moreover, Geller has noticed a systematic pattern of cliticization of personal pronouns leading to them being facultatively dropped altogether. Thus as far as this part of speech is concerned, Polish influenced Warsaw Yiddish not only in the area of linguistic matter, but systemically as well.12 3.2 Morphology and Word Formation Modification of the grammatical systems as a contact phenomenon may arguably be said to have become the focus of modern contact linguistics. M. Weinreich did note some substantial grammatical features attributable to the Slavic influence. This was rather revolutionary in his time when many linguists still considered grammar to be largely or completely impervious to external modification. A somewhat spectacular example is provided by the so-called aspectoid forms—analytical constructions used to express aspect, a mandatory grammatical category in the Slavic languages, absent in the Germanic ones (Weinreich M. 2008: 528). For example, Y. ix halt baj šrajbn ‘I am writing right now’ roughly represents the imperfective aspect which describes unfinished actions or pro11 12

Examples include some additions by myself. It also should be noted that substantial research has been conducted on the borrowing of operators usually subsumed under the category of discourse markers, i.e., words that have the function of structuring a conversation and guiding the recipient’s interpretation of the message. Discourse markers have been recognized as particularly prone to borrowing into pragmatically dominated languages, i.e., such that are not the default means of communication in the society at large (Matras 2009: 145). Examples from Yiddish include Y. xočbe ‘although, at least’, xibe ‘unless’, abi ‘so long as, provided that’, nu ‘well (sentence-initial)’, take ‘really, indeed, exactly’, ot ‘here, there, just’, and more.

12

gajek

cesses. Conversely, Y. ix hob ongešribn ‘I have written (and it is finished)’— replicates the perfective one, describing completed or finished actions/processes. There are others as well, somewhat resembling aktionsarten, rather than purely aspectual forms (cf. Weinreich M. 2008: A586). They are all semigrammatical, in a sense that they are built regularly according to the same patterns, but are not mandatory. Yiddish still has the aspectually neutral ix šrajb ‘I write’—ix hob gešribn ‘I wrote’. Nevertheless, aspectoid forms represent an entire new category introduced into the grammatical subsystem under the Slavic influence (cf. Chapter 2, section 6). Another noteworthy feature of Yiddish is its heavy borrowing of Slavic wordformational affixes, mostly suffixes, e.g., -eve- in Y. rateven ‘to rescue, save’, šrajbereven ‘to write badly’, -( j)ak- in Y. cvujak ‘double dealer’, or -evat- in Y. tamevater ‘simple-minded, goofy’. On top of that, there is also a deeper, structural layer of the Slavic influence on Yiddish word formation. For example, Y. tam|evat|er is a near morpho-semantic calque of P. głup|k|ow|at| y, with Y. tam and P. głup|ek meaning ‘fool’. However, there are words built entirely of nonSlavic material that follow the Slavic derivational patterns, e.g., Y. unter|kum|en < P. pod|chodź|i|ć ‘to approach’, as opposed to G. unterkommen ‘to fall, fail, go under’.13 M. Weinreich explained the diffusion of this phenomenon as follows: where there was a morpho-sematic congruence between existing Germanic forms and the Slavic ones, such as mhg. der| jagen (Y. der| jogn) ‘to catch up with’, and P. do|gonić ‘idem’, a pattern was created for introducing other calques of Slavic words, e.g., Y. der|grejxn ‘to reach’, < P. do|sięgnąć ‘idem’ or even original Yiddish creations (Weinreich M. 2008: 529–530). M. Weinreich further proposed that families of such prefixed words did not develop in the course of mass calquing of the Slavic forms. Rather, “provocative patterns” came to exist in Yiddish and then were used in independent, internal word formation.14 This may have led to the creation of original Yiddish words, absent from the stock languages. For example, Yiddish has op|šnajd|n

13 14

This meaning is also present in Y. unterkumen, but it is a result of fusion of the German and Slavic-inspired form. Essentially, what Weinreich described here is pattern borrowing (s. Chapter 3, section 2.1)—the function and connectability of a Slavic prefix is transferred to Yiddish and expressed by the translational equivalent of that morpheme deemed closest by the speakers. As will be discussed in section 4 of this chapter, this type of borrowing in principle does not require the preexistence of congruent structures in the source language and recipient language. That being said, it should be noted that in parts of the linguistic territory of Yiddish, local German and Slavic varieties influenced each other, which led to their sharing grammatical and word-formational patterns.

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

13

‘cut off’ < G. ab|schneid|en ‘idem’ or P. od|cin|a|ć ‘idem’ may have contributed to the pattern for Y. op|es|n ‘to eat (to the end)’, op|trink|n ‘to drink (to the end), to drink a sip’, op|dav|nen ‘to finish praying’, and op| fast|n ‘to break a fast’ (Weinreich M. 2008: 530). Though Weinreich did not spell this out explicitly, it must be again concluded from the above that the Slavic influence had modified the system of Yiddish, rather than simply introducing new material. However, the forms quoted above are not necessarily entirely original to Yiddish. Formally, they can all be traced back to Ukrainian. Differences do appear in semantics though: cf. respectively U. vid| jist| y or vid| jid|aty ‘to finish eating, satiate oneself’, vid|pyv|aty or vid|pyt| y ‘to stop drinking, finish drinking, drink a sip’, vid|mol| juv|aty or vid|mol| yty ‘to atone by praying’, and vid|post| yty ‘to atone by fasting’.15 Other systemic morphological changes noted by M. Weinreich include the pattern of reflexive pronoun use, e.g., Y. špiln zix ‘to play’ < P. bawić się ‘idem’ vs G. spielen ‘idem’, šrekn zix/mojre hobn zix ‘to be affraid’ < P. bać się ‘idem’ vs G. Angst haben ‘idem’. This pattern seems distinctly Polish. For example, Russian has igrat’ ‘to play’, while, according to Weinreich, using this verb reflexively as R. igrat’ sja was a common error of Yiddish-Russian bilinguals (Weinreich M. 2008: 532, A589). Finally, Weinreich points to the Yiddish two-step pattern of diminutive formation, clearly influenced by the Slavic languages, cf. G. Tisch ‘table’—Tischlein ‘little table’, Y. tiš ‘table’—tišl ‘little table’—tišele ‘very little table’, and P. stół ‘table’—stolik ‘little table’—stoliczek ‘very little table’ (Weinreich M. 2008: 531– 532).16 Most of the aforementioned Slavic-derived features concern the verbal subsystem of Yiddish grammar. As can be seen, Weinreich seems to have analyzed them in isolation and as such, they do not seem overwhelming. However, Geller (1999) has more recently attempted to identify systemic patterns attributable to the Slavic influence in the verbal grammar. She has been able to enumerate several more phenomena that, taken together, paint a different picture of the Yiddish Tense-Aspect-Mood-system, at least in the Polish dialect thereof:

15

16

It is symptomatic that the meanings of these verbs differ most where religious matters are concerned. Particularly the subject of sin and atonement was interpreted and dealt with differently in Christianity and Judaism. Nevertheless, theological differences were likely secondary to the strong taboos existing among Christians and Jews in connection with each others’ beliefs. Perhaps this is why only the word formation pattern was taken over from U. vidmolyty and vidpostyty. For more on this subject s. Chapter 2, section 6.4.4.

14

gajek

1) 2)

Dropping the personal pronoun serving as the subject of the verb, Loss of the simple past tense in favor of a single analytic form that later developed towards a synthetic structure—a process paralleled in Polish, e.g., Y. bist geforn vs op. jeś jechał ‘you rode/drove’ > Y. col. geforn ‘idem’ vs P. jechałeś ‘idem’, 3) The pluperfect tense built with the addition of a second auxiliary which, unlike in German, may either be a form of Y. hobn ‘to have’ or Y. zajn ‘to be’ e.g., Y. host gehat/geven gebojt ‘you had built’ < Y. host gebojt ‘you built’, Y. host geven gekumen/bist gehat gekumen ‘you had come’ < Y. bist gekumen ‘you came’,17 4) Preference for the analytical form of the future tense, e.g., Y. vest bojen ‘you will be building’ ~ P. będziesz budować ‘idem’, whereas German also has the option to use present tense forms to describe future events, 5) Strong marginalization of the future perfect tense, 6) Hybrid structures within the imperative paradigm, e.g., the 1.imp auxiliary Y. lomir < G. lassen ‘let’ + wir ‘we’ (E. let’s), as in Y. lomir onhejbn ‘let’s begin,’ may have been built based on the Polish use of the pronoun my ‘we’ as a clitic quasi-suffix, e.g., zacznij|my ‘let us begin’, 7) Aspectoid forms as a rendition of the Slavic category of aspect, also based formally on the Slavic patterns, e.g., Y. gebn a tojx ‘to make a dive’ < P. dać nura ‘col. idem’. These observations by Geller have not been yet substantiated by extensive research. They represent a proposal or a hypothesis, albeit a tantalizing one. They show namely that aspectoid forms mentioned by Weinreich may only be the tip of the iceberg of the Slavic structural influence in one of the most important components of every grammatical system—the predication.18 3.3 Syntax First of all, M. Weinreich (2008: 532) postulated that the simplified structure of the Yiddish sentence (sic), as compared with the German one, may be 17

18

Geller (1999: 77) explains these forms, and the confusion in the use of have and be as auxiliaries, as a result of the hybridization of several Polish patterns. These are: 1) historical P. conditional miałeś był przyjechać ‘you were supposed to come, lit. had was to come’ (cf. Y. host geven kumen ‘idem’), 2) P. pluperfect przyjechałeś był ‘you had come’ (cf. Y. host geven gekumen ‘you had come, lit. have been come’) and 3) historical P. resultative miałeś zbudowane ‘you had it built, lit. had built’ (cf. Y. host gehat gebojt ‘you had built, lit. have had built’). In modern Polish these forms are becoming outdated but they were a salient part of the literary style up to the 20th century. For more on the Slavic influences within the tense-aspect-mood-system of Yiddish viewed in such holistic manner s. Chapter 2, section 6.3.2.3.

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

15

attributable to the Slavic influence, particularly when it comes to the positioning of the verb, which is never moved to the sentence-final position. However, Weinreich did call for more thorough research on the subject, especially because Yiddish syntax should rather be compared to Middle High German than Modern German. Despite this desideratum of a comparative study, Weinreich has enumerated several syntactic peculiarities of Yiddish derived from the Slavic languages. There are specific Yiddish multiword expressions that calque the Slavic ones to a degree that makes them completely ungrammatical from the point of view of German. Examples include Y. vos a mol mer ‘ever more’ < P. co raz więcej ‘idem’, vi cum bestn ‘as best as possible’ < P. jak najlepiej ‘idem’, and nit cu derlajdn ‘unbearable’ < P. nie do ścierpienia ‘idem’. (2) Y. vos a mol mer what a instance more P. co raz więcej what19 instance more G. immer always ‘ever more’

mehr more

Still these are lexicalized idioms and not grammatical constructions. An example of a regular, distinctly non-German structure are statements of the type Y. ix bin a kranker ‘I am sick’. In them, the adjective is nominalized in order to inflectionally express the grammatical agreement, as opposed to G. ich bin krank where it is uninflected (cf. Chapter 3, section 4.3.4). When German typically resorts to composition, Yiddish often utilizes an attributive adjective structure, typical for the Slavic languages, such as Polish. For example, the description of a ‘tailor’s bill’ is formulated as šnajderšer hešbm in Yiddish and rachunek krawiecki in Polish, but Schneiderrechung in German (cf. Chapter 4). Compositional constructions are also present in Yiddish, e.g., šnajderjung ‘tailor’s apprentice,’ but to a lesser degree than in German. In this 19

In this example, P. co stands in its specialized meaning of ‘each, every’ (cf. P. co drugi ‘every second one’, co jeden to lepszy ‘iron. each better than the previous one’), however, its basic translation equivalent is Y. vos ‘what’. The word also replicates the function of P. co in other idioms, like Y. male vos ‘nearly’ < P. mało co ‘idem’, Y. bile vos ‘any old thing’ < P. byle co ‘idem’. It also regularly serves as a relative conjunction, just as in colloquial Polish (cf. Chapter 2, section 6.3.2.2). These facts indicate that we may, in fact, be dealing with a relexified operator here.

16

gajek

context, the question of noun modification in Yiddish must also be mentioned. In order to accomplish this task, both strategies exemplified above, i.e., the use of attributive adjectives and compounding, are used. There is also a third one, which resembles the Hebrew construct state forms, cf. Y. lošn-kojdeš vs H. leshon hakodesh ‘holy language, lit. language of holiness’. The scheme was prolific in Yiddish as it produced such non-Hebrew forms as Y. mit štot ‘downtown, lit. middle (of the) city’, onhejb jor ‘beginning (of the) year’, and etc. This phenomenon was not discussed by Weinreich in connection with the Slavic influence, as back then and now most scholars regard such constructions as a part of the Hebrew component. Weinreich only mentioned the possibility of convergence between German (e.g., ein Leib Brot ‘a loaf [of] bread’), Hebrew (e.g., kikar lehem ‘idem’), and Slavic (e.g., P. bochenek chleba ‘idem’) partitive structures. Ultimately, he deemed the genealogy of those structures unclear (Weinreich M. 2008: 618). (3) Y. a a P.

lajb loaf bochenek loaf G. ein Leib a loaf H. kikar loaf.pos ‘a loaf of bread’

brojt bread chleba bread.gen Brot bread lehem bread

(4) Y. mit štot middle city P. środek miasta middle city.gen G. Stadtmitte city.middle ‘city center, downtown’ In German, these structures are limited to the partitive function. With that in mind, Reibach (Chapter 4) seeks to find a pattern of change in a whole subsystem of Yiddish grammar. She postulates a systemic development from a synthetic, compounding strategy derived from German to the analytical one derived from the Slavic languages. Another Slavic-derived syntactic feature is the “retrograde usage of the personal pronoun in the subordinate clause”, (Weinreich M. 2008: 532) as in Y. der

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

17

menč vos im kenen ale ‘the person whom everyone knows’. Weinreich attributes this construction to the Ukrainian pattern ščo joho ‘lit. that him’, although an analogical form exists in substandard Polish (s. example (5)). That being said, Weinreich does not exclude convergence with a similar Hebrew construction, e.g., H. haiš ašer rainu oto ‘the man whom we saw’ (Weinreich M. 2008: A589). (5) Y. Der menč vos im the human what.rel him P. Człowiek co go human what.rel him ‘The person whom everyone knows.’

kenen know.3.pl znają know.3.pl

ale. all wszyscy. all.m

Yiddish uses the preposition Y. fun ‘of, from’ in comparative phrases, e.g., Y. er iz grezer fun mir ‘he is taller than me’ < P. jest większy ode mnie ‘idem’ vs G. er ist größer als ich ‘idem’. Here too there is a congruent Hebrew pattern: H. gadol mimeni ‘lit. taller of me’. (6) Y. Er he P. (On) (he)

iz is Jest is

grezer bigger wyższy higher.m

fun from/of ode from

G. Er ist größer als he is bigger as ‘He is taller than me.’

mir. me.dat mnie. me.acc ich. I

The double negation of the type Y. ix hob nit gezen kejnem ‘lit. I have not seen nobody’ may be derived from Slavic constructions, such as P. nie widziałem nikogo ‘idem’. (7) Y. Ix hob nit I have not P. ( Ja) Nie (I) not

gezen seen widziałem saw.1.m

G. Ich habe niemanden gesehen. I have noone.acc seen ‘I have not seen anyone.’

kejnem. none.acc.m nikogo. noone.acc

18

gajek

Finally, the use of an infinitive verb in the sentence-initial position for emphasis clearly resembles Polish structures, e.g., Y. esn hot er jo gegesn, nor gebenčt hot er ništ < P. jeść to jadł, tylko nie dziękczynił ‘oh, eat he did, but he did not say grace’ (Weinreich M. 2008: 615). (8)

Y. Esn hot er jo eat.inf has he ptcl P. Zjeść to eat.inf.pfv ptcl

gegesn, eaten zjadł, ate.sg.m.pfv

nor only tylko only

gebenčt blessed nie no

hot er ništ. has he not dziękczynił. thank.made.3.sg.m

G. Gegessen hat er schon, bloß dankgesagt hat er nicht. eaten has he ptcl only thank.said has he not ‘Oh, eat he did, but he did not say grace’.

3.4 Phonology M. Weinreich identified several phonological and phonetic characteristics of Yiddish as Slavic-derived. He discussed some possible innovations in the phonemic (consonantal) repertoire of Yiddish (Weinreich M. 2008: 533–534). First of all, he mentioned the palatalized consonants—a trait characteristic of, but not unique to, the Slavic languages. He described these consonants as phonemes, though the vocabulary he quoted in the examples does not constitute minimal pairs in the strict sense of the term: Y. kljamke /klʲamkɛ/20 ‘door handle’ vs Y. klapn /kʟapn̩ / ‘to strike’, Y. mamenju /mamɛnʲu/ ‘mommy’ vs Y. mame, nu … /mamɛ nu/ ‘well, mom …’, Y. tjoxken /tʲɔxkɛn/ ˈto throbˈ vs Y. (in) tox ken /tɔx kɛn/ ‘essentially it is possible’. However, he did quote more convincing examples in other contexts, e.g., Y. knaker /knakɛʀ/ ‘big shot’ vs Y. knjaker /knʲakɛʀ/ ‘iron. big shot’, though the semantic difference introduced here by the phonemic alternation is minimal. Palatalized consonants were an internalized feature of Yiddish, as they spread to the vocabulary stemming from the non-Slavic components, e.g., Y. Njome /nʲɔmɛ/ ‘hypoc. Benjamin’, šnjur /ʃnʲuʀ/ ‘daughter in law’ (< mhg. snu(o)r ‘idem’). At the same time, M. Weinreich stated that in the German-component words, palatalized consonants are highly regional. Palatalized consonants also appear as allophonic variants in certain positions, particularly before /i/, e.g., Y. dir [dʲiʀ] ‘you (2.sg.dat)’, tir [tʲiʀ] ‘door’, zibn [zʲibn̩ ] ‘seven’, and sibe [sʲibɛ] ‘cause’. M. Weinreich also acknowledged the existence of non-phonemic palatalized post-alveolars [d͜ʒʲ, t͜ʃ ʲ, ʒʲ, ʃ ʲ] (M. Wein-

20

Phonological and phonetic transcriptions by myself.

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

19

reich 2008: A590). Thus, though M. Weinreich does not state it, it might be inferred that palatalization has been adopted in Yiddish as a phonotactic rule. M. Weinreich argued that integration of palatalized consonants into the phonemic repertoire of Yiddish is a rather late phenomenon. Namely, he stated that in place names, such as Y. Modlin and Gostinin, which can be dated to the Middle-Yiddish period or earlier, the consonants /l/ and /n/ in the final syllable were unpalatalized. Still a question must be posed whether such precise phonetic characteristics could be inferred with any certainty from the period texts due to their “fuzzy” orthographic notation of vowels. Conversely, Polish palatal consonants /ɕ, ʑ, t͜ɕ, d͜ʑ/ were apparently not adopted in Yiddish. They were universally replaced by their post-alveolar equivalents /ʃ, ʒ, t͜ʃ, d͜ʒ/, e.g. Y. džad /d͜ʒat/ ‘(old) beggar’ < P. dziad /d͜ʑat/ ‘idem’.21 According to M. Weinreich, the consonants /ʒ/ and /t͜ʃ/, highly frequent in the Slavic languages, were present in Yiddish prior to contact with the Slavs. Therefore, these sounds would not have been a Slavic-derived innovation, but their frequency had markedly increased. On the other hand, the typically Slavic consonant cluster /ʃt͜ʃ/, distinctly alien to German phonotactics, only rarely occurred in Yiddish and was limited to Slavic loanwords, e.g., Y. ščav /ʃt͜ʃaf/ ‘sorrel’ < P. szczaw ‘idem’. There was a tendency to replace the cluster with /s/, /st/ or /ʃt/, as exemplified by place names: Y. Gostevic < P. Goszczewice, Y. Štercev < P. Szczerców.22 Further minor innovations include the phonologization of the velar fricative /x/ and the proliferation of voiceless /s/ in word onset. Another phonological change that M. Weinreich attributes to the Slavic, specifically Polish, influence was the dialectal reduction of the sibilant inventory by excluding post-alveolars (/ʃ, ʒ, t͜ʃ, d͜ʒ/) and replacing them with their dental equivalents (/s, z, t͜s, d͜z/). In Polish linguistics, this phenomenon is 21

22

However, palatal consonants can be discerned within Polonisms in some eydes recordings, so they were apparently pronounceable to at least some Yiddish speakers. It should also be noted that Yiddish developed a full paradigm of voiced and voiceless sybilants that matched the Polish one except for the palatals, i.e., [s, ʃ, t͜s, t͜ʃ ] vs [z, ʒ, d͜z, d͜ʒ]. Cf. minimal pairs such as Y. ganc ‘entirely’ and gandz ‘goose’. By contrast, in German the system of sybilants is asymmetrical, i.e. [s, ʃ, t͜s, t͜ʃ ] vs [z, ʒ]. Weinreich (2008: A593-A594) rejected the notion that Yiddish place names in Poland were derived from German. Nonetheless, his linguistic arguments do not sound convincing. The fact that these names display Yiddish dialectal vocalic shifts seems inconsequential, as phonological developments encompass all of the German-component vocabulary. If some toponyms had been a part of that component, they would have undergone the same changes as the appellatives. Regarding the vowel reduction in Y. Kroke ‘Cracow’, it is explainable by the weakening of the final, unaccented diphthong in the postulated original German form of G. Krakau /kʀaːka͜ʊ̯/ or any of its historical dialectal variants. It would be more problematic to explain the elision of the word-final consonant of P. Kraków /krakuf/.

20

gajek

called mazuration,23 in Yiddish studies—šabesdiker lošn. This phonological peculiarity was considered substandard by both language communities and thus became regressive. In Yiddish, šabesdiker lošn was territorially limited to the north-eastern dialectal region. M. Weinreich did not categorically exclude other possible origins of the phenomenon, but he considered his son Uriel’s explanation to be the most plausible one. U. Weinreich (1958) argued that šabesdiker lošn originated in Polish territory among the Jews who were in contact with Polish dialects exhibiting mazuration. Those Jews would later migrate east, while their mode of speaking was eradicated in Poland by the influence of fresh immigrants from the western parts of the country. Just as in Polish, the resistance to šabesdiker lošn as a substandard characteristic in Yiddish resulted in a number of hypercorrect forms. Hypercorrectness influenced not only the Slavic-derived words, such as Y. lejče ‘reins’ < P. lejce ‘idem’, but also Germanic (Y. geč ‘idol’ < G. Götze ‘idem’) and Semitic (Y. Iče, a diminuntive of Y. Jichok ‘Isaac’) forms.

4

Discussion and Conclusions

In appraising the epistemic value of M. Weinreich’s “History of the Yiddish Language” for discussions of the Slavic component of Yiddish, two factors have to be taken into consideration. Firstly, Weinreich was a meticulous scholar. The basic information on the extra- and intralinguistic aspects of Slavic-Yiddish language contact constitutes a valuable summary of knowledge on the subject available in his time. Secondly, however, M. Weinreich was an ideological Yiddishist, so his interpretation of this information should be viewed critically. Certainly, Weinreich’s overview of the extralinguistic contact situation is a subject of his particular Yiddishist narrative—one that seems to become increasingly doubtful as research on the subject progresses. The more recent literature has moved the beginnings of Eastern Yiddish from the 10th to around the 14th to 15th century. The birthplace of the language has also shifted from the Franco-Italian-German border to Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland. Finally, it is no longer certain, if Western and Eastern Yiddish can actually be treated as dialects of the same language. Until these issues are more firmly decided by Yiddish linguists and historians, researchers essentially face a choice between 23

P. mazurzenie, named after the province of Mazovia in Poland, where the inhabitants spoke in this fashion. Historically, this dialectal feature was also present in other Polish territories.

max weinreich and slavic component of yiddish

21

two parallel universes—one in which Yiddish came into existence in the West at the beginning of the first millennium, and the other one in which this idiom was born in the East a few centuries later. What is really valuable is Weinreich’s spotlight on the Knaanic culture and language—a subject that even today seems to be little known outside the circle of specialists. However, an apparent inconsequence can be seen in his description of the development and vitality of the Knaanic linguistic community. According to M. Weinreich, it had only miniscule influence on Yiddish. Nevertheless, the Knaanim seem to have resisted assimilation into the Ashkenazic culture for about two centuries. Where Weinreich was reluctant to even use the word substratum regarding the Knaanic language, the more recent scholarship seems to acknowledge its existence in the fabric of Yiddish, regardless if the idiom is viewed as genetically Germanic, mixed, or even Slavic. Dispelling the ghetto myth is another significant contribution that “History of the Yiddish Language” has made to the description of Slavic-Yiddish contact. Weinreich has argued that the Jews in Eastern Europe were not isolated. Their relationship with the Slavic milieu emerges as one that even possessed a degree of intimacy: shared cultural tropes, superstitions and customs, the presence of Slavic childminders, the command of the Slavic languages that allowed for code switching, and linguistically mixed folk and even religious songs. What Weinreich’s description of this relationship does not provide is a comprehensive overview of the long-lasting and diverse Slavic-Jewish contacts. This is understandable, given that his book is primarily linguistic. The reader is rather confronted with a few exemplary “images” from a bigger picture, chosen as arguments to prove a point. A more systematic, chronological description of Polish-Jewish relations, grounded in contact-linguistic theory and based on the more up-to-date historical literature (Haumann 1990, Hundert 2004, Polonsky 2010), is offered in this volume (Chapter 2, sections 3–5), as well as my dissertation (Gajek 2019). A thorough, in-depth analysis, encompassing other Slavic linguistic territories, is still a desideratum though. In the area of strictly linguistic matters, “History of the Yiddish Language” adequately shows specific areas of the system of Yiddish affected by contact with the Slavic languages. What the book does not confront, based on the initial assumptions on the origin of Yiddish, is the question whether these elements are actually interconnected, effectively reshaping the language in a typological manner. There is a theory in contact linguistics, advanced among others by McConvell and Meakins (2005: 14), that language shift actually comes down to the replication of the target-language Tense-Aspect-Mood system. In this context, Geller’s hypothesis on the systematic Slavization of Yiddish verbal grammar is particularly interesting. Her more holistic argumentation paints a

22

gajek

picture of a language stuck half-way between Slavic and German verbal systems, indicating a possible partial shift.24 Besides this major issue, one of Weinreich’s statements seems to impose artificial limitations on the transfer of the Slavic elements. Specifically, it is his postulated condition that morpho-semantic congruence between German and Slavic prefixed verbs had opened the way for a Slavic pattern of prefix use to enter Yiddish. In their foundation-setting work, contact-linguistic theorists Thomason & Kaufman (1988) argued against postulating such rules for borrowing or other contact phenomena, but operating instead with tendencies and probabilities. The importation of Slavic prefix functions into Yiddish may be due to simple calquing or relexification (s. Chapter 2, section 2.5). There is no reason why German patterns would need to be taken into account where pragmatic pressure and prestige of languages, such as Polish, may have instigated borrowing regardless of systemic considerations. Then there is also a possibility of substratal influence, which typically leads to pattern transfer with less change in surface matter. This option is reinforced by the fact that some categories, such as augmentation, are expressed exclusively with Slavic-derived prefixes (cf. Chapter 2, section 6.4.3). Finally, there are factors, such as phonetic similarity as in the prefix Y. op- and P. ob- , e.g. Y. objaven ‘to reveal’, that might also have favored the replication of Slavic prefix functions. Nevertheless, regardless of this critique, M. Weinreich’s “History of the Yiddish Language” offers a systematic overview of the lexical, morphological, syntactic, and phonological Slavic influences in Yiddish. This still makes this book the “go to” reference for all scholars studying the subject. The results of Weinreich’s study offer material that can contribute to new conclusions if analyzed in a broader scope using the still evolving methods of contact linguistics. The volume at hand makes a small contribution to the realization of this desideratum. Particularly the following chapter introduces the contact-linguistic perspective on the study of Yiddish. The others pick up, verify, and expand subjects that were only sketched by Weinreich or they add new perspectives. 24

Her proposal is further elaborated on in Chapter 2, section 6.

chapter 2

Yiddish in the Framework of the Mixed Language Debate Ewa Geller and Michał Gajek

1

Introduction

1.1 Divergence vs Convergence Approach in Language Development Language contact has been taking place since people began to use language for intergroup communication. Scientific interest in this phenomenon, although not always referred to by the same term, emerged with the development of comparative linguistics in the second half of the 19th century. The first work in this area was undertaken by German linguist Hugo Schuchardt, co-author of the wave theory (G. Wellentheorie), founded on the observation of the mutual influence of languages in contact.1 Schuchardt strived for the recognition of the concept of a mixed language (G. Mischsprache) as a neutral term and its introduction into comparative studies on an equal footing. He was revolutionary in his time in asserting that all languages are in fact mixed to a greater or lesser degree. However, the notion of a mixed language, loaded with pejorative connotations and synonymous with a (colonial) jargon, was not conducive to spreading Schuchardt’s views at the time when purist attitudes towards national languages were gaining strength (Hurch 2009). His research approach highlighted the phenomenon of convergence resulting directly from language contact. More in line with the times, the Language Tree Model (G. Stammbaumtheorie), promulgated2 two decades earlier and based on divergence processes, 1 Cf. Schuchardt (1884: 5) “… ‘there is no completely unmixed language’. If everywhere in the intimate interaction of groups of people speaking different languages, the languages also have an effect on one another, then conversely, where a physical crossing, which presupposes the most intimate interaction, is proven, a crossing of the languages can also be assumed.” [Translated from German by the authors, as all following translations.] Original: “… ‘es gibt keine völlig ungemischte Sprache’. Wenn überall bei innigem Verkehr verschiedensprachiger Menschengruppen auch die Sprachen aufeinander wirken, so wird umgekehrt da wo eine physische Kreuzung, die ja den allerinnigsten Verkehr voraussetzt, nachgewiesen ist, auch eine Kreuzung der Sprachen sich vermuthen lassen.” 2 By another German linguist August Schleicher (1861/62).

24

geller and gajek

dominated research of the “genetic” origin of languages for decades to come. The idea determined the view of linguistic changes as internal mutations rather than external influences. The mid-twentieth century brought about the spread of professional bilingualism (e.g., in international economic and military cooperation and foreign languages teacher training). It was then that the influence of one’s mother tongue on an acquired foreign language began to be studied more closely in order to minimize interference. The bilingual individuals came to be the focus of interest and were recognized as the direct locus of such language contact. Namely, they were able to transfer features between systems in the process of transition from one language or linguistic variant to another (U. Weinreich 91979: 1). This paved the way for broader research on language convergence, subsequently also encompassing entire linguistic communities, both in synchronic and diachronic aspects, ultimately leading to the development of modern contact linguistics. 1.2 Place of Yiddish3 in Contact Linguistics It is no coincidence that prominent Yiddishist Uriel Weinreich became the founder of modern contact research. His groundbreaking work “Languages in Contact” (1953) is based primarily on a study of the linguistic situation in multilingual Switzerland. Nevertheless, his own experience with individual multilingualism and his study of Yiddish4 were certainly not irrelevant to the theses put forward in his monograph. The book has remained canonical to this day. In his work, the author repeatedly cites examples from Yiddish and also positions the language itself as an ideal research field for contact phenomena (U. Weinreich 91979: 113–114).5 Uriel’s father Max Weinreich, author of a later study on the history of the Yiddish language who is regarded as the founder of scientific Yiddish studies, points to the contact nature of many structural and lexical innovations in Yid-

3 If not specified otherwise, the term Yiddish referrers to Eastern Yiddish from which modern Yiddish developed. 4 As of 1952, Uriel Weinreich held the chair of Yiddish Language, Culture, and Literature at Columbia University in New York. Cf. also Prince (2001: 263) “I do not believe it is a coincidence that Uriel Weinreich was both a Yiddishist and a theorist on contact phenomena!” 5 Cf. “A language which has, in the course of its history, experienced particularly multifarious and intimate contacts with others is Yiddish. The Yiddish language grew up on German dialect territory. One branch of it matured in Germany proper, a larger one in a Slavic environment […] In the Yiddish field it is therefore possible to study the problem of congruence or non-congruence of structural isoglosses in co-territorial languages on a grand scale.” U. Weinreich (91979: 113–114).

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

25

dish (cf. Chapter 1). Max Weinreich avoided calling (Eastern) Yiddish a mixed language, because of the reputation of the term itself, which he understood as carelessly and arbitrarily macaronic speech. However, his definition and use of the term fusion language in its place clearly indicate that as an excellent linguist, he recognized what can now be called the mixed nature of Yiddish.6 The term component language (G. Komponentensprache), derived from Max Weinreich’s study of Yiddish, has, in fact, entered circulation in Yiddish linguistics. The notion became both explanation of historical processes and indispensable characteristic of contemporary Yiddish with its still easily identifiable linguistic elements that belong to Germanic, Slavic, and Semitic “components”. Despite Weinreich’s clear declaration of the fusion or, de facto, a mixed character of Yiddish, the study of this language, shaped by centuries of intense contact with its Slavic surroundings, is still dominated by an approach that rigidly links its genealogy and typology to the Language Tree Model (Beider 2013). This attitude may find its justification in the same failure that Schuchardt suffered in postulating a contact approach to language change. Such an approach has persisted to this day in the Germano-centric tradition of Yiddish studies which, like historical linguistics as a whole, has favored the divergence approach for decades.7 Paul Wexler (1987, 1991, 1993, 2002) introduced to Yiddish studies such new concepts and terms as language shift and relexification, attempting to describe the historical processes leading to the emergence and formation of Eastern Yiddish. Yet his reasoning and proposed hypotheses concerning both the origins of the language and its typological affiliation proved to be too radical and implausible so they were rejected in their entirety. This controversy cast a shadow over the use of contact-linguistic methodology in Yiddish studies for more than a decade. In his comprehensive monograph on Yiddish history and grammar, Jacobs (2005: 9–13) stressed the differences between the divergence and convergence approach to the develpment of the language. He postulated a change in meth6 Cf. Weinreich M. (2008: 29): “What is specific for the Yiddish language […] is its fusion character. Yiddish is therefore called a fusion language. Four components entered into this fusion: Hebrew, Loez, German, and Slavic.” Weinreich also elaborates on the topic of fusion in a long footnote to this paragraph (2008: A20), stating as follows: “Fusion language: in the older linguistic literature, the terms used were ‘mixed language’ or ‘hybrid language’. I have introduced ‘fusion language’. ‘Mixed language’ suggests conscious, mostly jocose macaronics....” 7 Cf. In his introduction to the first edition of Uriel Weinreich’s “Languages in Contact” (1953), Andre Martinet said: “Despite the efforts of several great scholars such as Hugo Schuchardt, linguistic research has so far favored the study of divergence at the expense of convergence. The time has come to restore the proper balance.” (Weinreich U. 91979: viii).

26

geller and gajek

odology in the direction of contact linguistics. Some attempts to apply the contact approach were also made earlier by researchers coming from the Germanist tradition, e.g., Weissberg (1988), Geller (1994), Eggers (1998), and Krogh (2001). Eggers is notable for directly addressing the subject of language mixing in Yiddish with a special emphasis on the Slavic (Bohemian) component. However, these scattered studies did not fundamentally affect the dominant trend associated with the traditional genealogical approach in research on the origins and development of the Yiddish language system. Yiddish eventually entered the general field of contact linguistics as a transparent example of contact-induced changes, which was first pointed out by the already mentioned founder of this discipline, Uriel Weinreich (see footnote 4). Almost every textbook on language contact and many papers published in the last thirty years have featured Yiddish examples illustrating various contact phenomena, both the sociolinguistic and systemic ones (e.g., Thomason & Kaufman 1988, Prince 1998a, 1998b, 2001, Winford 2003, Ross 2007, Hickey 2013, Heine & Nomachi 2013, and Auwera and Gybels 2013).8 Still, the ambivalent attitude of some authors might be surprising. On one hand, they use Yiddish as a model example of the profound contact-induced changes. On the other hand, they are reluctant to consider Yiddish as a full-fledged contact language in the narrow sense of this term, i.e., as one that emerged in contact (e.g. Reershemius 2007, Johanson 2013: 277). Prince (2001) was apparently the first researcher to use the term contact language in a broad sense in relation to Yiddish in a publication on creolization and contact. Although she cites many interesting phenomena, she sometimes seeks to explain them through unnecessarily complicated and highly speculative mechanisms and marginal contacts. Whereas the causes of said phenomena can be easily derived from the languages with which Yiddish has been in the longest and strongest contact (cf. sections 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.3). Therefore, the title of Prince’s article promises more than it actually delivers to the argument for the contact character of Yiddish. The descriptions provided in other, more recent articles on grammatical borrowing in Yiddish (e.g., Reershemius 2007: 256, Hansen and Birzer 2012, Fleischer 2013, and Neuberg 2016) are also rather one-sided. They do not explore the less evident mechanisms of introduction and diffusion of contact-induced innovations, such as relexification, resemantization, matter and pattern replication, and metatypy. The conclusions formulated by many researchers sup-

8 Also, Perlmutter (1988) used examples from Yiddish to support the Split Morphology Hypothesis.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

27

port strong opinions about the monogenesis of Yiddish, encompassing both its Western and Eastern branches, and claim internal causes of significant language changes. At best, the authors recommend more in-depth research of historical and geographical German dialects to look for similar, but less evident linguistic mutations that may have led to the split of the two varieties of Yiddish. Relatively recently Beider (2015) has presented the most comprehensive and thorough treatise to date on historical language contact in the emergence of the two great branches of Yiddish. Some of his insights and conclusions will be discussed in more detail in other sections of this chapter. Here only the fact that the author attempts to combine a divergence and convergence approach in his comprehensive publication is mentioned. On one hand, in order to prove the polygenesis of both great branches of Yiddish, Beider provides convincing arguments for the existence of a Slavic substrate. This apparently roots his approach in the contact-linguistic theory. He postulates language shift from Judeo-Slavic to the language of German Jews as the genesis of Eastern Yiddish. On the other hand, the researcher takes the position that despite the observable traces of long-term substrate and adstrate influences, Eastern Yiddish remains a Germanic language (Beider 2013, 2015). The combination of these two positions from the perspective of the contact-linguistic approach seems irreconcilable (Noonan 2013: 61). The aforementioned review of the more recent scholarship shows that most Yiddish researchers and even contact linguists seem to lack the confidence to dot the i’s and cross the t’s by calling Yiddish a mixed, hybrid or even contact language.9 They do so in spite of the accumulated evidence of long and intense Slavic-Jewish linguistic contact and its manifest traces provided by other scholars. There is plenty of publications describing these contact phenomena both in the hybrid nature of the Yiddish system (Saussurean langue) (e.g., Schaechter 1986, Weissberg 1988, Geller 1994, 1999, Eggers 1998, Krogh 2001, Jacobs 2005 and Geller & Gajek 2021) and linguistic pragmatics (Saussurean parole) (e.g., Geller 1997 and Kondrat 2010a, 2016). 9 In our opinion, the reasons for the reluctance to define Yiddish as a mixed language are to be looked for in the extra-linguistic sphere, e.g., 1) the fear related to the long-standing status of Yiddish as a jargon, and general lack of recognition of this idiom as a full-fledged language, 2) the mourning after the eradication of the Central and Eastern European Yiddishland in the Holocaust and its ultimate dissolution under communism, and 3) the resulting current status of Yiddish as an endangered language, or even a new “holy tongue”. Having full understanding of these reasons, we leave them out of the realm of our consideration by giving a voice exclusively to linguistic facts and contact processes that are now more accurately and profoundly grasped by linguistics.

28

geller and gajek

1.3 Structure of the Chapter The aim of this monograph is to study Slavic-Jewish linguistic relations (with a special emphasis on Polish) from the position of the latest advances in contact linguistics. This chapter also sets the framework of the whole volume. We hope that this contribution will provide a comprehensive context and allow for better understanding of the selected contact-linguistic phenomena and processes, described in detail with examples from Yiddish in further chapters of this volume. Thus, we wish to provide arguments pointing to both constitutive and modelling role of the Slavic component in the conception and subsequent formation of the language of Eastern European Jews. The chapter consists of seven sections. In the next section, we present the current methods of contact-linguistic research and introduce the essential terminology. The contact approach to Yiddish is still fresh, which is why this section is extensive and may contain information superfluous for those familiar with contact studies. The next two sections present the sociolinguistic circumstances of Slavic-Jewish contact and provide some examples of its effects on the vocabulary (linguistic matter) of Yiddish. As stated under 2.7.1, both language shift and borrowing may result in the transfer of linguistic matter and patterns. We have left out the subject of the latter from sections 4 and 5, as section 6 is especially devoted to it. There, we discuss the arguments for the mixed nature of Yiddish, providing numerous examples of the replication of Slavic linguistic patterns. A brief presentation of the characteristics and current typology of mixed languages precedes the discussion. The last section contains a summary and conclusions.

2

Defining Terminology

Contemporary contact linguistics has taken over much of the terminology used by its immediate predecessor, the historical-comparative, and later contrastive linguistics, expanding or changing these terms scope and definitions. These include notions such as substrate, superstrate, and adstrate, alternatively described as substratum, superstratum, and adstratum. Both forms will be used interchangeably in the text as they are synonymous. The concepts have been adapted to synchronically observable situations, such as second language acquisition and the associated transfers of both linguistic matter and pattern. They have been incorporated into a broad context now understood as language contact. The reasoning behind this was that the psycho- and sociolinguistic mechanisms that accompany the phenomenon of contact-induced language change are, in fact, universal as evidenced by the parallel course of

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

29

phylogeny and ontogeny. Conversely, a key concept in second language acquisition, namely interlanguage, has been adapted to the study of diachronic processes in contact situations and in the genesis of intertwined or other mixed languages (cf. Winford 2003: 208–267).10 2.1 Language Contact Language contact is broadly understood as any situation in which members of one speech community interact with a language of another speech community. Furthermore, traces of these interactions appear in the system of at least one of these languages. If such a contact is intense and/or long lasting, a new linguistic variety or a new language that is considered a contact language in a narrow sense may emerge. At the individual level, it is a psycholinguistic process that takes place in the mind of the individual, but at the same time it is always accompanied by external, pragmatic and sociolinguistic factors. Roughly speaking, these factors are: firstly, the function of language as a marker of the identity of an individual or a group (ethnic, religious, cultural, racial, social, and etc.), and secondly, the relative status of the languages involved in the interaction, referred to as prestige. The latter notion can cover a whole range of different aspects, which is why it is sometimes rejected in contact studies as too vague and situationally dependent. As a rule, we understand prestige as any set of social, cultural, and economic (or even aesthetic) factors that may motivate an individual or a whole linguistic community to acquire another language. Command of a prestigious language is usually also considered as a social, cultural, or economic advantage or at least a pragmatic necessity for overcoming communication barriers. Currently this approach seems to apply more often to individual bilinguals and the focus of contemporary contact linguists is on them (cf. Matras 2009). This is somewhat understandable as, after all, every linguistic change begins in the speech of the individual, and language is nothing more but a collection of idiolects (Weinreich U., Labov, and Herzog 1968: 119). Nonetheless, here we are dealing with a historical contact situation concerning groups of language users and have limited access to individual testimonies of speech varieties. That is why, in the following sections and chapters, we will mostly refer to the contact situation of the entire speech communities rather than an individual experience.

10

For a recent approach to contact-induced change, utilizing the advances in the study of language acquisition see Lucas (2012).

30

geller and gajek

2.2 Substratum, Superstratum, and Adstratum In traditional historical linguistics and creolistics, the term substratum refers to a situation of language shift (s. section 2.4). It occurs when a speech community exchanges its original language, often designated by the abbreviation L1, for the language of another group inhabiting the same territory, conversely labelled L2. If during this process the first group retains in the receiving language (L2) certain characteristic phonological, grammatical, and/or lexical features of its former language (L1), we speak of a substrate layer in the subsequently acquired idiom (L2). The situation turns out to be more complicated when the speakers of an imposed, dominant language shift to the vernacular of a subordinate population.11 In this case, the dominant language, called the superstratum, practically becomes a subordinate layer to the previous vernacular. However, the term superstratum is not necessarily related to language shift. It refers to the language used by a dominant group that has influenced the language of people subordinated to it. In other words, the substrate affects the target language (L2) from below and the superstrate affects the original language (L1) from above. The problem with these terms is that they refer simultaneously to the external, sociolinguistic (speakers’ power or linguistic prestige), and systemic features/layers of language. Therefore, contemporary contact linguistics not only extends the use of the terms to situations of second language acquisition (Hickey 2013: 7–9), but also distinguishes the linguistic effects of contact from the sociolinguistic aspects of language prestige or the power of its speakers. Adstratum refers to a situation of prolonged and intense language contact between (sometimes several) different languages without language shift, meaning that the result of such contact is solely due to borrowing (s. section 2.7). More precisely, in adstratal contact, the languages involved are on an equal footing. This renders the distinction between the dominant vs subordinate (also known as high vs low) varieties inconsequential or of little effect (e.g., due to established diglossia) (LaPolla 2009: 228). Still during a long and close coexistence, languages converge in their characteristic features in all subsystems: phonology, grammar, and lexicon, though this process is mostly deducible in languages that belong to different families.

11

The most discussed case is the shift by the French-speaking Norman invaders to the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon vernacular of the population of England in the 11th century.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

31

2.3 Convergence Traditionally, the observable contact-induced linguistic changes, which we define as convergence, are explained as a result of either language shift (section 2.4) or borrowing (section 2.7). The first implicates the more or less complete replacement of L1 (source language) by L2 (target language), the second involves the retention and co-existence of both of them (Thomason & Kaufman 1988, Thomason 2001). Other researchers describe these two processes from the point of view of language users agentivity, i.e., the initiative to introduce change. These scholars distinguish transfer by imposition with substrate/L1-speaker agentivity and borrowing with superstrate/L2-speaker agentivity (Coetsem 1988). Within the canon of historical linguistics, convergence applies primarily to the development of a linguistic area (Sprachbund). The process entails a gradual and mutual approximation of languages remaining in a long-lasting contact in a common territory through mutual borrowing of characteristic features and their diffusion. The result is their partial structural leveling in which, however, no substratum or superstratum can be distinguished. Yet, in the case of Yiddish-Slavic contact, certain mechanisms of convergence operated subsequently to the primary language shift, hence substrata, superstrata, and adstrata are broadly distinguishable. 2.4 Language Shift The external factors of prestige and identity, mentioned in 2.1, often work in opposite directions. Prestige involves the notion of language coexistence as Labovian high and low variety while their relative status is determined by the economic, military, demographic, or cultural ‘power’ of attraction of their speakers. On the contrary, identity is an expression of a people’s natural desire to distinguish themselves or preserve their specific character. Both factors influence the effects of any linguistic contact. They seem to be central to the decision of one people to eventually give up their own language in favor of another, and thus they determine the direction of the possibly resulting language shift. The latter is considered to be an extreme point on the continuum of contactinduced change, which ranges from code switching, through borrowing and/or replication of semantic and functional features, to language shift and death. In the process of complete language shift, which usually takes longer than one generation, one language is not only infiltrated or incorporated but completely replaced by another. In such a scenario, sooner or later people abandon their original language and begin to use the speech of another group on a daily basis. It should be stressed here that social bilingualism, called diglossia, is not

32

geller and gajek

synonymous with language shift, although it can be and often is the starting point for such a radical change in linguistic habits. Both original language of the shifting group and the language it seeks to acquire are referred to by a number of terms in the contact-linguistic scholarship. The former may be called the substrate or native, ancestral, source, donor, model, and first language, or simply L1. The second one is referred to as superstrate, target, recipient, and replica language, or L2—the second language. Each of these terms may emphasize a different aspect of the contact situation, the strategy chosen by the speakers, their agentivity, and the final linguistic outcome. Ideally, language shift is expected to be complete, i.e., to leave virtually no traces of the ancestral (substrate) language in the recipient language. Yet not every shift is complete and features of the original language can and do remain in the speech of the shifting community. Problems arise in the study of cases in which the shift occurred in distant history and the people in question continued living in the territory of the target language for centuries. Then it is often very difficult or even impossible to convincingly argue that specific linguistic features are remnants (relics) of the original language of the shifted group. This raises one of the more problematic questions in contact linguistics: how to distinguish the inherited from acquired features (e.g. Thomason 2009, Heine & Nomachi 2013). We will address this issue later in this chapter. Nevertheless, it is assumed that if the language-shifting group was large and strong enough, it must have introduced distinctive features of its original language into the newly acquired one.12 As already mentioned, the observable traces of such a shift are referred to as substratum. 2.4.1 Interlanguage and Incomplete Language Shift The linguistic outcomes of language shift can also be placed on a continuum rather than being strictly defined by explicit features (Winford 2003: 266).13 A partial or incomplete shift, which is preceded by an interlanguage phase and may result in the emergence of a new language variant, is further from 12

13

Cf. Hickey (2013: 152): “[…] going on shift scenarios today and assuming that the same principles of contact applied then and now, one can postulate the influence of earlier group on later groups if the size of the shifting population was sufficient for the features of its shift variety to influence the language they were shifting to.” Cf. Winford (2003: 266): “All of these outcomes [of group second language acquisition] may be placed on a continuum, at one extreme of which are cases of relatively successful approximation to T[arget]L[anguage], while ‘radical’ creoles occupy the other extreme. Indigenized varieties and ‘intermediate’ creoles occupy the mid-points of the continuum.”

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

33

the extreme point on the continuum, i.e., the full, almost traceless language replacement. An interlanguage is originally an intermediate idiolect variant, which possesses both original (L1) linguistic features and the newly acquired (L2) ones. The features of the individual interlanguages of members of a shifting population do not turn out to be randomly selected and diffused, but are strongly determined by their substrate language or more precisely by their native language matrix (Myers-Scotton 2002). As a result of individual variants leveling, a common intermediate variety develops—a group interlanguage which may eventually fall into the category of mixed languages under certain social conditions.14 This is the case, for example, when for pragmatic reasons, one group decides to replace its everyday language with the predominant language of its environment while wishing to preserve its own identity at the same time. In order to avoid total acculturation and demographic absorption, the first stage of which is linguistic assimilation, the process of language shift is limited to a level that allows effective intergroup communication. In this scenario, the two sociolinguistic factors, identity and prestige, interact and the newly created intermediate, mixed variety may in time acquire the status of an autonomous language as a new group identity factor. This seems to be the case with Yiddish. The genesis of a new variety resulting from an incomplete transition from L1 to L2 implicates a substratum. On the surface, such a new language may resemble the target one despite significant lexical elements sometimes carried over from the original idiom. However, it covertly contains strong systemic traces of that language. That is why, even though incomplete language shift also leads to mixing of two or more systems, it is different from convergence. What language shift and convergence have in common is the minimization of language barriers, which is a need dictated by the pragmatic pursuit of effective communication, a feature inherent in the very essence of human speech. 2.5 Relexification and Matrix Language Frame The relexification hypothesis was first used in the context of the most studied model example of a mixed language, Media Lengua (Muysken 1981). Nevertheless, today it is still predominantly associated with the genesis of creole

14

There are several types of mixed languages which will be elaborated on in section 6. For further reading s. Matras & Bakker (2003) and Bakker & Matras (2013), Meakins & Stewart (2019).

34

geller and gajek

languages (Lefebvre 1998, 2001). Relexification accompanies the emergence of intertwined (mixed) languages, where grammar comes from one source and vocabulary from another. In the context of contact linguistics, grammar should be specified in the meaning proposed by Myers-Scotton (2002) as the Matrix Language Frame (mlf). In a broad sense, mlf is a characteristic set of patterns and a grid specific for each language, which organizes loose lexicon units (lexemes) into an utterance.15 The strategy of relexification involves only a superficial replacement of the lexicon of the source language (substrate) with the vocabulary of the target one (superstrate). At the same time, the grammar, or in fact the mlf, of the former is generally preserved and requires the adaptation of the new lexemes to L1 functions and categories. That means in practice that only the phonetic representations of words are exchanged (cf. Muysken 1981: 61). Relexification is comparable to the well-known phenomenon of loan translation in the case of single words or phrases. It is important to note that in the proposed model of relexification, the vocabulary substitution takes place only in a formal way. That is, the content of native words, which consists of the semantic (referential) meaning together with information about the grammatical function of the unit in the source language (cf. Chapter 3, cf. Heine & Kuteva 2005: 92–93) is superimposed with the new phonetic labels taken from their closest semantic equivalents in the target language. This phenomenon is usually also referred to as relabeling (Lefebvre 2001: 11). The superimposition is never complete and consequent. Speakers of the L1 are not perfect bilinguals that can choose the best label for every lexeme’s content and function. Rather, they creatively try to replicate the L2 with whatever means they have at their disposal. The result is a kind of a compromise— unidirectional linguistic accommodation. Such a group interlanguage makes it possible to communicate with representatives of the target group by using the same labels (the same phonetic strings) while maintaining the grammatical framework (mlf) of their native language. 2.6 Replication and Grammaticalization The process of relexification is mostly accompanied by grammatical replication, which is largely synonymous with reanalysis, i.e., the attribution of meanings and functions from the ancestral source language to the selected units of 15

Cf. Myers-Scotton (2002: 68); “Matrix Language is a theoretical construct (…) [that] refers to an abstract architecture. (…) [I]t includes specification about slots and how they are to be filled, based on the directions from lemmas in the mental lexicon.”

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

35

the target one. This usually happens when the latter lacks an equivalent unit that is an exponent of some significant grammatical functions or concepts that are important to the speakers of the original idiom. Therefore, they are inclined to find a new representation for it in the target language. This phenomenon often leads to grammaticalization, i.e., a process whereby a lexical or a functional element originally unrelated to a given grammatical function becomes its formal exponent, or a carrier of a new grammatical category. Reanalysis and grammaticalization obviously occur also as intralinguistic processes without the influence of another language. When they are induced by language contact, they can lead to substantial typological changes in the new language varieties (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2005: 148). 2.7 Borrowing and Transfer As already stated under 2.3, two general causes of contact-induced language change are distinguished: shift and borrowing. Also, as previously emphasized in section 2.4, the linguistic outcomes of such changes are gradual and arrange themselves along a continuum. They show the effects of a variety of strategies, whose two main driving forces are to minimize barriers in intergroup communication, and/or maintain a group identity. So far, we have concentrated on the changes triggered by language shift. The difference between language shift and borrowing is that in the latter case, speakers are ready to introduce foreign elements into their mother tongue. In such a situation, agentivity (Winford 2005, 2013, following Coetsem 1988, 1995, 2000) remains on the side of the borrowing language users (recipient language). It is true that most often linguistic items are transmitted by bilingual speakers competent in the language from which these items are taken. Yet it is up to the recipient community as a whole to decide whether the lexemes thus introduced are eventually to be disseminated as loanwords. In contrast, in the situation of language shift, agentivity is on the side of the speakers whose aim is to acquire a new language at the expense of their mother tongue, which may become the donor language. Borrowing, like language shift, is also a scalar phenomenon. At one extreme, we are dealing with occasional insertions of foreign words or phrases, i.e., code switching, which may be permanently adopted into the community language. At the other extreme, there are cases of massive lexical borrowing, the effects of which may superficially resemble relexification. In this case, the criterion of agentivity may be a useful mean of differentiation. Relexification involves activity of the source-language speakers, corresponding with the substrate. Conversely, in the case of mass borrowing, activity is on the side of the receiving language speakers, corresponding to the superstrate.

36

geller and gajek

The decisive criterion remains to be the mlf within which the transferred lexical units are organized into utterances in the new variety. The overarching neutral term transfer also proves useful here: it indicates the movement of units, structures, and categories from one language to another without specifying its direction or speakers’ agentivity. However, in the scholarship, the term borrowing is still most commonly used as an ambiguous umbrella for the transfer process itself, its mechanisms, and their effects (Winford 2005; 2013). 2.7.1 Transfer of Linguistic Matter and Patterns For a few centuries now, transfer of lexical units, which besides lexemes also included bound, motsly word-formational morphemes, has aroused interest among linguists as the most visible and tangible effect of both direct and indirect language contact. Over time, the more covert transfer of word-formation models and collocational juxtapositions, known as loan translation, has also been recognized. The notion that abstract grammatical patterns, structures, paradigms, and categories can be transferred, copied, or replicated has entered the canon of contact-linguistic research relatively recently. The structured and defined division between borrowing of linguistic matter and linguistic structures/patterns proposed by Sakel (2007) is still valid today (cf. Chapter 3, section 2.1).

3

Yiddish-Slavic Language Contact

Studies of specific cases of language contact and their results in the fashion detailed above are necessarily diachronic and require an analysis of the historical and social circumstances in which the said contact took place. Both history of Jewish-Slavic language contact and structural analyses of Yiddish allow us to support the notion, hinted at in the introductory section and elaborated on in section 6, that this language is of mixed character. The following sections will attempt to deliver a sociolinguistic backdrop for this claim and the subsequent particular analyses presented in this volume. 3.1 Study of Pre-Ashkenazic Judeo-Slavic Languages Since M. Weinreich (1956), it has been generally known that before the birth of Eastern Yiddish, there were Slavic-speaking Jews in Eastern Europe, referred to as Knaanic Jews (or Knaanim) (cf. Weinreich M. 2008: 79–89). Simultaneously to Weinreich, Polish scholars Franciszek Kupfer and Tadeusz Lewicki (1956) substantiated these claims with Slavic glosses found in the medieval Hebrew

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

37

texts. Weinreich’s research into the matter was picked up by Jakobson & Halle (1964) and later by Wexler (1981, 1987). On the other hand, the pre-Ashkenazic, Judeo-Slavic language had already been discussed since the 19th century. Abraham Harkavy (1865) was the most prominent among the early scholars proposing a Slavic substratum in Yiddish. At the same time, some renowned Jewish historians, such as Heinreich Graetz endorsed this idea: However, the Jewish refugees have not only transplanted the German Talmudic scholarship to Poland, but also the German language in its form of that time; they have infused the native Jews with it and have gradually driven the Polish or Ruthenian speech out of their mouths. graetz 1907: 6116 Later on, Edward Sapir (1915) founded his own assertions about Yiddish on the idea of a transition from a Slavic to a Germanic idiom, as proposed by Graetz and others. Works of the early Jewish scholars from Poland who claim a Slavic substratum in Yiddish are discussed and summarized in Eggers (1998: 209–211). Bin-Nun (1973, published in part already in 1935) was the first scholar of the germanistic tradition to fully endorse the role of that substratum in the development of Yiddish. More recently, Beider has identified the (attested) West Knaanic (s. 3.2 below) language as a Jewish sociolect of Old Czech. Still, he has also argued that as the Knaanic Jews moved from Bohemia and Moravia into Polish territory, they most likely made a shift to Old Polish (Beider 2015: 456–458). Only later, with the increasing influx of German Jews, did they adopt German as their everyday speech by the end of the 15th century.17 At the same time, this latest shift marked the beginning of Eastern Yiddish (Beider 2015: 9, 32).

16

17

Original: “Aber nicht bloß deutsche Talmudkunde haben die jüdischdeutschen Flüchtlinge nach Polen verpflanzt, sondern auch die deutsche Sprache in ihrer damaligen Beschaffenheit; sie impften sie den eingeborenen Juden ein und verdrängten nach und nach aus deren Munde die polnische oder ruthenische Sprache.” Beider (2015: 457): “In Silesia, Greater Poland and the Western Part of Lesser Poland, the earliest Jewish communities appeared during the time when in Bohemia and Moravia Old Czech was still the vernacular language of local Jews. […] Yet it is difficult to imagine a situation in which Old Czech continued to be used as the first spoken language in Poland. Much more likely, Polish Jews shifted to Old Polish, another West Slavic language […] During the following centuries, Jewish communities in these territories ceased to be Slavic-speaking.”

38

geller and gajek

3.2 Knaanic—Medieval Language of Jews in Slavic Lands According to the most prominent scholarship on this topic,18 there existed two Judeo-Slavic linguistic areas: Western Knaan (in Bohemia, and Moravia), and Eastern Knaan (in Kievan and Halitian Rus and the Great Duchy of Lithuania). According to M. Weinreich (2008: 82–83), the Jews in both these territories could ultimately be traceable to the Byzantine Empire,19 which implies a previous language shift or shifts at the roots of both Knaanic languages. Some Eastern Knaanim might have also come from Caucasia and the Khazar Empire (cf. Spolsky 2014). M. Weinreich (2008: 81) suggested that the Western Knaanim might have appeared in as early as the 10th century. They had retained their identity and language possibly even into the 15th century, until they were finally assimilated into the Ashkenazic community, which was taking up seat in Eastern Europe. Much less seems to be known about the Eastern Knaanim. According to Weinreich, the earliest mentions of them date back to the year 1,000. Yet the time of their assimilation into the Yiddish-speaking Jewry is debatable (Weinreich M. 2008: 88). The question of the Knaanic language or languages is obviously of essential importance to the subject of this chapter. Unfortunately, there is precious little in terms of material evidence. From Western Knaan, there are only tombstone engravings, document notes of Slavic personal names (Beider 2001, Weinreich M. 2008: 525), and disparate glosses and citations spread in various medieval Hebrew texts (Kupfer & Lewicki 1956, Moskovich 2013). The ambivalence of Hebrew orthography with regard to vowels obviously makes the actual phonetic forms of these attestations open to speculation, e.g., ‫‘ סרובדקא‬whey’ (Weinreich M. 2008: 545). Essentially, any permutation of vowels is possible here, allowing linguists to derive the gloss from any preferred language, cf. P. *serovadka, Cz./U. *syrovadka. Again, there is even less tangible data from the East. There are indirect mentions of Jews speaking “the language of Russia”, rather than actual samples of it. The 17th-century betrothal formula—‫ יא טאבי אסטים מקדש ביל‬/ *ja tebe estem mekadeš bil ‘I have sanctified you’—is controversial. It might be a record of the

18

19

Besides Weinreich (2008) and Beider (2015), for more on the Knaanic languages and people see Bláha, Dittman & Uličná (2013), van Straten (2011). Specifically on the ‘Knaanic’ substratum see for example Geller (2013). Weinreich’s argumentation for the Byzantine (Yavanic) origin of the Knaanic Jews is necessarily incomprehensive, as the matter is far from the focus of his study. In fact, he explicitly stated the need for further research (Weinreich M. 2008: 83). Among the scholars who contributed to the fulfilment of this desideratum, Kulik’s conclusions (2012), for example, allow us to make a case that East Knaanim arrived from Byzantium.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

39

speech of Jews who shifted from Yiddish to an Eastern Slavic language as Weinreich seems to indicate (albeit inconsequently, cf. Weinreich M. 2008: 87–89). This would have been a case of the Yiddish superstratum influence on a Slavic language. Alternatively, the line may indicate that East Knaanic was spoken well into the early modern period. In any case, there is not enough historical linguistic data to provide comprehensive descriptions of the Knaanic languages.20 As such, any statements given in literature, including this volume, are necessarily interpretations of the few available attestations of Knaanic, as well as information deducible from the known forms of Yiddish and their comparison with other languages (cf. Geller & Gajek 2021). Contrary to Weinreich’s (2008: 166) claim that “(t)he essence of a Jewish language […] is the fact that it is a fusion language”, some scholars are of the opinion that the Knaanic languages, just like most other Jewish confessiolects, were not sufficiently different from the co-territorial Gentile idioms to be classified as separate languages (cf. Beider 2015: 30–32). They would mostly include cultural terms, not necessarily expressed with words of Hebrew origin, required for describing the specifics of Jewish customs and religion. Beider argued that this was the case with West Knaanic. He conducted a study of the Slavic-derived personal names (Beider 2001), as well as Slavic-derived words for specifically Jewish cultural terms in Yiddish (Beider 2015: 428–433). Based on the phonological and historical analyses of this material, he identified the West Knaanic language as a variety of Old Czech. However, Beider was not able to be as decisive with regard to East Knaanic. The available lexical and onomastic data is simply too scarce and too ambiguous (Beider 2015: 436–439). He concluded that in the 15th and 16th century, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in Ukraine, Jewish communities spoke a language referred to in the chronicles as “Russian”, which was likely related to Belarussian and Ukrainian. These communities lived alongside Ashkenazic immigrants whose first language was Yiddish. Obviously, there was a possibility of bilingualism in both groups. Nothing can be said of the earlier times though. There is no proof that East Knaanic influence extended beyond the scarce lexical relics and doublets.21 20 21

Nonetheless, the same applies to the previous romance substratum of Western Yiddish postulated by Weinreich. Historical Lithuanian, a language co-territorial with local East Knaanic, and later North Eastern Yiddish, has rarely been considered as having influence on Yiddish. It was a minority language in the Grand Duchy, subsequently dominated by Polish with the inception of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century. Nevertheless, it was connected with the Lithuanian principality for several centuries. As such, it might have wielded in principle some amount of prestige and exerted a superstratal influence on local East

40

geller and gajek

3.2.1 Knaanic in Poland While stating that Polish had the most significant impact on Yiddish, M. Weinreich remained skeptical regarding a pre-Ashkenazic, Slavic-speaking Jewish population in Poland. According to him, the earliest mention of Jewish communities in this country dates back from the 13th century, and these may have been either Knaanic or Ashkenazic. On the other hand, he stressed that there are no attestations of a specifically Jewish Slavic language from the Polish territory (M. Weinreich 2008: 89–91). The more recent historical works correct Weinreich’s dating of Jewish settlement in Poland. The community of Cracow is at least as old as the 11th century (Zaremska 2011: 64). For all that, it was likely a little more than a trading post at the time, while the town itself had a stronger connection to Bohemia than the unstable Kingdom centered around Greater Poland. All the same, it is conceivable that the Jewish population of Poland experienced a noteworthy growth up to the 13th century. Considering the often cited Statute of Kalisz of 1264 as a symbolic date of the beginning of the Polish Jewry is misleading, as the document only provided a legal framework for the Jewish presence that had already existed for some time.22 According to Beider (2015: 457), the Knaanic immigration from Bohemia to Poland pre-dated the Ashkenazic one. Moreover, the newly arrived Jews adjusted to the new linguistic surroundings by shifting to Old Polish—a process undoubtedly facilitated by the common genetic ancestry of that language and West Knaanic (Old Czech) and their resulting typological similarity. Thus a new, Polish-based Jewish vernacular was formed that might have retained certain Knaanic elements. However, Beider did not find any evidence of the influence of that second variety on Yiddish. West Knaanic as a whole was not replaced by this Jewish-Polish idiom, but underwent its own separate shift in Bohemia. As Polish influence extended to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania—through an ever-tightening political alliance—in the 15th and 16th century, the Kingdom began incorporating the East Knaanic population. The last known mention of Slavic-speaking Jews as a group in the eastern provinces of the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth is the 17th-century responsum of Rabbi Meir Katz of Mogilev (Beider 2015: 439).

22

Knaanic. Aslanov (2013: 23) proposed that the asyndetic compounds, such as Y. tate-mame ‘parents’, bobe-zejde ‘grandparents’ may be reflections of the Baltic patterns. On the other hand, the fact that the Statute is likely based on the similar “Jew laws” issued in the past in Western countries indicates at German or even Ashkenazic political influence (cf. Weinreich M. 2008: 89).

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

4

41

Language Shift in Inception of Eastern Yiddish

4.1 Knaanic Language Shift in Weinreich’s Canonic History The traditional view of the shift from Knaanic to Yiddish is rooted in the assumption, again propagated by Weinreich, that the vernacular of German Jews had existed as an independent language since it first came to be in Rhineland in the 9th century (Weinreich M. 2008: 2–3, 526). The linguistic fusion that led to the emergence of Yiddish would involve the shift from Judeo-French and Judeo-Italian (collectively referred to as Loez), which both already incorporated a Hebrew component, to the local German dialect (cf. Chapter 1, section 2.1). Nevertheless, even less is known of this putative Jewish-Romance substratum than of the Jewish-Slavic one, which had its own distinction as lashonknaan as early as in the 10th century.23 After more than three centuries of autonomous internal development, Yiddish would be transposed to the Slavic countries as a result of a great migration that started in the 13th century. It was there that Yiddish was massively influenced by Slavic languages, at first Czech, then Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarussian, and finally, albeit not very deeply, Russian. Though the Knaanim had kept to their tongue for some time, they finally shifted to the language of their coreligionists, who commanded more prestige. According to Weinreich, overt Knaanic linguistic influence remained minimal and limited to disparate borrowings (i.e., adstratal and not substratal material). Even this vocabulary might possibly be explained by a direct contact with gentile Slavic varieties (Weinreich M. 2008: 526). However, there is a certain inconsistency in Weinreich’s linear story. Namely, he indicated quite decidedly that the West Knaanic culture had a good degree of prominence. This culture produced illustrious scholars, such as Isaac “Or Zarua” ben Moshe, and retained certain customs and ritual prescriptions despite its linguistic “Ashkenization” (Weinreich 2008: 82). Finally, the Western Knaanim resisted the shift to the Ashkenazic language for about two centuries. All of this indicates that their culture was not lacking in prestige and might have commanded loyalty and a sense of identity. As described in section 2.4.1, the tension between the native identity and foreign prestige tends to result in some features being left over from the shifted language. This makes it less likely that Yiddish would lack any Knaanic influence aside from a few

23

The term Tsarfat as a description of France seems secondary to Knaan. According to Weinreich (2008: 80), “possibly, the Jews in the Middle Ages started with Knaan and thereafter designated the other countries in the biblical manner.”

42

geller and gajek

dubious loanwords. Moreover, it can be inferred that for the sake of identity, the shift was deliberately left incomplete. 4.2 Incomplete Language Shift from Knaanic to German Though Weinreich himself did not use the term “language shift” in this context, he stated that “[t]he Ashkenazic penetration which finally incorporated the western Slavic Jewish settlements into the Yiddish-speaking community came but late and slowly” (Weinreich 1956: 623). This assertion alone implies that a gradual language shift had to have taken place as a result of contact between the Knaanic Jews and their co-religionists immigrating from German lands. This graduality and the indications of a developed Knaanic identity and cultural loyalty imply that substratal Slavic elements were likely to have been retained in Yiddish. Usually, it is an abrupt language shift that results in an almost traceless adoption of the target language. Weinreich made similar statements on the Eastern Knaanim, who were absorbed into the Ashkenazic community as they migrated further east (Weinreich 2008: 85–89). Here he also attempted to prove that there was little if any substratal influence (Weinreich 2008: 85–89; 625–626). Later scholars tended to complicate and decentralize Weinreich’s history. Eggers (1998: 81–182) was the first to include Bohemia and the Western Knaanim in his description of the beginnings of Yiddish. According to his work, Yiddish came into existence based on South German dialects under the influence of the Slavic-speaking Bohemian Knaanim. Just as the earlier proponents of the so-called Danube hypothesis (s. Beider 2015: 5–7, as well as Chapter 1), Eggers (1998: 60–64) suggested that Rhineland should be treated as a Jewish linguistic area separate from the Eastern Yiddish one. What Weinreich and some of his successors seem to share is the apparent assumption that the development of Yiddish was an “internal Jewish affair” and that the Jews shifted only between Jewish idioms.24 Still it is somewhat questionable to assume that the arrival of a relative minority of Ashkenazim would be the determining factor in the language shift from West Knaanic when the entire linguistic landscape of Bohemia and its neighboring lands was changing. The country became a part of the Holy Roman Empire—German was developing into the dominant language due to the change in power and the arrival of colonists from the West. While Poland remained independent politically, the 24

Cf. Beider (2015: 37): “If we want to pursue linguistic, rather than ideological, objectives, Weinreich’s position that all Jewish languages ‘must be viewed from within’ […] is unacceptable. However, it suffices to replace in this slogan the word ‘must’ by ‘can’ to obtain a correct statement.”

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

43

German colonization resulted in the temporary political and linguistic domination of the new arrivals in many prominent cities. A command of German became pragmatically advantageous if not necessary for the populations of these municipalities in general. Hence, it has to be asked whether Western Yiddish or (Late Middle/Early New) High German was the target language of the Knaanic shift. Beider’s proposed genesis of Yiddish supports this second variant. He posits that the West Knaanic Jews, as well as the Jewish immigrants from Germany, first shifted to the local variety of German. After that, they brought this new (inter)language, with its Knaanic substratum, to Poland, where it remained under the influence of Silesian German, with an ever growing impact of Polish. The earlier, already Polish-speaking Jewish immigrants from Bohemia also underwent their own language shift, reinforcing the new arrivals (Beider 2015: 457). The actual Western-Yiddish influence remained external, even though German Jews did contribute demographically to the Yiddish-speaking community.25 Thus, Yiddish was born in Poland in the 15th century and then brought to the Eastern Slavic territories, again in the company of German. It may be posited that the final formation of what would become modern Yiddish involved a complicated interplay of language shifts of different degrees of completeness. These shifts included the transition from West Knaanic to (Bohemian) German and East Knaanic to Early Yiddish and/or German. On top of that, there was a continuous adstratal influence (convergence) of colonial German varieties, Polish, and the East Slavic languages. Western Yiddish, the traditional written form used by Jews alongside Hebrew in the East and West until the 18th century, also played a role as the medium of intense economic and cultural contacts between Polish and German Jews. Beider’s description is attractive because it attempts to do justice to the complexity of linguistic interactions in a multilingual society. If the relative length of the process of abandoning Knaanic in favor of German and the possible conflict between the needs of identity, pragmatism, and prestige are considered, then the resulting picture does seem conductive to incomplete shift. 4.3 Slavic Substratum in Eastern Yiddish As already mentioned, M. Weinreich was reluctant to acknowledge any substratal Slavic influence while claiming the constitutive role of a Romance 25

Though it is not implausible that a variant of the Norman-English scenario could have taken place here. Some kind of linguistic leveling is conceivable, as the possibly more numerous local and more prestigious immigrant Jews merged into a single community speaking different but mutually intelligible varieties.

44

geller and gajek

component. He did this even though Slavic influences permeated deeply the structures of Yiddish grammar while Romance elements remained few and far between.26 On the other hand, another prominent Yiddish linguist, Weinreich’s contemporary—Jechiel (Fischer) Bin-Nun (1973), not only independently claimed the existence of a pre-Ashkenazic, Slavic-speaking community, but also stated explicitly that it had shifted to Yiddish and left a linguistic mark on it. He describes the situation as follows: The Jews who emigrated to the Polish Kingdom came across a significant number of Slavic-speaking compatriots […] [… T]he locals abandoned their domestic language, the immigrants hung on to the idiom they brought with them. […] However, it [the Jewish-Slavic language] did not disappear without a trace. It left behind a number of Slavic loanwords [= relics] in Yiddish.27 bin-nun 1973: 47–49

Moreover, he enumerated several words which he described as very likely remnants of that event: koilen ‘slaughter’, thoir ‘polecat’, koiletsch ‘white bread, cake’, saide ‘grandfather’, plaize ‘shoulder’, bube ‘midwife’, tûter ‘Tatar’, and sûd ‘orchard’ (Bin-Nun 1973: 49; original spelling).28 Admittedly, Bin-Nun did not provide an elaborate argumentation to support the relic status of these words (more on the subject of lexical relics s. 4.3.1 below). However, most of them reappear in Beider’s (2015: 430–431) detailed scholarly analysis of the subject. He supports the case for a Slavic substratum of Yiddish on many levels. His extensive list of relic words is made all the more credible due to the fact that he provides specific phonological and historical support for his assertions (Beider 2015: 428–433). Semantically and socio-linguistically, he argues that because these words mostly describe terms from domains, such as religion, family, or body parts, which are generally resis-

26

27

28

These included a few words, such as Y. lejenen ‘to read’, etymologically related to the Italian word leggere ‘idem’, as well as possibly the s-plural. For all that, the Romance origin of that second feature is disputed. Cf. Beider (2015: 402): “No Romance influence on the grammar of Yiddish varieties was ever discovered.” Original: “Die nach dem Königreich Polen ausgewanderten Juden trafen dort auf eine ansehnliche Zahl slawisch sprechender Volksgenossen […]. [… D]ie Einheimischen gaben ihre Landessprache auf, die Einwanderer behielten die mitgebrachte Mundart bei. […] Es verschwand allerdings nicht spurlos. Es hinterließ eine Anzahl slawischer Lehnwörter im Jiddischen …” Bin-Nun’s spelling is based on German orthography and reflects the pronunciation of the East-Galician dialect of Yiddish.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

45

tant to borrowing (cf. also Haspelmath & Tadmor 2009, and Chapter 5 in this volume), they could not have been taken over from the non-Jewish Slavs.29 Furthermore, in an earlier work on Yiddish anthroponomy, Beider (2001: 24) argued for the existence of the Knaanic substratum, attested by the female given names of Slavic origin popular among the Ashkenazim. These were, for example, Krasna (meaning ‘beauty’), Vesela (‘joyful’), Dobruša (‘good’), Zlata (‘golden’), and etc. He explained them as calques of the respective Ashkenazic Sheyne, Freyde, Gitl, and Golde, created by Slavic-speaking Jews as a result of language contact between those two groups.30 It also bears reminding that based on Beider’s statements on the likely shift by some Western Knaanic Jews to Old Polish, there is in principle a possibility of the existence of Polish substratal relics in Yiddish, though he himself states that there is no convincing proof of this (Beider 2015: 450–451). These advances prompt a revision of the status of the Knaanic glosses described as adstratal borrowings by M. Weinreich: Y. nebex ‘1. interj. the poor thing, alas!, what a pity!, 2. noun wretch, unhappy/unfortunate person’ ~ oc. nebohy ‘adj. unfortunate (of a person)’, prejdik ‘forequarter (meat)’, zodik ‘hindquarter (meat)’, bejlik ‘white meat’, trejbern/trejbn ‘to cleanse meat of ritually impure elements’, jatke ‘butchery’, and oy. *srovetke ‘whey’ (Weinreich M. 2008: 544–545). Weinreich also pointed out (1956: 625–626) outright religious terms that might have been taken over from Slavic-speaking Jews, such as Y. davnen ‘to pray’ (ultimately of non-Slavic, Oriental origin, but possibly mediated by the Eastern Knaanim). However, he seems again reluctant to fully acknowledge their substratal character.31 Despite the above determinations, the question of the extent and character of the Slavic substratum of Yiddish remains open. Paul Wexler (1991, 2002) 29

30 31

Cf. Beider (2015: 432): “As can be seen from the list mentioned, the importance of this group of words does not lie in the number of words it encompasses (that is rather small) but in their semantics. Here we are dealing, among others, with religious terms (including a large series of items related to food), words designating family members and parts of body. Such words, basic for the vernacular language of Jewish communities, could not be borrowed by Yiddish from Slavic languages. They were necessarily inherited from the language of West Canaanites.” For further insights into the etymology of the Slavic-derived female names in Yiddish see Geller (2010b). As a matter of fact, with regard to Y. davnen, Weinreich (1956: 626) uses the term “substratum” when writing that Eastern Yiddish could have “inherited it from the ‘substratum’”. Nevertheless, it is unclear what is meant here—the Slavic substratum of Yiddish or perhaps an oriental substratum of East Knaanic—and why exactly “substratum” appears in quotation marks.

46

geller and gajek

proposed a radical notion in which the entire grammar is basically Slavic due to the relexification of the Knaanic languages with the German vocabulary. The current state of knowledge allows us to at least consider this idea within the bounds of the mixed language debate. In particular, the en masse relexification of Knaanic vocabulary would make Yiddish a case of grammar-lexicon split, rather than a typologically Slavic language, which was his ultimate conclusion. It was this statement that primarily prompted such a severe criticism of Wexler’s proposal.32 Some relevant examples of deep Slavic grammatical influences indicative of a substratum will be discussed in section 6 of this chapter. Other authors concentrated only on lexemes of Knaanic origin (Bin-Nun 1973, Weinreich 2008, and Beider 2015). The grammatical side of the substratum has not been yet studied comprehensively. Several of its putative features are discussed elsewhere in this chapter (s. section 6.3.2). Thus the current task for the historical linguistics of Yiddish remains to establish and identify substratal elements and distinguish them from the adstrate-induced changes. Polish might have functioned in both roles—as a substratum and an adstratum of Yiddish. There are plenty of lexical items transferred from Polish to Yiddish that may possibly be ascribed to both of these layers (s. the discussion of Y. breg ‘1. shore, bank, 2. edge, brim, 3. outer area, 4. border’ under 4.3.1). To sum up, it should be noted that a substratum may have more than one chronological layer. In the case of Yiddish, the shift from West Knaanic to German itself was not a one-time event, but rather, as already stated, a process that took up to two centuries. Furthermore, the history of Yiddish involved several other, smaller or larger, shifts from Jewish Slavic varieties to Yiddish and/or German, taking place over several centuries. Hence, the age of specific relics may differ. 4.3.1 Substratal Linguistic Matter—Lexical Relics Vocabulary of different origin is the most apparent sign of any kind of language contact, and this is also true for substratum influence. Substratal, inherited, or leftover lexical units are called relics. Their retention may easily be related to the already described factors of loyalty and identity, but there are also the systemic and psycho-linguistic factors. Assuming that language is a tool (organon; Bühler 1934) of communication, governed by the principles of economics, lexical units remain salient as long as they can adequately fulfil their representative, expressive, and conative func-

32

For criticism of Wexler’s relexification hypothesis s. comments to Wexler (1991) in the “International Journal of the Sociology of Language” (pp. 151–214), Beider (2013: 103–106).

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

47

tions. Therefore, it stands to reason that words which the people undergoing a language shift consider as catering to these functions particularly well, have a greater chance of being transferred over to the target language. This pragmatic value may consist of describing some entity in a particular way, expressing a specific emotion or attitude, or serving a routine linguistic behavior, such as greeting. This hypothesis is reinforced by the cognitive-linguistic notion of entrenchment, according to which, words that are used frequently due to their importance are resistant to replacement and form the core vocabulary (Zenner et al. 2014). It may be postulated that for this reason, certain words stay in the core vocabulary despite the language shift, whereas others become relexified. Moreover, the recent observations by Geller & Gajek (2021) confirm an apparent tendency for relics to retain and fossilize extensive parts of their denotational and connotational semantic structures from the source language. This testifies to the importance of their particular content. The subject of Knaanic lexical relics in Yiddish has recently been taken up by several scholars. Geller (2013, 2015) and Moskovich (2013) have studied the Knaanic glosses, noted in the medieval Hebrew texts, that have equivalents among Slavisms in Yiddish. Moskovich has shown that fewer than 20 % of these glosses “reappear” in the modern language. These are mostly names of tools, such as Y. vi(d)le ‘pitchfork’ ~ Kn. *vidle ‘idem’; butchery terms, such as Y. ledvice ‘sirloin’ ~ Kn. *ledviena ‘idem’; medical terms, e.g., Y. bankes ‘cupping glasses’ ~ Kn. *banki ‘idem’; plant names, e.g., Y. kanoplje/konoplje ‘hemp’ ~ Kn. *kanopie ‘idem’; food, e.g., Y. kukl ‘round bread’ ~ Kn. *kukliki ‘festive bread with spices’; and others. Geller (2013, 2015) has made the connection more plausible by showing reflexes of the same glosses in the oldest extant Eastern-Yiddish text— the “Sejfer derex ejc ha-xaim” (“The Guide to the Tree of Life”), printed in 1613. More recently, Geller et al. (2020, 2021) have introduced a method for reinforcing hypotheses on the relic character of specific words, based on a procedure called cross-linguistic mapping. It entails a comparison of the semantic and derivational structures of a proposed relic with those of its cognate in the source language. Initial tests of the procedure have led the authors to formulate three requisites for claiming the relic status of a transferred word (Geller & Gajek 2021: 29–30): a. All (or most) senses of the lexeme in the source and recipient language are congruent and there is an overlap between the entire lexico-semantic complexes created around them. b. There is significant convergence in derivational patterns (including the structures of fixed expressions) or at least in derivative semantics. c. There are no cross-linguistic equivalents or synonyms coming from the target language of the shift that would cover the same scope of senses.

48

geller and gajek

d.

The fact that the word under study belongs to the core vocabulary and some target-language partial synonyms apparently were blocked out by it or its derivatives is an additional confirmation. Using their diagnostic test, Geller et al. have identified several possible relics outside of the lists already formulated by others. These include, for example, Y. breg ‘1. shore, coast, 2. edge, brim, 3. border’ < op. bržeg ‘idem’ and Y. paše ‘1. fodder, 2. pasture’ < op. pasza ‘pasture’, P. pasza 'fodder'. Both words faithfully copy the semantics of their source-language cognates. Moreover, they seem to have carried over large parts of their respective word families, including collocations and proverbs, which describe entire sections of semantic frames in nearly the same way as their Polish counterparts. At the same time the apparent Polish provenance of these lexemes plays into the possibility of relics being taken over from the Old Polish vernacular of the early Jewish settlers. Alternatively, the discussed words could have been polonized from the earlier Knaanic forms. Moreover, Y. breg and Y. paše seem to have been so successful in fulfilling their functions that they made several possible German lexemes redundant, blocking them from ever entering Yiddish, e.g., G. Ufer ‘shore’, G. Küste ‘coast’ vs Y. breg ‘shore, coast’, G. Hirte ‘herder, shepherd’ vs Y. pastex ‘idem’ < P. pastuch ‘idem’. Other lexemes, such as Y. kiške ‘intestine, gut’, belme ‘cataract’, nudne ‘boring’, and kolner ‘collar’, as well as body part names such as: plejce ‘shoulder, back’, potilice ‘nape of the neck’, dlonje ‘palm (of the hand)’, and kark ‘neck, nape’, also display similar features.33

5

Borrowing in Development of Eastern Yiddish

Current Yiddish linguistics is less inclined to treat the Knaanic Languages as a mere footnote in the history of the language. It is rather the scope of their possible impact that is being discussed.34 Nevertheless, post-shift adstratal Slavic

33

34

It is also worth noting that nearly all freshwater fish have names of Slavic origin, e.g., Y. okun ‘perch’, lešč ‘bream’, plotke ‘roach, gudgeon’, uklejke ‘dim. bleak’, karas(ek) ‘(dim.) crucian’, and sum ‘catfish’, whereas sea fish are referred to exclusively with their Germanic designations. This separation may be explained by the fact that Polish cuisine up to the late modern period was dominated by freshwater fish dishes. This may be proof of close anthropological connections between Poles and Jews (cf. also section 5.3.1 below). Cf. (Aptroot and Gruschka 2010: 38): “some of the first generations[…] can be proved to have spoken a Slavic language. However, Slavic elements are only sparsely attested in the earliest reports …” [Originally: “Ein Teil der ersten Generationen […] hat nachweislich eine slawische Sprache gesprochen. Dennoch sind slawische Elemente in den frühesten Zeugnissen nur spärlich belegt …“].

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

49

influence was both intense and long-lasting. Weinreich rightfully asserted that it is often difficult if not impossible to precisely identify the source language of a given feature. This is because both congruence between the different Slavic languages and leveling of distinctive features within Yiddish have to be taken into consideration (Weinreich 2008: 539–540). Yet some things can be discerned through a deep comparative study of Yiddish and the languages that came in contact with it. Therefore, one must first understand the manner in which this influence was exerted. 5.1 Contact with Specific Slavic Languages The character of Czech influence is debatable. Words of Czech origin in Eastern Yiddish are generally few and far between and many of them can be etymologized from the Knaanic substratum. Structural influence has not been yet thoroughly studied. It seems that there could have been relatively little time for adstratal Czech influence to take root. Beider proposed the 14th century as the time of the shift from West Knaanic to Bohemian German. At the time, Czech was already being dominated by German, while the Jewish migration to Poland was around its peak intensity. In Poland, German also dominated over the local language in major urban areas. The immigrants carried new ideas, technologies, and skills. They were richer, better organized, and set the tone for the entire urban culture. For these reasons, the immigrants also came to positions of power, which made their language not only prestigious, but also pragmatically beneficial for the time being.35 For all that, this was not the case with all cities. The arriving Jews also had to have some dealings with Poles and not just with the townspeople but also peasants with whom they traded, and the nobles whom they offered their services. One may surmise that at least some working knowledge of Polish was necessary. As already mentioned, in contrast to Czech, Polish regained its position as the dominant state language by the turn of the 15th and 16th century. Local Germans became largely polonized in the subsequent centuries, but they still retained their social position. Interestingly, the classic study by Bin-Nun (1973: 61–63) places the emancipation of Yiddish from German at about the same time. As already mentioned, Beider reached the conclusion that Eastern Yiddish came into existence in Poland, in the 15th century. Hence, one can posit that these events—relative separation from German and the polonization of the linguistic environment—had an important impact on the development of Yiddish.

35

For a discussion of German loanwords in Polish s. Zeller (2015).

50

geller and gajek

It has been argued in Yiddish studies that extended contact with German in an otherwise Slavic environment greatly contributed to the establishment of Yiddish as a mark of Jewish ethnic identity. A command of a beneficial Germanic language, alongside the necessary Slavic one, encouraged the development of bilingualism, rather than linguistic assimilation to the local idiom. Thus the polonization of urban Germans left the Jews with Yiddish as a language that was their own and which was sufficiently different from what everyone else spoke to serve as an ethnic totem. The subsequent political and demographic developments brought the already Yiddish-speaking Jews in contact with East-Slavic languages. The alliance of Poland and Lithuania had been solidifying since the 14th century and finally culminated in the creation of the Commonwealth in 1561. As a result, huge swathes of territory populated by the ancestors of modern Belarussians and Ukrainians became available for the Ashkenazic-Jewish settlement. This migration was encouraged by the arriving Polish or polonized local lords. They sought to accelerate the economic development of their lands by founding towns and introducing skilled western, mostly German, craftsmen, merchants, and bankers. Inviting Jewish settlers was popular due to their mobility and adaptability, the relatively low prices of their products and services, as well as the fact that Jews were less restricted by the Christian usury laws. Later on, this led to the creation of shtetls—small towns with large Jewish populations that would sometimes develop into Jewish majorities (Hundert 2004, Polonsky 2010: 86). In this new situation, Yiddish remained in contact with Polish, the official state language, while at the same time the rural Jews interacted in many ways with the local common folk, who were speakers of EastSlavic, Ruthenian vernaculars, later to develop into modern Belarussian and Ukrainian. Large-scale contact with Russian came late in the history of Yiddish, when the partitions of Poland (1772–1795) brought virtually all of the middle and eastern provinces of the country under the rule of the Tsars. Russian became the state language (a new superstratum), enforced, sometimes brutally, by the authorities. However, the impoverished majority of Jews were obliged to live in the Pale of Settlement, where they would socialize among themselves in Yiddish, thus rendering Russian largely redundant. These social and demographic circumstances strengthened the position of Yiddish as the vernacular of the Eastern-European Jewish masses, leading gradually to the political emancipation of the language at the beginning of the 20th century. Still, intellectuals had to develop perfect bilingualism. For example, rabbis had to pass a Russian exam to be permitted to perform their job, while secular scholars were required to have a good command of the language in order to study at universities. On

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

51

the other hand, at that time Yiddish had already been developed with deep, systemic influences from the Slavic idioms it had been in contact with for at least five centuries. That is why, intellectuals added arguably little in terms of structure. However, this group of speakers introduced into the language many Russian borrowings, which were later included in the standard dictionaries. This prompted M. Weinreich (2008: 591–592) and some other Yiddish scholars to judge Russian influence as relatively late and shallow. 5.2 Transfer Channels The history of Jewish settlement in Poland provides relatively good information on the conditions and situations conductive to linguistic transfer. In the middle ages, Jews settled in their own quarters or streets in cities. Generally, these were not separated or walled off in any way, with some notable exceptions, such as Kazimierz near Cracow. That meant that, if no settlement bans were in effect, there were no barriers preventing daily, direct and personal contact with the Polish- and German-speaking Christian population (Wijaczka 2010a: 94). Jews would trade in the market, offer banking services to lords, rich townspeople, and even clergy, engage in itinerant trade, and etc. From the 15th century on, Jewish craftsmen opened their shops to Christian customers. In one form or another, Jews continued to conduct these activities throughout the whole modern period. When German ceased to be the default language in cities, Polish as a second language became all the more necessary in communication with clients and neighbors. Knowledge of the language was also likely necessary in trade relations with peasants, who were unlikely to know any foreign speech. However, Poles from the low social strata serving as Shabbos goyim and child minders in Jewish homes were in a position of relatively lower status and might have been inclined to learn the language of their employers at least at a rudimentary level. That being said, some Slavic borrowings in Yiddish, notably terms of endearment used by nannies, likely came through this venue of contact (Weinreich M. 2008: 537). Thus, Yiddish became pragmatically dominated by Polish, which also had a degree of prestige as the language of the lords and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a powerful state that was counted among European powers. It was especially true in the 16th and 17th century which, incidentally, was the time of the crystallization of Yiddish dialects. For a time, Poland was also known as a refuge for the persecuted minorities. It also earned a somewhat scornful name of Paradisum Judaeorum—a paradise for Jews. Here, despite some degree of discrimination, Jews were able to practice their religion and customs relatively freely, as well as pursue education and different trades along with

52

geller and gajek

their specific languages—Hebrew and Yiddish, with local lords being particularly lenient. Polish colonization in the East created a new set of circumstances for SlavicYiddish language contact. All the more often, Jews were hired by landowners as administrators. From this position, they would instruct (most often EastSlavic) peasants, discipline them, and enforce taxes and services on behalf of the lord. This obviously required communication in the language spoken by locals (a new adstratum), though Weinreich (2008: 636–537) quotes reports of Ukrainian country dwellers occasionally speaking Yiddish. Jews also served as innkeepers and as such potentially had to speak with patrons from all social strata and ethnic groups. Finally, the rise of the shtetl and some particularly populous urban communities placed Jews in the position of a local majority. This might have also prompted some local Slavs to learn Yiddish, while at the same time reduced the incentive for the Jews to speak Slavic languages. This situation was further exacerbated by the growing autonomy of the kahal, which would now simply employ a representative called the štadlan to conduct dealings with the Polish authorities. In effect, at least parts of the Jewish society were immersed in the Yiddish linguistic milieu, where most shopkeepers, service providers, and administration representatives were Jewish. This did not mean that contact with Slavic languages ceased, but the situation was certainly conductive to Yiddish autonomy. Such a socio-linguistic context did not force linguistic assimilation but contributed to the survival of Yiddish as a language of Jewish identity. The end of the Early Modern Period was marked by the gradual pauperization of Jewish masses, along with the rest of the population, which essentially continued into the Industrial Period. More and more Jews were forced to travel between Slavic settlements as itinerant craftsmen and traders. This again increased the pragmatic necessity to communicate in Slavic languages. In towns and cities, a large swathe of the Jewish population became a part of the lowest classes, where little social barriers existed. Here the prestige of language had little meaning, even if the vernaculars involved would have had any to begin with. Communication was necessary to survive. Hence, the results of these contacts constituted adstratal rather than superstratal influence. At the same time gradual democratization, increased mobility, and the improvement of communication means eroded Jewish autonomy. Nevertheless, the shtetl remained to be a Jewish enclave only partially penetrated by Slavic speakers. In the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century, Slavic influences on Yiddish broadened to include Russian, now the official state language in most of the Yiddish-speaking territory. Polish still had official recognition in Gali-

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

53

cia (the Austrian partition), subsequently becoming the state language in the reinstated Poland in 1918. Polish and Yiddish were competing as languages of culture and information for Jews—important works of literature and influential press titles were published in both of them (cf. Steffen 2004). They were languages of instruction in schools and at universities, as well as of scientific and technical publications. Slavic languages remained necessary to conduct daily affairs and business. This was particularly true for Jewish intellectuals (s. 5.1 above)—not only during their education, but also when engaged in practicing any free trade, such as working as a physician or a lawyer. This resulted in the partial Slavicisation of the technical, scientific, and professional vocabulary of Yiddish, though Western languages, such as German were still competing in this field. Ultimately though, the Jewish elites would choose linguistic assimilation, with mostly left-wing intellectuals striving for Yiddish to become the national language of the Jews (Kuznitz 2014). The Holocaust put an untimely stop to these developments, while the expulsion of the surviving and mostly assimilated Jews from Poland in the late 1960s ultimately ended the history of the Polish-Yiddish language contact. 5.3 Adstratal Linguistic Matter—Lexical Borrowings Loanwords form a binary opposite to lexical relics. Arguably, most borrowed words are identifiable as foreign and belong to the peripheral rather than the core vocabulary. However, they can and do become assimilated to a degree that precludes their immediate distinction from native words or lexical relics. The diagnostic test proposed by Geller et al. (2020, 2021) provides the means for facilitating this task. In particular, the authors argue that, unlike relics, loanwords often only carry over fragments of the semantic framework of their etymons. Even if loanwords assimilate into the core vocabulary, they develop their own lexico-semantic networks, distinct from their source-language cognates. Geller & Gajek (2021) quote Y. večere ‘supper’ < op. wieczerža ‘evening meal’ as an example. Though the lexeme is old, retaining elements of the Old Polish form, and a part of the core vocabulary, it has a very modest palette of meanings and derivatives in comparison to its etymon. It also figures in proverbs that do not have equivalents in Polish, which indicates autonomous semantic development in Yiddish. 5.3.1 Examples of Borrowings as Per Transfer Channels The various venues of Slavic-Yiddish contact described above have their reflection in Yiddish vocabulary. The direct proximity of the two societies resulted in cultural phenomena, such as clothing or cuisine being taken over along with their descriptions.

54

geller and gajek

Hence, items of traditional Jewish clothing resemble those of the Polish noblemen and are named accordingly: Y. župan/župice < P. żupan ‘long male robe’, Y. kaftan < P. kaftan ‘long-sleeved tunic’, Y. pas < P. pas ‘belt’. Characteristic dishes included Y. boršč < P. barszcz ‘beetroot soup’, Y. goldene jojx, a loan translation of P. złoty rosół ‘golden broth’, as well as many freshwater fish, such as Y. okun < P. okoń ‘perch’, Y. karas < P. karaś ‘crucian’, or Y. lešč < P. leszcz ‘bream’ (cf. Geller 2021). The high percentage of the Slavic-origin vocabulary in the semantic field of tailoring is likely a result of contacts with the Christian clientele and the particularly strong representation of Jews in Poland’s textile market. Examples of Slavic borrowings in this area include names of female (e.g., Y. spodnice ‘petticoat, skirt’, košulke ‘shirt’), and male (Y. ma(ri)narke ‘men’s jacket’) outfits, outerwear (Y. palte ‘overcoat’, šub(ic)e ‘winter coat, fur coat’, vatuvke ‘quilted jacket’) and inner garments (Y. halke ‘petticoat, slip’, gatkies ‘underpants, drawers’), head dresses (Y. čepik ‘bonnet, cap’, kolpak ‘fur hat’, jarmulke ‘kippah’), accessories (Y. zapaske ‘apron’, krajke ‘selvage, border strip’), as well as fabrics (Y. atlas ‘satin’, koronke ‘lace’, barxan ‘fustian’). Many sewing techniques and procedures are also described with Slavic-derived words, e.g., Y. zašiven ‘to stitch up’, fastrigeven ‘to baste’, štukeven ‘to patch, to lengthen (e.g., sleeves)’, niceven ‘to turn inside out’, arumbregeven ‘to hem’ (cf. Kondrat 2012a). Some terms in this field have also been transferred in their Polish form and meaning, even though their ultimate origin was German, e.g., Y. hafteven ‘to embroider’ < P. haftować ‘idem’ < G. heften ‘to attach, fasten together’, Y. cereven ‘to darn, mend’ < P. cerować ‘idem’ < G. zieren ‘to decorate’. Generally, even though craftsmanship was traditionally the domain of German burghers in Poland, some Yiddish names of professions have still been borrowed from Polish, e.g., Y. stoljer < P. stolarz ‘carpenter’, Y. koval < P. kowal ‘blacksmith’, Y. modistke < P. modystka ‘milliner (female)’. Other, more common, core words of originally Germanic origin also seem to have been transferred via Polish, e.g., Y. rateven ‘to save, to rescue’ < P. ratować ‘idem’ (G. retten ‘idem’), and rabeven ‘to rob’ < P. rabować ‘idem’ (G. rauben ‘idem’). We also find many internationalisms mediated by Slavic languages, particularly the modern ones taken from Polish and Russian. These include the “operative” vocabulary of an intellectual discourse (e.g., Y. diskusje ‘discussion’, fikcje ‘fiction’), scientific terms (e.g., Y. paroksizm ‘paroxysm, fit’, topografje ‘topography’, akceleracje ‘acceleration’), names of modern institutions (e.g., Y. fundacje ‘foundation’, pensjonat ‘boarding house’, sanatorje ‘sanatorium’), artistic trends (e.g., Y. romantizm ‘Romanticism’, sentimantalizm ‘Sentimentalism’), political ideologies (e.g., Y. monarxizm ‘monarchism’, carizm ‘tsarism’, republikanizm ‘republicanism’, socjalizm ‘socialism’), and more. These were disseminated by

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

55

the developing Yiddish press, literature, as well as technical and scientific publications in the language and later also by Yiddish radio and films.36 The subject of hypocoristic forms introduced by Slavic child minders was already examined by M. Weinreich (2008: 537), though these are primarily morphological rather than lexical in nature. They include personal names, such as Xaimke, Mojšenju or Berčik, as well as apellatives, e.g., klejničker ‘hypoc. little one’ and esinken ‘hypoc. to eat’.37 Contacts in the proverbial street have left a trace in the coarser registers of Yiddish. Slavic vulgarisms and euphemisms are present among words related to sexuality, e.g., Y. kutas ‘prick (also of a person)’ < P. kutas ‘idem’, Y. cickes ‘tits’ < P. cycki ‘idem’, Y. kurve ‘slut, whore’ < P. kurwa ‘idem’, Y. pirge ‘pussy, lit. dumpling’ < P. pieróg ‘dumpling’ (cf. Wex 2005, Kondrat 2010b). It bears mentioning here that, from a psycholinguistic point of view, using foreign vocabulary to express vulgar, sexually-explicit terms is a way of circumventing linguistic taboos, hence this type of words is particularly prone to borrowing by bilinguals. Some Slavisms were apparently also present in the Yiddish criminal argot, cf. Y. crim. spodek ‘policeman’, possibly < P. spodek ‘saucer’ (Kurka 1889: 53). 5.3.2 Layers of Slavic Loanwords The distinguishable layers of the Slavic-origin vocabulary in Yiddish form a linguistic map and a timeline of the history of Jewish life in Eastern Europe. As such, this very complex subject will only be roughly summarized here. The Old Czech/Knaanic words have already been discussed in section 4.3. There are not many more of them. There is a layer of Slavisms traceable to Old Polish, e.g., Y. txojr ‘polcat’ < op. *tchōrž ‘idem’. Some of them show reflexes of the Old Polish long or Middle Polish tense vowels, which makes them at least as old as the 16th century, e.g., Y. kojmen ‘chimney’ ~ mp. kȯmin ‘1. idem, 2. hearth, stove’, Y. drojb ‘poultry’ ~ mp. drȯb ‘1. small horned household animals (goats, sheep, and etc.), 2. fry’, Y. stojg ‘haystack’ ~ mp. *stȯg ‘idem’. However, most Polonisms replicate the Modern-Polish pronunciation in its dialectal diversity. Many words of Polish origin have doublets resembling the East-Slavic forms, e.g., Y. pjente—pjate ‘heel’, demb/domb—dub ‘oak’, and etc. These show the competition between the (Old-)Polish-origin vocabulary and (the possibly newer) borrowings from East-Slavic languages or relics from East Knaanic. Alternatively, the competition may be between the more prestigious and more 36 37

For detailed discussions on the subject of Yiddish press s. Nalewajko-Kulikov (2012). For a comprehensive overview of morphological matter borrowings s. Chapter 1, section 3.2.

56

geller and gajek

frequent forms. An analysis of Slavic loanwords from this point of view is an interesting desideratum. Though it is also worth remembering that such doublets may simply be artifacts of standardization, whereas, in fact, the respective glosses could have been strictly delimited regionally. It is also possible that some older Slavic-origin words, including (West) Knaanic relics, were “updated” to better resemble the more current forms in the co-territorial Slavic languages. Weinreich quoted examples of the change in the older word-forms in the Polish dialect of Yiddish to conform to the modern Polish equivalents: cey. burn ‘ram, male sheep’ > cey. baran < P. baran, cey. pruce ‘labor, toil’ > cey. prace < P. praca, cey. tučke ‘wheelbarrow’ > cey. tačke < P. taczka (Weinreich M. 2008: 560–561). Moreover, Polish being the dominant state language in the large East-Slavic territories made it a possible target for these updates even when other alternatives were available. For these reasons, Polish word-forms can be treated as paradigmatic replacements for potential earlier Slavisms.38

6

Yiddish as Mixed Language

Both social and historical circumstances of the birth and subsequent evolution of Yiddish tended to favor the development of a mixed language. So far, we have only discussed the linguistic matter transferred into Yiddish from its sub-, super-, and adstrata. Linguistic patterns, essentially equivalent to grammatical and word-formational rules, are the primary features by which the typological character of a language can be determined. These patterns govern linguistic structures on all levels, including systems of grammatical categories, like the verbal or the nominal system. This section will attempt to analyze some patterns of Yiddish from such a holistic perspective. Nevertheless, it is essential to provide a broader introduction into the topic of mixed languages first. 6.1 Identifying Mixed Language After decades of disputes about their very existence, status, and classification criteria, mixed languages constitute a separate category in the contemporary contact linguistics. Numerous publications have already been devoted to describing and typologizing this category. Together with pidgin and creole languages, the mixed ones belong to the group of idioms covered by a

38

In this sense, references to Polish as a ‘source language’ should not always be treated literally.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

57

quite general term of contact languages. Mixed languages are generally defined as new vernaculars that emerged in a situation of intergroup contact where none of the tongues available to these groups was able to guarantee satisfactory communication (Bakker & Matras 2013: 1).39 An alternative would be for one language to absorb all the others which leads to the fear of losing group identity. Under such circumstances a new, mixed code is formed as a compromise. Initially, only pidgin and creole languages, which emerged in the colonial era, were considered of mixed character. These languages became the subject of linguistic research already in the second half of the 19th century. It has only been relatively recently that mixed languages as a separate group, also known as intertwined or split languages, have been distinguished among contact languages. According to current theories, what brings pidgins, creoles, and mixed languages together under the label of contact languages is the fact that they are created in a relatively short period of time (Bakker & Matras 2013: 2). However, their distinctive feature is that they cannot be derived in a continuous way from one common ancestor language. At the same time, acknowledged mixed languages are “fresh enough” to distinguish elements or categories from different sources in their basic grammatical and lexical make-up. Looking through the scholarship on mixed languages to date, one might get an impression that these idioms are still primarily associated with the endangered, short-lived vernaculars that were formed on the periphery of the major world languages such as English, French, Spanish, or Russian exported to foreign territories. These languages stayed in contact with local idioms during the colonial era or have remained in such contact in the postcolonial times. Another group of mixed languages includes variants that have arisen from contact between different group vernaculars. That contact has occurred, for example, as a result of mixed marriages, or from the desire of particular groups inhabiting a single territory to maintain their own identities against assimilation pressures (Meakins & Stewart 2019). Meanwhile, many characteristics concerning both the sociolinguistic conditions underlying the genesis of the mixed languages currently observed, as well as their very structure, can also be applied to the idioms that have enjoyed stable status as national languages for centuries. For example, English is such a tongue, but it enjoys little interest from contact linguistics (Winford 2013: 364). 39

Also cf. Aikhenvald (2006: 10): “Languages known as ‘mixed’ or ‘intertwined’ arise as a result of a combination of special sociolinguistic circumstances with semi-conscious efforts to ‘create a language’, in which different parts of grammar and lexicon come from different languages.”

58

geller and gajek

Consequently, the stereotypical perception of mixed languages as peripheral and/or ephemeral macaronic variants is not justified. Simply being a member of this group does not deprive a given idiom of its full-fledged linguistic functions, prestige, and identity properties. Therefore, we do not hesitate to include Yiddish in the category mixed languages. It is an idiom which over the course of several centuries not only became the vernacular of several million Jews living in Central and Eastern Europe, but also gained the status of a literary and cultural language (Nobel Prize in Literature for Isaac Bashevis Singer in 1978). Moreover, at the beginning of the 20th century, Yiddish even aspired to the role of a distinct national language of Central and Eastern-European Jews, but that process was brutally halted by the Holocaust. Proposing research on the mixed character of the currently established literary national languages, such as Yiddish, in no case negates the very nationbuilding function of language nor the phenomenon of language mixing as a universal and evident process. In fact, language mixing (as captured by the wave theory) has accompanied every language, to a greater or lesser extent, in its long-term development. This process took place as soon as a group speaking one language would interact socially with the users of another. The consensus is that this is a scalar phenomenon. Therefore, deeper understanding of the intra-systemic mechanisms at all stages of their development will allow for a better grasp of various language-formation and integration phenomena as well as their connection to other human cognitive processes. 6.2 Typology of Mixed Languages The category of mixed languages is diverse in terms of both the processes underlying their genesis and their internal structure. Just as the contact-induced linguistic changes themselves can be arranged on a continuum of intensifying phenomena, the resulting mixed languages can be placed on a scale depending on the degree of mixing (Meakins 2013: 179). In this sense, distinguishing the mixed from unmixed languages is essentially based on quantitative factors. A sufficiently large number of changes might lead to a qualitative change. As a result of significant restructuring, the basic core of grammar cannot be derived from a single source language. In short, we can assume that there is a transition of a quantitative change into a qualitative change, i.e., a move from the group of genetic languages to the group of the mixed ones. For identity reasons, users of mixed languages quite consistently retain transparent characteristics of their original languages or varieties for a long time. When over time a former mixed idiom becomes the identity language of a new, large, and stable group, the processes of intra-systemic integration and

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

59

leveling of the originally heterogeneous elements take place in it. Therefore when classifying a language as mixed, it becomes vitally important to recognize the elements of both linguistic matter and abstract patterns, as well as grammatical and semantic categories from different donor languages. On this basis, it might be deliberated whether such a change has indeed occurred. Young languages, in which the integration processes are not yet very advanced and the hybrid structure is still transparent, are best suited as research material for this kind of identification effort. This is why scholars show a great interest in languages that have been recently created or are being formed before our eyes. In spite of many diverse linguistic features characterizing such idioms, the current scholarship distinguishes three main structural types of mixed languages (cf. Meakins 2013, Meakins & Stewart 2019). 6.2.1 G(rammar)-L(lexikon) Split The newly created group idiom with a G-L structure, formed on the basis of two different tongues, is the prototypical example of a mixed language. In this type, the grammatical structure (G) comes from one and the lexicon (L) from another source. As we remember (Section 4.3), such languages might develop as a result of relexification. Media Lengua spoken in South America is the most commonly cited example of this type. The grammar of this language, along with its characteristic agglutinative system, stem from Quechua, the native tongue of the indigenous people of Ecuador. On the other hand, Media Lengua vocabulary, i.e., in fact its lexical morphemes, come from the immigrant Spanish. The Sapnish-origin units were consequently forced into a foreign morphosyntactic frame, thus creating a hybrid language system with clearly separable origins. 6.2.2 V(erbal System)-N(Nominal System) Split Another remarkable type, called V-N for short, includes languages whose grammatical system is divided according to the main parts of speech, or rather the basic syntactic constituents. Thus the verb phrase (vp) structure comes from one source and that of the nominal phrase (np) from another language. It seems that such a distribution is not accidental, since the most important exchange of information for communication is related to the predication process for which the verbal system is responsible. The French Canadian language Michif is a textbook example of such an idiom. Its verbal system was taken from the native tongue of the Cree tribe, while its nominal system stemmed from the immigrant French. This language seems to have emerged as a result of mass mixed marriages between Native women and French-Canadian fur

60

geller and gajek

traders. Interestingly, in Michif, the grammatical division largely corresponds to the lexical division: namely the nominal parts of speech come from and behave according to French grammar, while verbs are derived and conjugated as in the native Cree. Not all languages that can be characterized as V-N show such a clear correlation between grammar and vocabulary (Meakins 2013: 174) proving once again that this type of changes takes a scalar course. 6.2.3 Metatypy: Split of Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Systems. The apparently less transparent model, called metatypy, is the third general type. Ross (1996, 1999, 2007), who coined the term, defines it as a diachronic process whereby the morphosyntactic structures of one language (the replica language) are restructured according to the model of those existing in the other language (the model language). He describes the process as follows: “The constructions of the replica language are changed through metatypy so as to match those of the model language in meaning and morphosyntax.” (Ross 2007: 116). In other words, the lexical labels of the former, along with their corresponding inflectional exponents, are retained. In contrast, their combination rules and semantics are derived from the latter. This corresponds to the division into paradigmatic relations, involving idiosyncratic inflectional patterns, and syntagmatic relations, which regulate thematic roles and unit connectivity (Geller 1999: 84). This last type of relations is responsible for creating the structural framework of linguistic units of an increasingly higher order—syllables, morphemes, words, phrases, sentences, and even texts—which ultimately comprise the broadly defined mlf. Sri Lanka Malay is an example of metatypy cited in the literature. In this language, almost all of the vocabulary, including function words and morphology, comes from Malay, but the underlying structure originates from Tamil (Meakins 2013: 177, 178). The aforementioned three main structural types of mixed languages have been presented here in a considerable simplification. Needless to say, none of these models exists in a pure form. The classification of languages according to the described criteria takes place based on the dominance of specific mechanisms in a given contact situation and the final outcome of the linguistic changes they triggered. 6.3 Yiddish as Mixed Language As mentioned in the previous sections, Yiddish scholars have so far resisted to categorize Eastern Yiddish as a contact language or—with some recent exeptions—to study this idiom using the methods developed by contact lin-

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

61

guistics. The reasons for this state of affairs have been given in the previous sections of this chapter, especially in the introduction. Simultaneously, the research into the origins of Yiddish unreservedly assumes that its variant, now called Western Yiddish, formed in the German countries at the turn of the first and second millennium, resulted from the shift from Old French and Old Italian to Old German. Taking into account only the trace remnants of Romance in the vocabulary (see section 4.3 in this chapter), it would be difficult to describe Yiddish as a mixed language or—according to the terminology of M. Weinreich—a fusion language. Most scholars simply doubt its autonomous character with respect to German—the target language of that shift. Unfortunately, we do not know much about the size of the Francophone Jews’ group who made the transition. Based on the available linguistic material, it might be assumed that that language shift was rather complete. Moreover, the (Old) French features noted in Western Yiddish might have theoretically come from both the substrate and later adstrate influences. Conversely, Eastern Yiddish provides the opposite example. Its linguistic system, attested in continuous texts since the early 17th century, shows clear and numerous features of Slavic influence, both lexical and structural (Geller 2015). The system of modern literary Yiddish shares many attributes that link it to mixed languages even more. At the same time, it is important to emphasize the sociolinguistic differences associated with the very origins of the so-called Jewish languages, Yiddish being one of their best-formed representatives. Originally from the ancient Middle East, Jews were a literate people with an awareness of their own developed religion, culture, rituals, and literary tradition, which were all inextricably linked to the Hebrew language. According to the contemporary sociolinguistic criteria, their ancestral language represented the high variety in contact with the speech of illiterate peoples, adopted for utilitarian reasons during many centuries of diaspora. Regardless of whether Hebrew was in active use by a given group (and we know from historical sources that most often it was not), it constituted a repository of knowledge. From this source, discourse markers and numerous names of specific cultural institutions related to Judaism, its legislation, and rituals were adopted. Hebrew script was the most visible feature while Hebrew characters were assigned phonemic functions and each time adapted to the language being taken over. The aforementioned, originally preserved features of Hebrew were in a way superstratal and constituted an inherent characteristic of languages replicated by Jews as everyday speech. Taking over local languages in a more or less per-

62

geller and gajek

fect manner while preserving the essential external features of Hebrew, always made Jewish ethnolects out of the resulting variants. This guaranteed that users of Jewish languages would be able to preserve their own identity from the very beginning. Such a distribution of linguistic features constituted a kind of a compromise between prestige, identity, and the pragmatics of everyday life, where communication with the outside world was essential. That is why, Jewish people in Europe (and throughout the world) went through several language shifts in their history, each time creating their own ethnic Jewish variants (cf. Spolsky 2014, Hary and Bunin Benor 2018). These are characterized primarily by features derived from the Jewish identity language, Hebrew, and especially concern cultural vocabulary, discourse markers, and alphabet. The degree of distinctiveness of the Jewish variants from the target languages was certainly different every time. The examination of the respective differences between them with the use of the contact-linguistic methods still remains to be a desideratum of Jewish languages comparative studies. On one hand, the practice of numerous language shifts enacted by groups of Jews made it easy for them to migrate without the fear of losing the identity encoded in the Hebrew elements transferred and appropriately modified from one language to another. On the other hand, the consecutive language shifts would obscure the image of the previous substrate layers. Today, separating and identifying the historical linguistic strata turns out to be very difficult in many cases and sometimes almost impossible. This is not the case with Eastern Yiddish, where these processes are still quite transparent historically (cf. sections 4 and 5 above), and the “evidence” is recorded in the very structure of the language. 6.3.1 Framework of Contact-Induced Change in Yiddish While recognizing the so-called Hebrew component as a feature inherent in and common to all Jewish languages,40 one must recognize German and the Slavic languages as the main actors of the contact which led to the emergence and development of Eastern Yiddish. Different medieval Jewish varieties of those languages constituted the fundamental linguistic material for

40

Obviously, this is a simplification. Wexler rightly points out the existence of apparent lexical Hebraisms, which he calls Hebroidisms in Yiddish. They originated as loan translations or replicas as a result of the relexification he postulates: “[N]ew Hebrew forms and/or meanings, coined by Yiddish speakers to fill lexical lacunae due to the blockage of Germanisms.” (Wexler 2002: 27).

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

63

the new Jewish language to develop on the border between Ashkenaz and Knaan. As described in section 3 above, these Jewish ethnolects arose from the earlier language shifts. Yet we can only speculate on the previous substrates involved and the degree of shift completeness (e.g. Spolsky 2014: 171– 189). Therefore, for the sake of transparent reasoning, we assume that the historical Jewish varieties at the base of the Yiddish language did not differ fundamentally from the vernaculars of the surrounding peoples. The only difference would be the primarily lexical (Hebrew) elements, encoding the speakers’ identity, as is generally true for most ethnolects. Thus, these Jewish varieties would have retained the essential typological features of the respective Gentile languages as a result of a former complete language shift. It is the presence of such idiosyncratic characteristics in the newly formed idiom that helps to identify the origin of its heterogeneous linguistic make-up. The so-called Germanic and Slavic components of Yiddish will be represented here by German and Polish respectively, if necessary in their historical, dialectal, or sociolectal varieties. Described in detail in the previous sections, the historical and sociolinguistic contact situation allows us to assign the role of substrate to Slavic idioms and the role of superstrate to German historical dialects in the genesis of (Eastern) Yiddish. We assume that originally and as a result of incomplete language shift toward German, a new mixed variety emerged, thus providing the basis for the formation of Eastern Yiddish. Due to the subsequent centuries of interactions between the new Jewish idiom and both of its linguistic parents, the roles of German and the Slavic languages in the contact situation changed. Although Yiddish developed over the centuries surrounded by Slavic languages, German also remained an adstratum. The ongoing bilingualism on the fringes of the Yiddish community was also a source of numerous borrowings from both source languages after the shift. This means that modern Yiddish has provided an arena where a series of transformations took place. They resulted from both language shift and borrowing in sometimes varying directions. Therefore Yiddish, because of its long and intricate contact history, cannot be unambiguously classified into any of the mixed language types listed in section 6.1, despite its clearly hybrid character. 6.3.2 Mixed Features of Yiddish In Yiddish, it is possible to distinguish phenomena and characteristic features of the three main mechanisms of language mixing: relexification, splitting of the verbal and nominal system, and metatypy.

64

geller and gajek

6.3.2.1 Relexification Hypothesis As mentioned earlier, Paul Wexler was among the first researchers to propose a contact approach to the history of Yiddish. He put forward the hypothesis of dual and independent relexification of the two branches of Knaanic (West and East) to German (Wexler 2002). On the basis of the theory of relexification, drawn from research on creole languages, he concluded that Yiddish became or rather remained to be a Slavic language, like its two substrates. According do Wexler, the fact that Yiddish retained some typological, mainly phonological, syntactic, and semantic features of Slavic languages would provide proof of this process (Wexler 1991, 2002). As already indicated, his argumentation was refuted by other scholars. However, some traces of relexification processes are evident in Yidish. The relexification of autosemantic lexemes is easy to imagine since it resembles the process of loan translation familiar to all bilinguals. However, it is more difficult to see this phenomenon within grammatical structures and categories. In order to illustrate the mechanism of relexification in structure as well, Wexler (2002) cites two examples of function words—Y. vos and zix (see examples (3), (21) and (22) below). They represent cases where the original Slavic function word, the impersonal pronoun P. co ‘what’, and the reflexive pronoun P. się ‘oneself’, adopt the form (phonetic string) of their closest targetlanguage equivalents, respectively G. was and sich. Simultaneously, they have fully retained the functions as exponents of grammatical categories from the Slavic source system. Other function words, such as Y. gor ‘quite (adv.), entire (adj.)’ < P. wcale/całkiem ‘quite/entirely (adv.)’, and cały ‘entire (adj.)’ might be mentioned here. The prepositional system (see example (2) below) is another candidate to demonstrate what the process of relexification may involve. This is particularly clearly manifested in the prefixation of verbs, where the same prepositions, with their new functions, are used as affixes (examples see Geller 1999). Admittedly, Yiddish lacks one of the characteristic marks of relexification, i.e., the retention of the original bound morphemes, most of all the inflectional ones. The language has fully taken over the inflectional system from its German parent. Nevertheless, there are other mixing strategies that can explain this state of affairs, such as metatypy. Let us recall that Wexler proposed the relexification hypothesis for the genesis of Yiddish some three decades ago. At that time modern research on mixed languages was just developing and still lacked detailed empirical data to the extent we have today. The current body of knowledge allows us to have a better overview of possible scenarios. Signs of relexification can be found in Yiddish and are worth further study (cf. Spolsky 2014: 182–185). It should be recalled

65

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

once again that this phenomenon, as a group process, took place several hundred years ago and many other contact phenomena have built up on its effects. 6.3.2.2 Metatypy Model of Restructuring We currently know that the acquisition of the inflectional formatives of the target language may not be a determining factor in the final shape of the mlf in the newly formed intergroup idiom. Most notably, this complicates the identification of the underlying matrix language in cases of prolonged contact. Yet the idea of metatypy might provide a solution to this hurdle. The theory assumes that bilingual speakers imitate the morphosyntactic frame and semantics of one of their languages in the other one (Ross 2007: 124). In turn, this leads to a change in the typological features of the replica language (cf. Section 6.2.3). It seems that the effects of metatypy can be identical with incomplete language shift under specific circumstances.41 These occur when, after superficially acquiring the target language’s vocabulary along with its paradigms, bilinguals unconsciously try to preserve the internalized native mlf. In Yiddish, all inflectional paradigms are filled with German-derived morphemes. At the same time, the morphosyntactic frame seems modeled on the Slavic patterns. Next, we will show a few selected examples proving that Germanic flectives can be appropriately adapted to a morphosyntactic frame remodeled after the Slavic one (for more exampels cf. Chapters 3, 4, and 6). a. In Yiddish, two strategies of combining the subject with the predicate adjective seem to coexist in practice: the Germanic model, without grammatical agreement (Y.G), and the mixed model, which structurally replicates the Slavic pattern of obligatory grammatical agreement (Y.S). The Polish model, with surface-level grammatical congruence between the subject and the predicate adjective, seems more natural in both everyday and literary Yiddish.42 This characteristic is often cited as a difference between Yiddish and German, cf. example (1) below. (1)

Y.G zi she

41

This strategy resembles the phenomenon of interlanguage, known from foreign language didactics. This linguistic behavior follows the least effort principle of language economy. In Yiddish grammars, this model is described as a basic variant of the predicate form. Jacobs (2005: 241) cites Zaretski (1926), who argues that uninflected forms should be treated as adverbs, while inflected forms are regularly used in predicate adjectives. Elsewhere, Jacobs (2005: 173), citing Mark (1978: 214–215), attempts to functionally separate the two forms into predicate adjective (uninflected) and nominalized adjective (inflected). However, from the point of view of the model language, such a division seems redundant.

42

iz is

klug smart

vs er he

iz is

klug smart

vs mir zenen we are

klug smart

66

geller and gajek Y.S zi she P. (ona) (she) G. sie she

b.

iz a kluge vs er iz a kluger vs mir zenen is a smart.f he is a smart.m we are jest mądra vs (on) jest mądry vs (my) jesteśmy is smart.f (he) is smart.m (we) are.1 ist klug vs er ist klug vs wir sind is smart he is smart we are

This is also an example contradicting the claim that the simplification of grammatical systems is the immanent feature of mixed languages. The Slavic model with its grammatical agreement is “more demanding”, but, nevertheless, seems to dominate the simpler Germanic one. At the same time this example shows the coexistence of competing structures typical in metatypy (cf. Ross 2007: 127). As a result, we obtain a mixed model with an obligatory personal pronoun in the subject position, opposite to Polish which is a pro-drop language. There the occurrence of the pronoun is facultative and mostly considered marked. Simultaneously, inflectional exponents of gender and number occur in the determiner, as in the Slavic tongue. Such structural hybridity is also characteristic of metatypy.43 Numerous examples of parallel models of prepositional government in Polish and Yiddish, which do not coincide with German, provide another proof of Slavic influence on Yiddish syntagmatics, e.g.

(2) Y. Er iz avekgeforn af he is away.gone on P. Wyjechał na out.gone.3.m.sg on G. Er ist weggefahren für he is away.gone for ‘He went away for two months’.

c.

43

kluge smart.pl mądrzy smart.m.pl klug smart

cvaj two dwa two zwei two

hadošim. months miesiące. months Monate. months

The matter of prepositional government should be analyzed in the broader perspective of the resemantization of prepositions and prefixes derived from them. On the other hand, the heterogenous nature of the entire morpho-semantic pattern is rarely noticed, s. example (9). The equivalents of relative sentences introduced with a uniform connector, as in Y. vos ‘what’, can be found both in Hebrew and some German

“[M]etatypy itself must have been a gradual process during which a good deal of variation occurred.” (Ross 2007: 127).

67

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

dialects. However, sentences with the equivalent of ‘what’ followed by a pronominal correlate of the complement (Y.S) rather point to a syntactic frame common in historical, dialectal, and/or colloquial Slavic varieties, cf. (3a) Y.S Er redt he talks P. Mówi talks.3.m Y.S (contd.) im him P. (contd.) go him (3b) Y.G Er he G. Er he

redt talks redet talks

mit a menčn, vos me hot with a human.dat what one has z człowiekiem, co with human.inst what ništ not nie no

mit with mit with

gezen a ganc seen a whole widziano cały seen.pass whole.m

a a einem a.dat

menčn, human.dat Menschen, human.dat

jor. year rok. year

velxn which.m.acc welchen which.m.acc

me one man one

hot has ein a

Y.G (contd.) ništ gezen a ganc jor. not seen a whole year G. (contd.) ganzes Jahr nicht gesehen hat. whole.n year not seen has ‘He is talking to a man who was not seen for a whole year.’

d.

It is true that this is not the only way of expressing the relative relation in Yiddish. Moreover, the existence of an equivalent model (Y.G) with a different connector parallel to the one used in German (3b), cf. Y. velxe/velxer ‘which’ < G. welch/welche/welcher ‘idem’, again demonstrates the competition between the parent languages in taking over the structural framework of the new idiom. An interesting case of a sentence with focus expressed by sentence-initial Y. dos ‘this, that’ is discussed by Prince (1998b, 2001: 268). This example is often quoted in the contact-linguistic literature (cf. Ross 2007: 127, 129, Heine & Nomachi 2013: 74). Unfortunately, Prince analyzes this construction in separation from the pragmatic context of such focus sentences, both in Yiddish and the Slavic languages. Thus, she comes to the wrong conclusions, seeing the reasons for this replication in unnec-

68

geller and gajek

essarily complicated and speculative language-internal developments.44 Although Ross (2007) proposed treating this phenomenon as an element of metatypy in Yiddish, he also failed to provide a full pragmatic context. Yet, the “dos” focal construction in Yiddish constitutes a structural replication of one of the functions of the impersonal pronoun P. to ‘this’ > Y. dos (< G. das) ‘idem’, along with its contextual location, cf. (4) Y. Dos hot Lejb gezen Eriken this has Leyb seen Erika.acc P. To Lejb widział Erikę this Leyb saw.3.m Erika.acc

(un (and (a (and

ništ not nie no

Erike Erika Erika Erika

Lejbn.) Leyb.acc) Lejba.) Leyb.acc)

G. Es war Lejb der Erika sah (und nicht umgekehrt.) it was Leyb that.m Erika saw (and not reversed). ‘It was Leyb that saw Erika (not the other way around).’ This type of sentences does not occur independently and out of context. They are always a reaction to some prior assertion which requires an explicit marking of topic and focus in order to be denied (5) or confirmed (6), e.g. (5)

Y.G (Ci) Erike hot gezen (ptcl.ynq) Erika has seen P. (Czy) Erika widziała (ptcl.ynq) Erika saw.3.f ‘Did Erika see Leyb?’

(6)

Y. (Ci) dos hot Lejb ptcl.ynq this has Leyb P. (Czy) to Lejb ptcl.ynq this Leyb ‘Was it Leyb that saw Erika?’

Lejbn? > Nejn, dos hot Lejb gezen Eriken. Leyb.acc no this has Leyb seen Erika.acc Lajba. > Nie, to Lejb widział Erikę. Leyb.acc no this Leyb saw.3.m Erika.acc > ‘No, it was Leyb who saw Erika.’

gezen seen widział seen.3.m.sg

Eriken? > Jo, dos hot Lejb gezen Eriken. Erika.acc yes this has Leyb seen Erika.acc Erikę? > Tak, to Lejb widział Erikę. Erika.acc yes this Leyb seen.3.m.sg Erika.acc > ‘(Yes,) It was Leyb who saw Erika.’

In examples (5) and (6), we see that not only the Polish syntactic frame has been preserved in Yiddish, but also the entire discursive model (for more examples see Geller 1991). Moreover, examples (3), (5), (6), (8) indi-

44

For more arguments in favor of contact-induced grammatical change in this case see Lucas (2012).

69

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

cate that the V2 word order, while undoubtedly preferred in Yiddish main sentences is not as absolutely obligatory in German. In addition to the above often-discussed examples, there are, in fact, other instances of syntactic structures that indicate metatypy in the Yiddish word order. These include, for example, the placement of the negator Y. ništ/nit ‘not’ at the beginning of a negative sentence: (7) Y. Nit not P. Nie no

zux seek.2.imp szukaj seek.2.imp

mix me.acc mnie me.acc

vu di mirten grinen. where the myrtles green.prs.pl gdzie mirty zielenieją. where myrtles green.prs.3.pl

G. Such mich nicht wo die Myrthen grünen. seek me.acc not where the myrtles green.prs.pl ‘Don’t look for me where the myrtles green.’45 Disjunctive questions with the question particle Y. ci as in (5) and (6) would provide another case (cf. Chapter 6). The so-called narrative sentences with the vso order represent a further example of a Slavic syntactic frame filled in with Germanic lexical units along with their inflections. (8) Y.

Kumt a jid cun comes a Jew46 to.the.dat P. Przychodzi człowiek do comes human to G. Es kommt ein Mensch zum it comes a human to.the.dat ‘A man comes to the doctor and says …’

dokter doctor lekarza doctor.gen Arzt doctor

un and i and und and

zogt … says mówi … says sagt … says

e.

These few examples point to a hidden mlf with distinctly Slavic features, into which Yiddish fits lexical units with German inflections. Naturally, there are also cases in Yiddish of syntactic structures with distinct Germanic typological features that have no counterparts in Slavic languages, such as the separation of the majority of prepositional prefixes from their verb cores of the type:

45 46

Title of a folk song, see index in Gordon Mlotek and Mlotek (1997: 291–296). In Yiddish, the word jid ‘Jew’ may also mean ‘(an unspecified) man.’

70

geller and gajek

(9) Y. unter|gisn > ix gis under.pour I pour P. pod|lewać > under.pour E. ‘to water’

f.

(10) Y. P.

unter under

pod|lewam under.pour.1.prs

> ‘I am watering’

This does not weaken the metatypy hypothesis in Yiddish because, as mentioned above in a., this theory allows for co-occurrence of variant structures coming from the competing languages. Striking morphological parallels between Yiddish and Polish are also evident in word formation. The examples given below demonstrate that the syntagmatic rules governing lower-level linguistic structures also coincide with the Slavic patterns. For example, some of these rules regulate the morpheme connections within compound lexemes, regardless of their surface-level structure or the origin of the specific units involved in the word formation process, cf. breg edge brzeg edge

daf page strony page.gen

G. Seitenrand page.conr.edge E. ‘edge of the page’

rant edge kant edge

tiš table stołu table.gen

Tischrand table.edge ‘table edge’

hultajske rogue.adj.f hultajskie rogue.adj.n

xasene wedding wesele wedding

Schurkenhochzeit rogue.conr.wedding ‘rogues’ wedding’

kapcanske wally.adj.pl kapcańskie wally.adj.pl

gešixtn stories historie stories

Schnorrergeschichten wally.stories ‘wally stories’

This matter is discussed in detail in other chapters of this volume (see Chapter 4). 6.3.2.3 V-N model As indicated above, Yiddish shows traces of metatypy, but also of relexification, and interlanguage. On closer inspection, this idiom also exhibits some features in common with those mixed languages that replicate the nominal system of one parent language and the verbal system of the other. It can be assumed that the Yiddish nominal system more closely resembles the German model, while the verbal system displays significant parallels to the Slavic one (cf. Geller 1999). Even though a more thorough comparative analysis would be needed to prove this claim, we will attempt to show on a few examples that this hypothesis is worth pursuing.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate 6.3.2.3.1

71

Nominal System

Most of all, unlike the Slavic languages but similarly to German and Hebrew, Yiddish is an article language. In contrast to Hebrew, Yiddish has both definite and indefinite articles. In German, the definite article is fully inflected in singular and plural, while the indefinite one only in singular. Conversely, in Yiddish only the definite article is marked for gender (feminine, masculine, neuter) and case. The indefinite article occurs only in singular and is uniform for all categories and functions, as it is in English. Plural has its own uniform definite article. The attrition of article inflection is observable in some Germanic languages, such as English and Dutch. Thus, this is a more general tendency which the development of modern Yiddish fits into. The fact that Yiddish belongs to the languages that use articles possibly represents its strongest tie to the Germanic family. The language’s nominal system also has other features that have parallels in German. Some of them are enumerated below: a. In most cases, the plural of nouns is formed with help of German inflections while the morphological “umlaut” is retained. This model has also diffused to nouns of Slavic and Hebrew origin. (11) Y. der tog (G. Tag) ‘day’ > di teg ‘days’ Y. der drong (P. drąg) ‘bar, pole’ > di drenger ‘bars, poles’ > di penimer ‘faces’ Y. der ponim (H. ponim) ‘face’ The “umlaut” has also been preserved in the comparison of adjectives, creation of diminutive forms, and other word-forming processes, cf. (12) Y. klug (G. klug) ‘smart’ > cmpr. kliger (G. klüger) ‘smarter’ Y. top (G. Topf ) ‘large pot’ > dim. tepl (G. Töpflein ‘little pot’) ‘pot’ Y. maxt (G. Macht) ‘power’ > adj. mextiker (G. mächtig) ‘powerful’

Yiddish has retained the German inflectional agreement between the noun and the adjectival modifier, albeit with some morphological leveling, cf. (13) Y. der/a kluger the/a.m clever.m.sg G. der kluge ein kluger the.m clever.m.sg.def a.m clever.m.sg.ndef E. ‘a clever student (male)’

talmid vs di/a kluge talmide student the/a.f clever.f.sg student.f Schüler vs die/eine kluge Schülerin student the/a.f clever.f.sg student.f vs ‘a clever student (female)’

72

b.

geller and gajek

The aforementioned features are undoubtedly modeled on German. Yet some other elements of the nominal system, while still of Germanic origin, do bear traces of contact with Slavic languages. Slavic languages are known for preserving a large number of cases and an elaborate nominal inflection, which was partially lost and replaced by prepositional constructions in German. Yiddish has reduced the set of cases even further. In fact, we can only distinguish the subject case (traditionally referred to as the Nominative), the direct object case (Accusative) and the prepositional case (Dative). What is surprising is that we can find indications of Vocative use in Yiddish, which constitutes a clear Slavic morphological imprint. This seems to be one of the few cases when a Polish inflectional formative (P. {-u}) entered Yiddish. It is probably due to the syncretism of the source-language derivational formative P. {-nia} and the inflectional P. {-u}, rendering the unified Y. {-nju}. Despite this morphemic fusion, the unit still retained some functions of the Slavic Vocative. However, it did not become a part of the case paradigm but rather a derivational morpheme encoding an addressative meaning. This is corroborated by the fact that these forms often co-occur with exclamatory elements such as Y. oj! Therefore, in our opinion, they are likely more than a result of mere lexical or morphological borrowing.

(14) Y. nom./voc. (oj) mamenju, tatenju, gotenju… (o) mamuniu, tatuniu, Bożuniu/Boziuniu… P. voc. E. (oh dear) mother, father, God … At the same time, it should be mentioned that Polish also has a tendency to refunction the Vocative inflectional marker as a derivational morpheme, cf. (15) Y. mamenju (voc) > mamenju (nom) ‘mommy’ P. gościu (voc) > gośću (nom) ‘dude’

c.

In Yiddish, the process of lexicalization seems to have been quicker and more complete thanks to the lack of pressure from the inflectional system, as opposed to Polish. The Yiddish obligatory inflection of proper names in oblique cases (cf. examples (5) and (6) above) is an interesting phenomenon worth taking a closer look. In German such an agreement in personal names occurs only rarely. Therefore it is rather the so-called weak inflection of appella-

73

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

tive nouns in German, cf. Nom./Acc. das Herz ‘heart’—Gen./Dat. des/dem Herzen that might have played a model role for this kind of inflection. On the other hand, the obligatory nature of this morpho-syntactic phenomenon in Yiddish with regard to proper names of both genders points rather to the pressure exerted by the Slavic model. Its influence could have been reinforced by the occurrence of morphs in the Polish accusative that are quasi-homophonic with the Yiddish ones, cf. (16) Y. zi redt mit Lajb|n, Heršl|en, Klugman|en, Sore|n… P. mówi z Lejb|em, Herszl|em, Klugman|em Sar|ą, col. [sarɔm] … E. she is speaking with Leyb, Hershel, Klugman, Sarah …

d.

Although Yiddish has retained an ability to create compounds of the German type, the number of their constituent lexemes is limited. Moreover, they are often replaced by mostly analytic or asyndetic constructions which replicate Slavic derivational models (cf. Chapter 4). The most striking development is the possibility of creating relational adjectives in the function of the determinans from noun modifiers, that even include proper names, cf.

(17) Y. šnajderšer varštat tailor.adj.m.nom workshop P. warsztat krawiecki workshop tailor.adj.m.nom E. ‘tailor’s workshop’

marcover March.adj.m.nom marcowy March.adj.m.nom ‘March snow’

šnej snow śnieg snow

It should be noted that the aforementioned features refer primarily to the inflectional system. At the same time derivation seems to conform to Slavic models (for examples in diminutization s. Geller 2012). “Sejfer derex ejc ha-xajim”, the earliest continuous Eastern Yiddish text known so far, published in the early 17th century, sheds a new light on the possibility of the substratal origin of the structures in example (17). Attributive constructions such as Y. dembove bojm/holc/bleter ‘oak tree/wood/leaves’ (cf. Geller 2015: 212; footnote 345), are quite frequent in the book and apparently compete with German-type compound nouns. 6.3.2.3.2

Verbal System

At first glance, the verb conjugation system in both German and Yiddish is also fundamentally different from the paradigms existing in Polish. The most important dissimilarity results from the fact that modern Polish has lost its analytical

74

geller and gajek

way of expressing the past tense. The remnants of the auxiliary verb P. być ‘to be’ have merged with inflectional endings. Analytic conjugational constructions still exist in other West Slavic languages, e.g., in Czech, while in Polish, they were present only into the 15th century. On the other hand, Yiddish also exhibits internally triggered developments pushing it away from the German model. Most of these changes consist in the leveling of irregular forms. For instance, unlike in the nominal system, Yiddish verb conjugation has not preserved vocal alternations (“umlaut”) in the present tense,47 cf. (18) Y. ix for G. ich fahre ‘I ride’ Y. du forst G. du fährst ‘you ride’ Y. er fort G. er fährt ‘he rides’ However, other peculiarities of the Yiddish verbal system do seem to be due to contact with Slavic languages. The following examples will illustrate this claim. a. A striking difference is the fact that Polish is a pro-drop language, i.e., a language where the presence of a personal pronoun as the subject is considered marked. Conversely, in German, the presence of the accompanying pronoun on the surface level is obligatory. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to omit the sentence-initial personal pronoun in colloquial Yiddish. This is not a feature of the telegraphic style, but a fully acceptable grammatical form (cf. Prince 1998a). (19) Y. Bin opgeven a am off.been a P. Przebywałem through.was.npfv.1.m ‘I was on vacation for a month.’

xojdeš month miesiąc month

af on na on

vakacjes. vacations wakacjach. vacations.loc

It is also possible to skip an auxiliary verb in the past tense and place the participle in the sentence-initial position, cf. (20) Y. Geven amol a jid mit a jidene. been one.time a Jew with a Jewess P. Był raz chłop z babą. was.3.m one.time man with woman.inst ‘There were once a man and a woman.’ 47

Vocalic alternations occur exceptionally in the inflection of individual, frequent verbs,

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

b.

75

This elision results in a vso sentence structure, characteristic of the Yiddish and Polish narrative word order (cf. example (8)). The uniformization of the personal pronoun in the conjugation of reflexive verbs provides an example of an inflectional paradigm change under Slavic influence, cf.:

(21) Y. ix vaš zix P. myję się G. ich wasche mich E. I am washing myself du vašt zix myjesz się du wäschst dich you are washing yourself er vašt zix myje się er wäscht sich he is washing himself mir vašn zix myjemy się wir waschen uns we are washing ourselves ir vašt zix myjecie się ihr wäscht euch you are washing yourselves zej vašn zix myją się sie waschen sich they are washing themselves

The above paradigm shift is also in line with Wexler’s proposed relexification and reanalysis of the auxiliary word Y. zix ‘oneself’ < G. sich ‘idem’, modeled on the use of P. się ‘idem’. Yiddish has some obvious lexical calques from Polish like Y. špiln zix ‘to play’, lernen zix ‘to learn’ < P. bawić się ‘idem’, uczyć się ‘idem’, which have been extensively discussed in grammars. Interestingly enough, the uniform polyfunctional pronoun Y. zix has also taken over the function of the optional free Dative.48 It is used in the replica of a productive Slavic model, which creates formally reflexive forms from all verbs, including the intransitive ones. It has to be noted that the Yiddish zix replicates the function of all (etymologically and functionally related) Polish reflexive pronouns which are P. się, sobie/col. se, siebie, cf. (22) Y. gejen zix walk rfl P. chodzić sobie/se walk rfl.dat E. ‘to walk around casually’

unterzingen under.sing podśpiewywać under.sing.npfv ‘to hum’

zix rfl sobie/se rfl.dat

šlofn zix sleep rfl spać sobie/se sleep rfl.dat ‘to have a bit of a nap’

Such constructions are impossible in German.

48

such as Y. gebn ‘to give’ and veln ‘to want’. However, a levelling tendency is also evident in their inflectional paradigms, cf. Y. gebn > ix gib, du gist, er git, mir gibn/gebn, ir git, zej gibn/gebn vs G. geben > ich gebe, du gibst, er gibt, wir geben, ihr gebt, sie geben. Schaechter coined the term špilevdiker dativ, playful Dative, for this type of constructions.

76

geller and gajek

c.

Yiddish not only modifies inflectional paradigms but also introduces new ones in line with the Slavic model, e.g., the full paradigm of the imperative mood. For this purpose, the auxiliary word Y. lozn ‘to let’ < G. lassen ‘idem’ is grammaticalized (for details s. Chapter 3, section 4.2). Similarly, the negation system, both at the level of the pronominal negators used and the semantic and syntactic constructions (cf. example (7)), can be interpreted as an almost complete replica of the Slavic system. Besides the direct borrowing of some Slavic implicitly negational operators, such as P. lada ‘any’, aby ‘any’ > Y. ljade ‘idem’, abi ‘idem’, Yiddish employs a range of covert strategies to combine German matter with Polish patterns. These strategies include the loan translation of negation phrases, e.g., P. już nie > Y. šojn nit ‘no more, not anymore, no longer’, P. już więcej nie > Y. šojn mer nit ‘no more, not anymore’. Nevertheless, when it comes to the indefinite pronouns used in negation, as listed by van Auwera and Gybels (2013), we can speak of relexification as the underlying process, e.g., Y. amol < P. raz vs Y. ejn mol < P. jednego razu ‘one time, once upon a time’, Y. gor (< G. gar) = P. całkiem ‘completely, entirely’, wcale ‘at all’, Y. gornit = P. wcale nie ‘not at all’, Y. ver-nit-iz = P. dial. kto nie bądź ‘anybody, anyone’ (cf. U. xto-nebud’ ‘idem’). These strategies allow for a comprehensive explication of the phenomena that are foreign to the German system. Almost all negative sentences presented in van Auwera and Gybels (2013) can provide examples for intertranslability with Polish equivalents, cf. e.g.

d.

(23) Y.

Ober ix darf kejn mejdl nit, ix but I need.1.sg none girl not I P. Ale ja nie potrzebuję żadnej dziewczyny, nie but I no need.1.sg none.f.gen girl.gen no Y. (contd.) vil nit kejn xasene hobn. want.1.sg not none wedding have P. (contd.) chcę żadnego ślubu. want.1.sg none.m.gen wedding.gen ‘But I don’t need any girl, I don’t want no wedding.’ Even single-negation sentences, considered by van Auwera and Gybels (2013: example 87) as exceptional, such as the second clause in our example (24) have their parallels in Polish.

(24) Y. Ober ix but I

darf kejn need.1.sg none

mejdl girl

nit, ix not I

vil nit xasene want.1.sg not wedding

hobn. have

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate P. Ale ja nie potrzebuję żadnej dziewczyny, but I no need.1.sg none.f.gen girl.gen ‘But I don’t need any girl, I don’t want a wedding.’

nie chcę no want.1.sg

77 ślubu. wedding.gen

Moreover, they have a nuanced pragmatic meaning compared to the more categorical double negation (example (23)) in both the model (Polish) and replica (Yiddish) language. e. Just as the expression of definiteness using articles is a typological characteristic of the German nominal system, grammatical aspect is the hallmark of the Slavic verbal grammar. The existence of aspect as a grammatical category in Yiddish has been discussed for years leading to opposing conclusions. However, countless examples of word formation indicate a complete remodeling of the semantics and function of verbal prefixes and suffixes toward the possibility of expressing aspectual meanings (example (19); s. Chapter 3, section 4.1 for a detailed explanation). Another argument for at least a partial introduction of aspect into the Yiddish system is the paradigmatic nature of aspectual forms, such as Y. gebn a šraj ‘to utter a scream’ vs P. wydać okrzyk ‘idem’ (cf. Chapter 1, section 3.2). f. In the context of the Slavic influence on the Yiddish verbal system, the absence of the preterite tense in Eastern Yiddish, as opposed to the Western variant, should also be mentioned. In this respect, Yiddish apparently replicates the historic Polish model. Furthermore, there is the grammaticalization of the past participle Y. geven. In view of this, we must conclude that the systemic scaffolding of the German tam (Tense, Aspect, Mood) system in Yiddish has been seriously compromised (cf. Geller 1999, and Chapter 3, section 4). In our opinion, the aforementioned examples provide convincing evidence of the mixed character of Yiddish. This language also possesses clear features of the V-N type described earlier. Moreover, according to most borrowing hierarchies, verbal direct borrowings constitute a less numerous class than nouns. Nevertheless, the percentage of verbs present among Yiddish Slavisms is strikingly high (Geller 1994). This constitutes an additional argument for the high degree of the Slavization of the Yiddish verbal system. In addition, a division of roles between the parent languages on a higher level of the grammatical system can also be observed. It seems that paradigmatic relations in Yiddish, understood primarily as the inflectional system, are dominated by the German model. At the same time the syntagmatic relations, also on the derivational level, are ruled by the Slavic model. Yet this hypothesis still requires additional and detailed research.

78

geller and gajek

6.4 How to Distinguish Internal from Contact-Induced Changes Within the framework of the genealogical approach, the peculiarities of the Yiddish system against the Germanic model were essentially explained as intralinguistic changes. Indeed, traces of individual features, such as gradability of diminutives, aspectoid forms, lack of simple past tense, inflection of proper names, and double negation, can be found in separate historical and geographical varieties of German or other Germanic languages. It is theoretically possible that there may be some latent disposition within the Germanic family to the changes which have so distinctly taken place in Yiddish. However, first of all, it would be hard to prove that Yiddish ever had intense contact with the said varieties and languages. Secondly, even within the latter, some of the mentioned features are rather marked or marginal. Last but not least, there is no single Germanic variety that would include all or most of them. On the contrary, the distinctive features of Yiddish parallel the most characteristic and common phenomena for the Slavic languages with which Yiddish was in a documented, intense, and centuries-long contact. It is also worth mentioning that the observed typological shift in Yiddish involves not just separate, idiosyncratic structures but entire categories and their exponents. These include negation, aspect, the semantics and pragmatics of modal verbs, the complementary character of the diminutive and the augmentative, and more. Therefore, their interpretation as contact phenomena seems more legitimate. From the scientific method point of view, the simplest reasoning is considered as the best argument in the interpretation of the observable facts. Especially, if it is supported by the quantitative factor, in this case—the frequency and universality of the occurrence of certain typological phenomena in the Slavic languages.49 According to the contemporary knowledge about the mechanisms of language contact, users transfer the most characteristic typological features of a given language system to the target idiom. This would explain the simultaneous presence of nominal definiteness and verbal aspect exponens in Yiddish. This does not alter the fact that distinguishing the external from internal changes remains to be a significant problem in contact research. Particularly, since these mechanisms may be at work simultaneously. Nonetheless, researchers have attempted to devise tests to assist in the identification of contact factors that trigger language change.

49

Cf. Diagnostics in Heine & Nomachi (2013: 82), esp. “D5: Frequency of use. […] [D]ifferences in the relative frequency of constructions may also provide a diagnostic for grammatical replication.”

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

79

In the following subsections, several criteria from the diagnostics proposed by Heine & Nomachi (2013) are applied to Yiddish. These assessments allow us to further determine whether the systemic features in question can be explained by contact influence of Slavic languages. Incidentally, Heine & Nomachi (2013) themselves draw on examples of Yiddish grammatical characteristics in relation to German to illustrate the mechanisms of externally-induced change. 6.4.1 Intertranslatability This is an important criterion, especially if the idioms involved are not typologically related. Assuming that Yiddish is a Germanic language according to the dominant narrative, its interlinear translatability into Polish is surprisingly high. This applies to colloquial speech, just as well as to the literary language.50 (25) Y.

Vi nor flegn zix šteln di as only aux.v.npfv rfl set.inf the P. Jak tylko zaczynają nastawać as only aux.v.incep.npfv on.set.inf Y. (contd.) šejne zumerdike teg … beautiful.nom.pl summer.adj.nom.pl days P. (contd.) piękne letnie dni … beautiful.nom.pl summer.adj.nom.pl days G.

Sobald die schönen Sommertage kommen … so.soon the beautiful.nom.pl summer.days come.pl ‘Just as beautiful summer days begin to set in …’ This example shows more than just differences in word order, semantics (Y. šteln zix vs G. kommen), and function between Polish/Yiddish and German. The most interesting parallels between Yiddish and Polish are covert. Both sentences express the category of aspect, albeit with different exponents. While German-like on the surface level, the Yiddish construction Y. flegn zix šteln ‘to be in the process of setting in’ has a hybrid character. The expression consists of the equivalents of the German word G. pflegen ‘to usually do’ as an auxil-

50

Sentence in example (25) taken from I.J. Singer’s “Fun a velt vos iz ništo mer” (New York: 1946).

80

geller and gajek

iary and the verb G. sich stellen ‘to arise’, semantically remodeled according to the Polish pattern. The phrase is the replica of two fused Polish expressions: P. stawać się ‘to become’ and nastawać ‘to set in’. Also, there is a semantic connection between the lexemes Y. šteln and P. stawać which both refer to the concept of ‘standing’. Another covert parallel consists in the use of an analytic attributive construction (Y. zumerdike teg ‘summer days’, P. letnie dni ‘idem’) instead of a regular German compound (Sommertage ‘idem’; cf. Chapter 4). Interestingly enough, Heine & Nomachi (2013) use the example of a Yiddishinduced relative sentence in American English to illustrate the role of intertranslatability in the identification of external linguistic influence. (26) E. *The woman at her am I stayed. Y. Di froj, vos bej ir bin ix geven. P. Ta kobieta, co u niej byłam. G. *Die Frau was bei ihr bin ich gewesen. ‘The woman with whom I was staying.’ Yiddish acts as a model language here. The result is a grammatically unacceptable phrase in English. On the other hand, when we view the same Yiddish relative sentence as a replica of a colloquial Polish model, we obtain a pair of perfectly matched morpho-syntactic constructions.51 They overlap both structurally and semantically and are equally unacceptable in German. The phenomenon of morpho-semantic translatability from Yiddish into Polish has been described in detail and illustrated with many examples in Geller (2001, 2008b, 2009). 6.4.2 Genetic Relationship A close relationship between idioms often prevents the identification of certain phenomena that may have their origin in language contact. If a phenomenon occurs in other related dialects or languages, it is assumed in advance that it is inherited. That said, if an idiom is assumed to be closely related to another, in this case Yiddish and German, and one of them has features that the other lacks, the balance of deciding its origin tilts in favor of contact influence.

51

Heine & Nomachi (2013: 72); Notice that the past participle in Yiddish and Polish is the same and equates to the verb “to be”. Otherwise, Polish as a pro-drop language does not require the pronoun with the finite verb. The auxiliary is also absent in the modern language.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

81

According to this criterion, Heine & Nomachi (2013) used the sentence cited by Prince (1998b), which is also discussed above in examples (5) and (6). They concluded independently that the mentioned structure is evidence for contact influence as follows: This construction has no obvious analog in Germanic languages other than Yiddish, but there are analogs in other Slavic languages—hence, replication from Slavic languages such as Ukrainian, Belarusian, and/or Polish to Yiddish is the most plausible hypothesis. heine & nomachi 2013: 74

The replica of the reflexive pronoun Y. zix ‘oneself’ < P. się ‘idem’ is another example quoted in this context by the aforementioned authors as proof of the undoubted influence of the Slavic grammatical model in the Germanic (sic!) Yiddish. Here it is discussed in examples (21) and (22). Interestingly, this is not the only case of the strong influence of this characteristic Slavic construction in Germanic-Slavic relations.52 The transfer of the same strong feature in a variety of linguistic constellations at the Germanic-Slavic linguistic border shows demonstratively how strong the pressure is to replicate distinctive, typological systemic features from the source language in the target one. 6.4.3 Rare Grammatical Category This diagnostic is defined as follows (Heine & Nomachi 2013: 77): If two neighboring and genetically unrelated (or only remotely related) languages share a grammatical category that is cross-linguistically highly unusual, then there is some probability that this commonality is due to language contact. The category of nominal augmentation transferred along with the whole set of respective formatives from Polish into Yiddish provides the best example to illustrate the correctness of this requisite in our context. Augmentation is the expression of a large size and/or pejorative connotation in word-forms. Obviously, German also has means of expressing this type of content, but

52

The authors cite the influence of Slovenian on Austrian German dialects (Heine & Nomachi 2013: 74) while Andrason (2020: 141–142) reports a similar effect of Polish influence on the Wilamovian language (Wymysorys).

82

geller and gajek

these are lexico-semantic and not morphological in nature. Conversely, a fixed morphological system of augmentation is a characteristic feature of the Slavic languages. Yiddish has taken over the framework of this morpho-semantic category. However, since the German component lacked sufficient augmentative formatives, Yiddish was forced to borrow almost all of them from the Slavic sources. Furthermore, augmentation in Yiddish should be treated as complementary to the elaborate diminutive morphology. Together, they make up a coherent morpho-semantic system for expressing not only size differences, but also a plethora of emotively marked meanings. These range from grossly pejorative to hypocoristic, just as in the Slavic languages (Geller 2012: 404), cf.:

(27)

Diminutive ii

Y. mejdele

Diminutive i/ Neutral

Neutral/ Augmen- Augmentative Augmentative tative i ii i

mejdl

mejdlčine

P. dziewczynka/ dziewczynka/ dziewczyna dziewczyneczka dziewczyna

mojd

mojdčiske, mojdec, mojdure dziewucha dziewczynisko, dziewuszysko

The equivalences provided under (27) are to be considered roughly as they are given for illustrative purposes. In the actual language use, each section of this diminutive-augmentative scale was ambivalent. For example, the word Y. mejdl came to mean both ‘girl’ and, more often, ‘little girl’. Hence, a third form, Y. mejdlčine, was created as a hybrid from Y. mejdl and P. dziewczyna to fill in the gap. 6.4.4 Paired Structural Similarity53 As indicated in the previous section, particular contact phenomena should not be treated in an atomistic manner. It is one of the most common errors made when discussing the so-called Slavic component in Yiddish. Meanwhile most of the Slavic features that Yiddish took on during prolonged and intensive contact are entangled in a whole network of structural and categorial relationships. 53

This includes instances when “there is a set of two or more interrelated properties shared by M[odel] and R[eplica] whose presence cannot be coincidental or due to shared genetic relationship” (Heine & Nomachi 2013: 78).

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

83

This systemic integrity corresponds to the requisite of paired structural similarity, formulated by Heine & Nomachi (2013): While it is frequently hard to make a convincing case of change when a single property is involved, a much stronger case can be made when R[eplica] and M[odel] share a property that incorporates a set of two or more interrelated properties. heine & nomachi 2013: 78

The diminutive system in Yiddish, often discussed in literature, is again a good example to demonstrate this type of connection. Furthermore, it has been attempted to derive the origin of this system from the southern Alemannic German dialects (Fleischer 2013). Apart from the aforementioned frequency argument (cf. note 46), Yiddish had decidedly shorter and rather poorly documented contact with these dialects than it did with Slavic varieties. In the latter, the graded diminutive system is both common and extremely frequent. As already indicated, the contact origin of the Yiddish diminutive structures is also supported by their association with the semantic-morphological categories of hypocoristic and augmentative. Co-occurrence of the diminutive and augmentative as complementary categories led to neutralization of many primarily diminutive forms in Polish. These forms were usually derived from the basic ones by means of the multifunctional suffixes P. {-ek} m., and P. {-ka} f. As a result of this process, the former diminutive forms took on the functions of neutral and unmarked words. The original basic forms most often moved into the category of augmentatives, marked for large size and/or pejorative expressivity. This model as a whole was replicated in Yiddish. The shift in markedness generated the need to create new diminutive forms:

(28) P. Y. E.

Augmentative

Neutral

Diminutive

ława, księga, butla bank, bux, flaš large: bench, book, bottle

ław|ka, książ|ka, butel|ka benk|l, bix|l, fleš|l bench, book, bottle

ław|eczka, książ|eczka, butel|eczka benk|ele, bix|ele, fleš|ele small: bench, book, bottle

The same was true of proper names, in which the formerly basic forms were considered to be official, and their use in everyday contexts was judged to be affective. The first diminutive forms came into common use as neutral, and only from them, hypocoristic names were created, cf.

84

(29)

geller and gajek

Official

Neutral

Hypocoristic

P. Jerzy, Anna Jurek, Anka Jureczek, Aneczka Y. Avrom, Sore Avreml, Sorl/Serl Avremele, Sorele/Serele

In other cases, diminutives were lexicalized as denotations of specific meanings, creating pairs of formally and semantically parallel lexemes in Yiddish and in Polish, cf. (30) P. ząb, szkło > ząbek (czosnku), szkiełko Y. con, gloz > cendl, glezl E. a tooth, glass > a clove (of garlic), a small glass (of a lamp, and etc.); lens For a detailed description of these phenomena, more examples, and literature cf. Geller (2012). A failure to understand the interdependence of these phenomena often leads to over-interpretation and the naïve labeling of Yiddish as a language that loves the hypocoristic forms. Formally, these words may look like two-step diminutives, but they have completely different functions in linguistic pragmatics. 6.4.5 Degree of Grammaticalization Identification of different degrees of influence/implementation of a given category is consistent with another diagnostic proposed by Heine & Nomachi (2013: 89–90): If two languages have undergone the same process of grammaticalization as a result of language contact but one of them exhibits a high and the other a low degree of grammaticalization, then the former is more likely to have provided a model of replication than the other way round. The direction of contact influence can also be determined with the use of this test. Numerous examples will be provided and explained in throughout the volume.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

7

85

Conclusions

Although Yiddish has long been declared a fusion language, it has not yet undergone a comprehensive contact-linguistic study. Isolated phenomena within the idiom have been described and quoted as examples in handbooks and theoretical works. However, this has not contributed much to the understanding of the hybridity of the Yiddish system in its entire complexity. The influence of the Slavic languages has not been disputed and has been discussed at length. Yet both significance and comprehensiveness of the Slavic component within the system of Yiddish seem to have been generally underestimated. The discovery of the earliest complete utilitarian text written in the Eastern Yiddish vernacular, as opposed to earlier, linguistically Western Yiddish writing, proves that grammatical peculiarities observed in modern Yiddish were already present in the idiom at the time (Geller 2013, 2015). The chapter at hand does not aspire to be a complete and thorough description of the Slavic-induced changes in Yiddish. The contribution rather aims to point out several directions for their study within the framework of contact linguistics and particularly the mixed language debate. Along with other chapters of the volume, the examples provided here show overarching patterns which, in light of what is now known about contact mechanisms, such as language shift, relexification, replication, convergence, relabeling, diffusion, leveling, and etc., might place Yiddish within the spectrum of mixed languages. The argumentation has been substantiated by comparisons with Polish, one of the most relevant (along with Ukrainian and Belarussian) Slavic languages in longlasting contact with Yiddish. At the beginning of scientific Yiddish linguistics, none other than Max Weinreich put forward the hypothesis of the mixed character of the language. While this theory may have fallen out of favor with most Yiddish scholars, it was still being revisited and developed (e.g., Eggers 1998, Jacobs 2005). Wexler’s proposals (1991, 2002) might be reinterpreted as the most radical exposition of this hypothesis, as they, in fact, depict Yiddish as an example of complete metatypy. As a result, the language would undergo a typological change towards the Slavic type. While there is room for disagreement with Wexler regarding the degree and scope of the changes, as well as geographic and historical details, the notion itself is worth investigating. The contact-induced phenomena observed in Yiddish, such as the replication of the Slavic morphosyntactic frame, the resemantization of Germanderived content and function morphemes, and the coexistence of competing structures, indeed fit best the metatypy scheme. Metatypy is a process of semantic and morphosyntactic restructuring according to the model of

86

geller and gajek

another language. As a result of long-term convergence, most often carried out by bilinguals, a new language emerges that “… shows correspondences in form and a partial resemblance in meaning to its genetic relatives. And it shows more precise correspondences in meaning and resemblance in morphosyntax to its metatypic model” (Ross 1996: 182), which in the case of Eastern Yiddish, could be identified as Slavic. Still we can also find in Yiddish patterns resembling two other types of convergence: the G-L, as well as the V-N split type (s. examples in 6.3.2). It is worth mentioning that the word “mixed” in the case of Yiddish can be interpreted in two ways: narrowly—when denoting the language system and broadly—when referring to the sociolinguistic circumstances of the mixing process. The grammar of Yiddish displays a high degree of hybridity, with certain features “stuck” halfway between German and Slavic patterns. Generally, some of the examples mentioned above point to a rather unstable distribution of functions among the elements of the main parental languages, which provided both structural patterns and lexical material for their fulfillment. In the course of prolonged and variable contact, models competed, which led either to coexistence or leveling and transformation into entirely new structures. This illustrates the hybrid character of the Yiddish system. For example, numerous prefixed verbs were created according to the verbforming model common to Slavic languages, with the semantic diminutive meaning ‘to do something to a lesser extent’. It has become a very productive pattern in Yiddish, but does not exist in German, nor could be detected in its historical or areal varieties, cf. Y. untersingen ‘to hum, sing under one’s nose’ vs G *untersingen, Y. unteresn ‘to sneak food’ vs G. *unteressen, Y. untergisn ‘to water (plants)’ vs G. *untergießen, and etc.54 However, these verbs behave according to a morphosyntactic model required in German, in which the prefix is separated from its root in finite forms. This is unknown in the Slavic languages. As it was shown in section 6.3.2.2, there are also reverse cases, where German units function without collision in the Slavic syntactic frame. Competing patterns taken from different model languages are what essentially characterizes a mixed language. Simultaneously, the contact situation itself was a dynamic flux of changing circumstances that led to multiple shifts, as well as superstratal and adstratal borrowing from different areal and social varieties. This was made possible by the nearly 800 years of Jewish-Slavic contact, the mobility of the Jews, and their

54

Traces of a similar function can be found in the German suffix -eln, e.g. G. singeln ‘to sing under one’s nose’.

yiddish in the framework of the mixed language debate

87

particular position as middlemen between all the ethnic and social groups in the Slavic territory. Language shift may be followed by a long-lasting adstratum influence, as it has been shown for Eastern Yiddish. In such a case, a strong desire by displaced people to emphasize their ethnic, religious, or other group identity, might reinforce borrowing from languages closely related to the former mother tongue. At the same time, the awareness of the former language and pragmatically practiced bilingualism by a large part of the displaced group is supported by the continuing influence of the adstratum. In such cases, identifying the substrate vis-à-vis the influence of the adstratum is essential for understanding the linguistic make-up of the new idiom. Namely, the relationship between the substratum and adstratum determines the language’s typology and/or genealogy. In our opinion, this explains the difficulty in unambiguously assigning Yiddish to a particular type of mixed language, as proposed by the current contactlinguistic scholarship. Summing up, as it has been repeatedly emphasized, all the strategies outlined in this chapter have one goal: to overcome the language barrier and facilitate communication through gradual (and sometimes reciprocal) linguistic accommodation. However, the linguistic outcome of language contact is not always as simple and straightforward as described in the respective theories and typologies. As mentioned earlier, systemic and socio-psychological aspects interfere with functional and pragmatic strategies. Therefore, in many cases, the processes of accommodation are either not fully completed (partial shift) or may be more complex, leading to a third linguistic variety. If the effect of such contact-induced change is the “breaking” of the inherited genetic link of the languages involved, a new mixed or fusion language emerges (Auer 2014). In our opinion, signs of such a break in typological continuity from the Germanic type can be detected in Yiddish, thus placing it among mixed languages. Furthermore, the newly developed diagnostics for distinguishing internal language change from contact phenomena, such as the factor of intertranslatability, may provide additional proof for the constitutive role of the Slavic languages in the origins of (Eastern) Yiddish. Needless to say, the description of Yiddish as a mixed language in the sense used in the current contact linguistics does not diminish in any way its autonomy and linguistic integrity, nor that of any other national and cultural language. At the same time, Yiddish still constitutes a transparent example of the interplay of contact mechanisms and their linguistic outcomes. We believe that exploring them further will contribute to a better understanding of the emergence of new languages.

chapter 3

Role of Slavic Matter Borrowings in New Pattern Grammaticalization Ewa Geller

1

Introduction

1.1 Research Subject The aim of this chapter is to show how specific matter-borrowings (mat-B) can remodel the existing grammatical patterns or introduce new ones, sometimes even producing whole semantic and/or grammatical categories in the recipient system. This will be demonstrated on the example analysis of a few selected lexical items transferred from Polish as a model language into Yiddish as a replica language.1 The starting point for the present discussion is the assumption that lexemes can effectively carry encoded information about their functions in the system of the language of origin to the recipient language. When enough lexical units of a certain type, i.e., the ones that have the same grammatical function, are borrowed, they are able to activate their encoded information and infiltrate the replica language system. This triggers processes leading to systemic changes in the latter. The mechanisms involved can be modelled as a cause-and-effect chain heading gradually to grammaticalization of the innovations transferred from the model language. The degree of grammaticalization carried out in the replica language usually diverges from the form and/or scope of function of the given linguistic phenomenon in the model idiom. The primary role of the morpho-syntactic frame has been widely discussed in chapter 2. Here, we try to reverse the perspective. In the presented approach we focus on the copious (Slavic) material borrowings (mat-Bs) and the diffusion of the grammatical information from the source language encoded in them. The question here is, to what degree their influence on the inherited

1 The term pairs source/recipient and model/replica are not fully synonymous in the contactlinguistic literature. Yet, they will be used interchangeably in this text depending on the perspective. For explanation cf. section 2.5.

role of slavic matter borrowings

89

(allegedly from German) shape of the matrix language frame (mlf) of Yiddish might have been decisive. The reasoning is supported by a psycholinguistic model of speech processing. 1.2 Surface-Level Outcome of Yiddish-Slavic Language Contact Unlike speakers of many group languages that taboo foreign lexical influences (Aikhenvald 2019), Yiddish users were open to borrowings from other vernaculars from the very beginning. In addition, the long, intense, and varied SlavicJewish contact resulted in a massive transfer of the Slavic-origin words. They are still easily identifiable in the heterogeneous vocabulary of modern Yiddish. The Slavic lexical borrowings go far beyond semantic fields that are typical in contact situations, such as cuisine, household, nature, administration, and etc. (Haspelmath & Tadmor 2009). These borrowings can also be noted in the less obvious areas, considered to be more resistant to mat-B, such as kinship terms or the human body (cf. chapter 5). Such borrowings occur even among onomatopoeic or emotive expressions that form a continuum between semantics and linguistic pragmatics. No wonder that in the area of pragmatics, a significant share of Slavisms can be observed in the category of discourse markers. This only confirms their rather high position on the borrowing scale proposed in the more recent contact literature, which is based on research conducted in various languagecontact settings (cf. Matras 2009: 157, Seifart 2017, 2019). A rather significant representation of Slavisms within syntactic categories, such as adverbials, seems to be more interesting. Adverbs generally occur less frequently than other parts of speech and thus occupy further positions on the postulated borrowing scales. It is clear that a lexeme transfer also brings bound morphemes into the recipient language. These primarily include word formatives but sometimes also inflectional morphemes which, after becoming autonomous, start to operate independently in the recipient system (cf. for example Auer 2014, Nagano & Shimada 2018). Thus, in addition to full lexemes, mat-B transfers also include bound morphemes. At the structural level, it is difficult not to notice the important role of the Slavic affixes in the characteristic Yiddish word-formation models. Following this line further, it is possible to see the significant part that mat-Bs play in the substantial modification or emergence of new functional or semantic categories in Yiddish. This is well illustrated by the interplay between diminutivization and augmentation systems (cf. Chapter 2 section 6.4.3). In the case of Yiddish-Slavic contact, this also applies to grammatical transfers in basic categories, such as tense, aspect, and mood (tam) (cf. chapter 2).

90

geller

These classes are rarely subject to change under the influence of language contact, although to a different degree for different parts of the tam system. Features of modality are more prone to be borrowed than aspect, which in turn is more borrowable than tense (Matras 2007: 44–46). To sum up, it is possible to distinguish elements whose importance goes beyond lexis and semantics in a large number of Slavic mat-Bs in Yiddish. Functional units can also be identified in linguistic pragmatics and the grammatical system. In the process of relexification or reanalysis, i.e., after an appropriate adaptation, these units may become morphological exponents of new semantic and grammatical categories in the replica language. 1.3 State of Research The multifunctional and multipurpose character of mat-Bs observed in Yiddish-Polish contact shows a striking disproportion in the contemporary research on contact-induced change. Researchers generally acknowledge that in addition to lexical content, mat transfers may carry information about their grammatical function (e.g., Myers-Scotton 2002: 68; Sakel 2007: 15).2 Yet, the current research is devoting increasingly less attention to the lexical borrowings themselves, probably considering them as a widespread, transparent, and, therefore, essentially a trivial phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is certain that the epistemic potential of mat transfers for the study of structural language changes has not been yet sufficiently realized.3 Undoubtedly, the attention of researchers is now primarily focused on the “covert” borrowings of the pat type (e.g., Heine & Kuteva 2005; Matras 2009, 2015; Matras & Sakel 2007a; Gardani 2020). For example, although Heine & Nomachi (2013: 69) also list “form-meaning units or combinations of formmeaning units” among transfers, they concentrate their interest on the nonmaterial features. Moreover, these scholars make a clear distinction between the two phenomena, also terminologically, by reserving the term borrowing exclusively for matter (words and morphemes) and the term replication for patterns (structures and functions). In line with this distinction, these researchers consistently define the phenomenon of structural borrowing implicitly as an abstract process that takes place without the need for the involvement of linguistic matter from the model language.4

2 C.f: “In many casas of mat-borrowing, also the function of the borrowed element is taken over, that is mat and pat are combined” (Sakel 2007: 15). 3 Cf. for example Nagano & Shimada (2018) on borrowed affixes for the word-formation system of the recipient language. 4 Cf. “Our concern here is […] with what following Weinreich ([1953] …) is called (contact-

role of slavic matter borrowings

91

Among pat-Bs, we can roughly distinguish semantic borrowings, known primarily as loan translations, and the structural ones. Both types are basically associated with new combinatorial rules or a redefinition of the nativeelement functions. Therefore, any divisions used are unclear, just as the boundary between semantics (lexis) and structure (grammar) themselves. The line between the tangible matter borrowings and the intangible pattern ones resulting from the covert inter-lingual interactions is often elusive. The final discernible effect of transferring the functions of particular lexical units or their combinations is preceded by many partial processes within the language system. In turn, these may be purely systemic or semantic, connected with the linguistic worldview, i.e., the conceptualization of reality or deixis. The latter include, for example, the hypocoristic-augmentative system, or shifts and nuancing in the semantics of the interrelated tam categories. The former are most often linked to word-formation patterns, sentence formation, or inflectional paradigms. Another function is to isolate certain linguistic categories as more or less marked. Matras (2009: 159–160) pointed out the influence of markedness on transferability. Exploring such hidden stimuli and complex mechanisms is all the more important as a large accumulation of innovations induced by language contact opens the way to typological changes in the replica language. Most researchers postulate, that borrowing patterns does not presuppose borrowing matter (cf. Aikhenvald 2006: 15). However, the current research on borrowings is very rarely answering the question about the mechanisms and processes of abstract and implicit diffusion of patterns (cf. Matras & Sakel 2007a). Instead, these studies are mainly focusing on recording the final results of the changes produced by the influence of the model language in the replica language system. The difficulty stems from the fact that the intangible pat-Bs can apparently only be encoded in the minds of language users. In order to explain the pat-B penetration from the model language to the replica one, some contact linguists refer to speech processing schemes, primarily in reference to bilinguals (e.g. Myers-Scotton 2002, Matras 2009, Gardani 2020). In this chapter I will also bring up Levelt’s speech production model (Levelt 1989, Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer 1999) to elucidate the content of the systemic information encapsulated in lexemes.

induced) grammatical replication: a process whereby speakers create a new grammatical meaning or structure in language R on the model of language M by using the linguistic resources available in R; traditionally, grammatical replication has been referred to with terms such as ‘structural borrowing’ or ‘(grammatical) calquing’”. (Heine & Nomachi 2013: 69).

92

geller

According to Matras (2009: 164, 235), there are basically three main motivations for linguistic borrowing, i.e., a) filling of lexical gaps, b) the high prestige of the model language, and c) the effects of information processing in bilinguals’ speech production. The voluntary use of the resources of both languages at the disposal of bilinguals to optimize communication could explain the phenomenon of borrowing itself. Yet, the processes of diffusion and grammaticalization of contact-induced changes have not been yet sufficiently explained. 1.4 Hypothesis The starting point for the present study is the assumption that lexemes (and morphemes) encode essential information about the system of the language of which they are a part.5 The aim of this chapter is firstly to show the mechanisms of activation of the hidden functions and combinatorial patterns “drawn in” together with a borrowed lexeme. Secondly, I will follow their diffusion in the recipient language which, for mostly extra-systemic reasons, is open to influence from another idiom. Using examples of contact between Yiddish and Polish, I will try to demonstrate that many abstract patterns are, in fact, encoded not only in the minds of language users, but also in the words themselves, as units of an idiosyncratic linguistic system. What is more, it seems that these features are not neutralized in the process of the mat-Bs formal integration into the recipient system. Such an assumption allows us to hypothesize that in the situation of linguistic contact, the transfer of whole lexemes, as well as individual formatives still constitutes an essential source of transmission and diffusion of both semantic and structural patterns, which are often interrelated. Thus, what is involved here is an attempt to trace the mechanisms of the grammatical-information transfer through lexical borrowings from the model language and their adaptation, diffusion, and finally grammaticalization in the “foreign” environment of the replica language. The reason, for which certain mat-Bs were transferred to Yiddish, as carriers of the most prominent categories and important distinctive features of the model language, should also be taken into account.6 Although such an assumption is difficult to prove, it must be admitted that this would be an understandable strategy from the point of view of language users. The goal of

5 Cf. Myers-Scotton (2002: 68); “Matrix Language is a theoretical construct (…) [that] refers to an abstract architecture. (…) [I]t includes specification about slots and how they are to be filled, based on the directions from lemmas in the mental lexicon”. 6 Matras & Sakel (2007a) refer in their functionalist approach to “pivot matching”, a phenomenon used by bilinguals as mechanism of pattern transfer.

role of slavic matter borrowings

93

such a linguistic behavior would be to support the transfer of model language features that are the most familiar, i.e., characteristic (in the case of substrate) or attractive (in the case of adstrate). For the purpose of our deliberations, this would only mean that the transfer of most internalized or striking systemic patterns from the model language should be added to the catalogue of reasons for mat-B, next to vocabulary nuancing or filling lexical gaps.

2

Theoretical Framework

2.1 Matter- and Pattern-Borrowing When describing the type of a transfer, the specific contact situation has to be taken into consideration. It is determined by the socio- and psycholinguistic factors, such as the hierarchy of languages in relation to one another (the dominant and dominated ones), the degree of user bilingualism, the duration and intensity of contact, and etc. (Thomason & Kaufman 1988, Thomason 2001). However, since the beginning the language-contact research (Haugen 1950), the most important division of linguistic transfers has corresponded to today’s distinction between mat-Bs and pat-Bs. The creators of the concepts of the matter and pattern themselves did also allow for an occasional link between the two types—the borrowing of words along with their function. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, this phenomenon was attributed marginal importance. Only quite recently, Gardani (2020) has proposed a new typology of borrowings by introducing the category of matpat-borrowings, based on the transfer of grammatical information carried along with the borrowed linguistic material. Yet, the binary division of borrowings into mat and pat still seems to be the primary research tool. 2.2 Substrate vs Adstrate Let us briefly recall that here language contact and its effects in the form of mat and pat transfer are understood broadly as both substrate and adstrate influence (cf. chapter 2). In the former case, we are dealing with language-shift processes. In such situations, the initial native idiom (substrate), which the speakers are willing to abandon in favor of another, is the source and model language. The language pursued by them is the recipient and replica one. At the individual level, language-shift happens rather quickly—in leaps and bounds—and covers one or two generations. However, at the group level, the process can also extend over time and involve more than two generations. The shift may be more or less complete but never goes on without leaving some linguistic residue in the recipient language. Developing in such a manner, the

94

geller

substrate layer usually involves both linguistic matter and patterns, which often remain hidden for speakers and researchers alike. Traces of the original language in the newly acquired one are called substrate residues and in the case of lexical units—relics (Geller & Gajek 2021). In adstrate influence, the changes involved are those produced by prolonged linguistic contact while the penetration of linguistic units occurs slowly in a diffusive manner. Just as in the case of substrate impact, the transfer from an adstrate can involve both matter units and abstract patterns. The latter, in the case of particularly long and intense contact, may also include an expansion or changes in the existing repertoire of functional units or even the introduction of new grammatical categories or paradigms. This may eventually lead to significant alterations in the structure of the language being influenced, without resulting in its abandonment by the speakers.7 While the distinction between substrate and adstrate influence at the extralinguistic level seems obvious and straightforward (cf. Chapter 2, section 4), it becomes very difficult or even impossible at the linguistic level. Therefore, in the study of language contact, mat-Bs, regardless of whether they appeared as loanwords or relics, are usually explained as transfers that do not fundamentally affect the recipient system. On the other hand, abstract changes, i.e., patBs are primarily interpreted as substrate residue, created in the language shift process. Acquisition of grammatical patterns from the substrate takes place in a historical process: first, when whole linguistic communities abandon their original idiom and shift to another one, and second, when an individual acquires a new language. In the latter case, substratum influence is referred to as interference in foreign language teaching (cf. Chapter 2). However, the rigid attribution of pat-B to substrate influence and mat-B to adstrate impact does not seem to hold true in more complex contact situations, such as the one involving Polish and Yiddish. This is because we are dealing here with a long-lasting and intense contact where both substrate and adstrate played an important role in the formation and development of the language (cf. Chapter 2). At this point, let us recall that Yiddish is still considered to be a Germanic language and most closely related to German. However, we observe significant innovations induced by both mat and pat transfers in that language in relation to German.8 Thus, for the sake of our deliberations, we will treat German 7 Changes occurring in languages participating in a so-called language league are usually cited as examples. 8 As noted repeatedly in this volume, both German and Polish are treated emblematically, since transfers to Yiddish took place at the level of historical and territorial linguistic vari-

role of slavic matter borrowings

95

as the reference vernacular when it comes to detecting and comparing peculiar changes observable in Yiddish. Explaining the origins of specific structural innovations seems much more difficult than finding out the means of transfer of heterogeneous vocabulary. Therefore, developing diagnostics to separate substrate and adstrate influences is one of the more important tasks of modern contact and historical linguistics (cf. Geller & Gajek 2021). In our present discussion, the substratal or adstratal character of the studied transfers is of secondary importance, so in both of the above cases, these transfers will be collectively referred to as “borrowings”. Deciding whether the observed linguistic changes were the result of language contact or intralinguistic processes appears to be a more essential and difficult problem here.9 This issue is explored in more detail in Chapter 2 of this volume (Section 6.4), where arguments for the contact nature of the changes discussed here are also presented. 2.3 Internally vs Externally Motivated Language Change Although language changes generally involve both external factors and systeminternal processes simultaneously (Heine & Nomachi 2013), a dichotomous approach dividing the processes at play into internal and external still prevails in research. Internally-induced changes occur in an evolutionary way, i.e., as a result of processes triggered within the language system itself. These changes are adopted and transmitted from generation to generation. On the contrary, we deal with adaptive processes in situations of language contact, when external factors influence the changes taking place in the language system. Such innovations are initiated by the users themselves in the process of communication through more or less deliberate introduction and adaptation of foreign elements from the source language into the system of their own idiom (Andersen 1973).10

9

10

ants. However, the grammatical issues discussed here are typologically so characteristic of specific languages that this justifies such a generalization. With the use of some diagnostic tests that employ mapping of the recipient-language lexical networks onto the source language, it is possible to distinguish between substrate and adstrate lexical items (Geller et al. 2020, Geller & Gajek 2021). While this method has not been yet applied to grammatical structures (patterns), it could yield promising results. Lexical relics, unlike borrowings, carry over a more or less complete sematic structure from the source language. Hence, we could assume that structural relics, unlike structural borrowings, preserve the poly-functionality of certain grammatical categories and their exponents from the substrate language. Henning Andersen (1973) introduced the concepts of evolutionary changes to modern linguistics. For discussion and development of these notions and terms see Dawson & Joseph (2019).

96

geller

Certainly, for any linguistic innovation there has to come a moment when it becomes a generationally transmitted feature. Hence, the classifying processes of language change present many difficulties, as there are, indeed, no rigorous criteria for determining which ones were triggered by intrinsic properties of the system and which ones were induced by language contact, or even whether such contact occurred at all (cf. e.g. Thomason 2009, Heine & Nomachi 2013). This always requires an in-depth study of the historical and geographical diversity of the languages being compared. Such an approach is aimed at excluding the possibility of latent, inactive tendencies, or the ones inherent in universal grammar, which could be explained as evolutionary changes. 2.4

Speech Production Model and Encoding Grammatical Information in Lexemes Observations made on the long-term Yiddish-Slavic contact allow us to go one step further and hypothesize that every mat transfer is potentially also a pat one, which may lead to significant structural changes in the recipient language. This is because we assume that each mat unit contains within it the “linguistic dna” of the source language system. This hypothesis is based on a model of speech production (Levelt 1989, Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer 1999), to which Myers-Scotton (2002: 23–24) also refers with some modification. In a nutshell, this model adopts four levels of utterance production, three of which involve cognitive processes, and whose final representation is the lexeme—a tangible linguistic unit that appears in the surface structure of an utterance. At the conceptual level, decisions that take into account the speaker’s communicative intent are made. Primarily the topic of the planned utterance in the form of preverbal concepts, and the situational context, i.e., the utterance pragmatic conditions. At this stage, bilinguals take decisions which language they will use, which, at a further stage, results in an appropriate mlf, the morphosyntactic frame in which to place the relevant units chosen at the lemma level. Lemmas are syntactic words, selected from the mental lexicon, “sufficiently specified to function in the developing syntax” (Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer 1999: 14). In other words lemmas contain semantic information, along with details about their location in the overall language system. In essence, this involves information not only about the function of a unit and its thematic role in the sentence but also the semantic and pragmatic connectivity of that unit with other lexemes. Thus the mental lexicon is the repository for choosing appropriate lemmas. In addition to the semantic concepts assigned to concrete units, relevant grammatical properties, such as a part of speech or grammatical gender, tense, and so forth, are already stored in this lexicon. This allows a specific unit to be

role of slavic matter borrowings

97

connected with others according to the grammatical rules of the language in question.11 Hence, concrete instructions are sent from the lemma level to the lower functional level—the formulator. There, they are assigned morphemes in the form of labels of specific word forms encoding all the aforementioned semantic and grammatical information. Finally, at the last articulatory level, a phonetic (or graphical) surface representation is produced. In it, information from all levels involved in generating a given utterance or its fragment in the form of a concrete lexeme is encoded. To sum up, if we look at the surface lexical units formed in the process of utterance production in this functional way, it becomes obvious that, in addition to their basic semantic content, they also contain information about their location in the semantic field and lexical system. Moreover, these units also encode semantic connectivity and potential argument value at the syntactic level. At the same time, they have manifest morphological, i.e., wordformational and inflectional boundaries. These, in turn, allow for the segmentation and classification of the resulting content and operational morphemes. The latter carry with them specifically encoded functions and combinatorial rules within a given morpho-syntactic frame. Additionally, these morphemes contain a record of restrictions on the phonetic system, i.e., its phonological rules related to phonotactics and syllable structure, as well as prosodic rules (e.g., susceptibility to elision and clitic connectivity). In situations of occasional language contact resulting in single lexical transfers, most of this encoded information will remain dormant in the environment of the foreign mlf. However, when such contact is prolonged and intense and the number of mat-Bs is significant, this information may be gradually “unpacked” and activated. When released, they begin to infiltrate the recipient language, inducing changes in its various subsystems, which is more or less noticeable to the users. These changes may involve, for example, the direct transfer of new units, such as consonants, cf. Y. blondžen ‘to wander, to err’ < P. błądzić, Y. tuljen ‘to embrace’ < P. tulić, or their combinations, e.g., Y. luščen ‘to shell’< P. łuszczyć się. The introduction of new phonetic units within mat borrowings eventually

11

Cf. Myers-Scotton (2002: 14) “The lemmas contain lexical rules and these rules contain all the necessary information to realize surface constructions. This means that a specific lemma entry contains (i) the morphophonological information that is associated with a surface level content morpheme (ii) syntactic properties of that morpheme and (iii) semantic and pragmatic representation. Each type of information within a lemma forms the input for a particular type of formal operation; thus in some sense lemmas are compounds of operations […]”

98

geller

restructured the Yiddish consonant system, leading to the development of new phonological oppositions in the affricate chain (cf. [t͜͜s || d͜z; t͜ʃ || d͜ʒ]). The transfer of lexemes, such as Y. koxan|ke < P. kochan|ka ‘female lover’, that subsequently affects the lexical system could be another example. The separated formative {-ka} > {-ke} is a carrier of a specific function, in this case the expression of agentivity and the feminine gender.12 As the new derivational morpheme becomes productive in the recipient language, it starts to be attached to lexical morphemes of the same (Slavic) origin, e.g., Y. cikor|ke ‘coward, scaredy-cat (female)’. The unit also begins to connect to the wordformation bases of different etymology, such as the non-Slavic Y. lerer|ke ‘female teacher’, Y. zoger|ke ‘woman who reads prayers’ creating hybrid forms.13 In the first case we deal with the forward diffusion of a borrowed unit, in the second—with backward diffusion. In the case of autonomous contact languages, such as Yiddish, where strong pressure is exerted by the competing component languages, the emergence of forms that are not only varying but, above all, hybrid, is particularly frequent (Weinreich U. 1955). The term hybrid should be understood broadly, since it also includes structural and semantic convergences and contaminations hidden beneath the surface. Such constructions eventually become autonomous, and their tracing becomes all the more difficult the longer they function in the contact language and the more common they become. In turn, a successful reconstruction of the mechanisms leading to the development of hybrid patterns is an invaluable source of knowledge about the processes involved in speech processing. 2.5 Replication We can speak of the effects of language contact when there is a transfer of linguistic units, both the tangible (matter) and intangible (patterns) ones, from one language to another. The idiom that provides the transferred units is usually called the source language in literature, while the vernacular that accepts such a transfer is called the recipient language. Referring to U. Weinreich ([1953] (1964): 30–31), Heine & Kuteva (2003: 531) propose other terms in regard to pat-B. The process in which one language adapts patterns of another one is called replication. The idiom from which the

12 13

In fact, in Polish this functional morpheme consists of two elements: the actual formative {-k-} and the inflectional ending {-a} for feminine, singular. For more on the productivity of foreign word-forming morphemes, cf. Auer (2014) among others.

role of slavic matter borrowings

99

said patterns are copied is called a model language, and the one making use of them—a replica language. These terms point to the dynamics of contact processes, which is also relevant to our considerations. The term replication draws attention to the fact that a feature transferred from a source language is always, to a greater or lesser extent, imitated by the speakers and adapted to the system of a replica language. Thus, it becomes merely a replica of the original found in the model language. In this discussion, we will extend the use of the term replication to also include the rendering of linguistic matter and not just patterns in the replica language. The use of the terms replication and replica seems justified, since in both cases, the transfer is only an ‘imperfect’ copy of the original. Moreover, the two-term pairs a source/a recipient and a model/a replica will be used interchangeably here, depending on whether the focus is on the direction of a transfer or the dynamics of change. Long-lasting and intense language contact is accompanied by a competition between two (or more) vernaculars in the development of such linguistic forms and models that will optimally fulfill the communicative needs of their users. Groups of bilingual (multilingual) people are usually the main actors in this process, and their role in the transfer of both matter and patterns should not be underestimated. At the individual level, such language user makes a kind of compromise each time. Purists used to refer to the results of these compromises as interference, errors, or macaronic style. However, when a whole community is involved in such “inter-lingual negotiations” for a long time, this process starts to grow in importance for language change and might lead to significant systemic modifications in the recipient language. Numerous replications both in the matter layer (phonemes, morphemes, and lexemes or even whole phrases), and in the pattern one (inflectional paradigms, word order, argument structure, grammatical categories and etc.), may result in typological shift in extreme cases. There are numerous and varied reasons for the replication of specific elements of one language system into another. As far as lexical transfers are concerned, the most frequently mentioned reasons in literature are those of a diachronic nature, e.g., the existence of an earlier substrate, civilizational changes, the appearance of new phenomena and objects along with them, or gaps in the semantic-lexical system. In the case of a pattern replication, the commonly mentioned factors include the frequency of the given structures occurrence and the perspicuity of their exponents. These factors testify to the prominent role of the transferred patterns in rendering linguistic elements that are important to a given linguistic community. As it has been mentioned, replication may be direct, i.e., observ-

100

geller

able in the surface layer of a given language, or implicit, being the outcome of several indirect processes, such as reanalysis, resemantization, and refunctionalization, which preceded grammaticalization. 2.6 Contact-Induced Grammaticalization Grammaticalization is a historical process in which a lexical unit in a given language changes to a functional one, or a functional unit extends its role as an element of more complex structural constructions. This process may be triggered by language-internal or contact-induced factors. In the latter case, the strategy is to transfer certain grammatical features from one language to another. This may be done through transferring exponents of these features directly as matpat-Bs or adapting existing units of the replica language to new grammatical functions modelled on the source language (Heine & Kuteva 2003, 2005). As it will be shown on the examples analyzed in this chapter, cases of internal and contact-induced grammaticalization are often interrelated and intertwined.

3

Method

For the purpose of this study, two initial assumptions were made—one historical and the other one theoretical. The first one concerns the conditions of the contact situation under study. We assume that, culturally and linguistically, Yiddish is undoubtedly an autonomous language. However, a whole spectrum of still quite transparent contact processes lies at the origins of that vernacular. These processes testify to the mixed character of the language. It must be accepted that each of the three most important component languages of Yiddish was, in fact, a model language for this idiom in the sense defined above. The linguistic matter and patterns of Hebrew and Aramaic, several West (Old Czech, Old Polish, and Polish) and East Slavic (Ruthenian, later Ukrainian and Belarusian, dialects) idioms, as well as several (East) High German dialects, intermingled to form a unique linguistic fusion. Based on the research described in a few publications to date, Semitic influences in Yiddish, while noticeable, seem to have had the least impact on the ultimate structure of the Yiddish language system, which remains Indo-European in terms of essential typological features. Although there is no shortage of historical and linguistic evidence for the mixed nature of Yiddish, many scholars still prefer to consider it as a genetically and typologically Germanic language (see Chapter 2, section 6.3). They base their opinions on the dominant vocabulary in Yiddish and, above all, the appar-

role of slavic matter borrowings

101

ently German origin the inflectional system and its functional units. Inflections are still traditionally thought to be the scaffolding of any language. The German character of the Yiddish inflectional paradigms and phonetic representations of the vast majority of the Yiddish vocabulary are indisputable facts, immediately apparent at the surface level. There is no need to contest them. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, we stay in line with the dominant approach (cf. Chapter 1, section 2.2) and we assume that German was the constitutive language with the greatest contribution to the formation of both the vocabulary and the structure of Yiddish. We treat German emblematically here, as an umbrella for all of its various dialectal and historical varieties. They interacted to varying degrees at different stages of Yiddish development, providing many typological features that allowed this idiom to be classified by numerous scholaras as Germanic. Polish will play here the role of a modeling Slavic language that influenced Yiddish intensively and for a long time. Thus, certain innovative structures in the Yiddish system, which are suspected of having originated as replications of one of the Slavic component languages, will be shown in relation to German. As it will turn out, this juxtaposition will, in fact, be an attempt to demonstrate the mechanisms of competition between the two languages, which can be considered as Yiddish linguistic parents in its long history. The second assumption concerns the possibility of transmission and the mode of diffusion (s. section 2.4) of grammatical features. The premise that lexical units have encoded grammatical information about their functioning in the linguistic system is a working hypothesis. As such, it should be treated as a proposal to be verified on larger sets of cases and in different language contact settings. The metaphor used here that words of a given language contain “genetic” information about the linguistic system from which they originate may cause some reservations. The parallel to the world of living organisms, whose degree of complexity seems to be incomparably greater than that of linguistic systems, may seem at first glance to be too bold, superficial, and therefore illegitimate. And yet, this approach is in tune with the tradition in scientific linguistics to refer to models proposed by natural sciences. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution led to the development of the Family Tree Model or the sound laws, which still remain to be a part of the basics of historical linguistics. Thus, we must admit that the introduction of models from natural sciences into humanities has generally brought good results for the latter. Consequently, we feel free to use the following parallel: just as each cell carries information about the organism it is a part of, the linguistic dna of the language system might be encoded in individual lexemes and morphemes of that idiom. In favorable

102

geller

conditions, lexical borrowings may activate this information. While penetrating the system of the recipient language, mat-Bs may remodel the existing linguistic patterns or trigger the emergence of completely new grammatical categories. The arguments for the assumption that mat-Bs can significantly influence the appearance of new features will be based on several detailed and multifaceted analyses of exemplificatory lexical borrowings, well established in the replica system. The subsequent steps in these analyses will show the role of lexical borrowings as potential triggers of structural linguistic changes culminating in grammaticalization. To this end, we will trace three cases of systemic features carried along in the “baggage” of lexical borrowings from Polish and their effects on systemic changes in Yiddish wihtin the derivational system, the category of mood, and part of speech markedness. The traditional method of the contrastive comparison of relevant languages was used here: Polish as a model language, Yiddish as a replica language, and German as a kind of tertium comparationis (the third element in the comparison), a constitutive language for Y, which provides the background for the innovations produced in it. The transparency of the linguistic processes that accompanied the contactinduced grammaticalization varies in each case. Therefore, the order of examples is arranged from the most transparent to the less obvious ones. The former are observed and described also in other settings of the prolonged language contact, while the explanation of the latter requires the reconstruction of the intermediate grammatical processes involved. At this point, it should be emphasized that this is not an attempt to reconstruct diachronically documented changes. Instead, the chapter presents idealized schemes of probable sequences of developments that might have been involved in these processes. Nevertheless, the reasoning is based on the knowledge of the language systems involved and the current scholarship on the mechanisms and effects of language contact. At the same time, all the used examples presented in the analytical part come from corpus data, so the proposed models are solely based on empirical data.14

14

All examples cited here from Yiddish are from the following sources: “Der ojcer fun der jidišer šprach” (Stuchkoff 1950); Geller (1994), Astravuh (2008); Yiddish Book Center’s FullText Search; The Online Dictionary of Polish Borrowings in Yiddish.

role of slavic matter borrowings

4

103

Analysis and Its Results

The examples discussed below simultaneously present the gradation of transparency and the scope of penetration of the Yiddish system: from (I) the diffusion of bound morphemes, previously isolated from borrowed lexemes, through (ii) reanalysis of the borrowed functional units introducing a new inflectional paradigm and a new modal category, to (iii) remodeling of the part-of-speech system through nuancing of meanings at the syntactic level. All the cases discussed here will be illustrated by examples of Polish borrowings in Modern Yiddish. 4.1

Introduction of New Derivational Pattern and Reinforcement of Aspect Category: Case of: Y. horeven # onhoreven zix < P. harować # naharować się ‘work very hard’ Due to its long history of contacts with the Slavic languages, Yiddish has a sizable Slavic-derived vocabulary, representing, in fact, all parts of speech except numerals.15 Verbs rank second in terms of the number of Slavic borrowings in Yiddish (Geller 1994: 145, 191–200), in accordance with the mat-B hierarchies proposed in contact-linguistic literature (e.g., Matras 1998, 2009, Matras & Sakel 2007b, Myers-Scotton 2002, 2013).16 Yiddish is also an example of a language that indirectly borrowed a remarkable amount of bound morphemes via mat-Bs.17 Several dozens of the Slavicorigin units of this type have been identified, constituting a mat-B class in itself, albeit at the lower end of the scale. These morphemes include almost exclusively derivational affixes connectible to almost all classes of content words: nouns, adjectives, verbs, and even adverbs. Empirical studies to date have suggested that formatives in the field of nominal derivation are borrowed most often, while the verbal ones are rather rare (Matras 2009: 211). In this respect, Yiddish seems to be a particularly interesting case, where borrowing of a single verbal suffix might have reinforced or even initiated a series of interesting contact-induced changes within the grammatical system. 15 16 17

Cf. “The Online Dictionary of Polish Borrowings in Yiddish”; http://polonjid‑dictionary​ .clarin‑pl.eu/about On recent critics of the idea of a universal borrowability scale see Melissaropoulou & Ralli (2020). In the case of massive borrowing of Slavisms there is enough evidence to assume that affixes were carried over into Yiddish by those loanwords. An interesting discussion on the possibility of direct affix borrowing can be found in Seifart (2015); cf. also Nagano & Shimada (2018).

104

geller

This subsection is devoted to the Slavic verbal suffix replicated in Yiddish as Y. {-eve-}, a mat-B from Polish.18 First, the forms and functions of this formative in the model language will be described. Then, the processes of the increasingly deeper infiltration of the replica grammatical system will be shown schematically (not diachronically), with successive stages portrayed as a chain of cause and effect. The process of direct lexical borrowing will be discussed as the first link in this chain.19 Next, the segmentation, productivization, and diffusion of the word-forming morpheme will be demonstrated along with the replication of its semantic and morphological functions. Finally, the grammaticalization of the new derivational pattern and its effects on the category of aspect, will be presented. On this basis, a model will be proposed that reconstructs the mechanisms and sequence of the processes that lead from mat-B, through the gradual diffusion of new features to their grammaticalization in the recipient system. 4.1.1

Allomorphic Variability and Polyfunctionality of Model for Yiddish Replicated Suffix {-eve-} In Polish, external verb inflection is dominant in comparison to a sound alternation. Several conjugations based on different historical forms of verbal stems can still be distinguished in the modern variety of the language. Among the more frequent formatives within verbal derivation are the different variants of an infix with the intervocalic consonant element /-v-/, cf.: P. {-owa-}, {-ewa-}, {-ywa-}, and {-iwa-}. The infix occurs between the root of the verb and the inflectional ending {-ć}, thus the stem of the verb is constructed from the root and infix. Like most syncretic derivational formatives in Polish, including the ones with the intervocalic /-v-/, they are polyfunctional. In general, the morphological functions of this infix can be divided as follows: i. grammatical function—building a systemic opposition within aspectual pairs 18

19

It should be noted that the verb formative with the intervocalic /-w-/ occurs in all Slavic languages with which Yiddish was in contact; we take Polish as the model language in this volume. This process has been observed and described as early as the 19th century by the renown German historical linguist Herman Paul: “Words are always borrowed in their entirety; never derivative and inflexional suffixes. If, however, a large number of words containing the same suffix is borrowed, these range themselves into a group just as easily as native words with the same suffix: and such group may become productive in its turn. The suffix thus adopted may be attached, by means of analogical new-creation, to a native root.” (Paul [1880] 1891: 469–470) [after Seifart (2015: 512)].

role of slavic matter borrowings

ii.

105

lexical function—vocabulary expansion, i.e., derivation of new verbs from: ii.a native nouns ii.b native adjectives ii.c stems of foreign origin, as a separate class requiring integration into the system,

(1) i.

Formation of imperfective verbal stems in Polish: Perfective Imperfective kup|i|ć ‘buy.pfv’ # kup|owa|ć ‘buy.npfv’ przekon|a|ć ‘convince.pfv’ # przekon|ywa|ć ‘convince.npfv’ ii.a Formation of verbs derived from native nouns: król ‘king’ > król|owa|ć ‘to reign’ piła ‘saw’ > pił|owa|ć ‘to saw’ ii.b Formation of verbs derived from native adjectives: prosty ‘straight’ > prost|owa|ć ‘to straighten’ mocny ‘strong, fast’ > moc|owa|ć ‘to fasten’ ii.c Formation of verbs derived from stems of foreign origin, i.e., introducing borrowed verbs into Polish (replicating the basic meaning of the source language): G. segeln ‘to sail’ > P. żegl|owa|ć ‘idem’ G. spazieren ‘to stroll’ > P. spacer|owa|ć ‘idem’ E. to park/G. parkieren > P. park|owa|ć ‘idem’ E. to save > P. sejw|owa|ć ‘idem’

These grammatical and derivational functions are important in the Polish system, which is why verbs containing infixes with {-w-} are highly frequent and productive in the language. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Yiddish, which was open to influence of the Slavic languages for many centuries, has a large number of verbs borrowed from Polish along with these very formatives, replicated as the unified Yiddish {-eve-}. This unification contributed to the large number of such verbs in Yiddish via the phonological rule of unaccented vowel weakening (Abschwächung), which was also at work in the integration of other loanwords. Obviously, verbs of the word-formational type described above were not the only ones to be borrowed by Yiddish. Below, we will briefly survey the different verb forms taken over from Polish and the ways in which they were integrated.

106

geller

4.1.2 Verbal mat-Bs of Polish Origin In general, among the verbs borrowed from the Slavic languages into Yiddish, two structural types of verbs can be distinguished in accordance with the original model language forms, cf.: (2) with the stem ending in a vowel, renderd as ⟨e⟩ and without an additional derivational infix, such as: P. kopa|ć tuli|ć straszy|ć błądzi|ć straše|n blondže|n Y. kope|n tulje|n ‘to dig’ ‘to cuddle’ ‘to scare’ ‘to wander, err’ (3) with the stem ending in the infix {-eve-}, such as: P. piln|owa|ć prost|owa|ć har|owa|ć hor|eve|n Y. piln|eve|n prost|eve|n ‘to guard’ ‘to straighten’ ‘to toil’ Verbs of the first type are generally not distinguishable by their vowel-final stem in the Yiddish verb inflection system, which is entirely Germanic. This sometimes leads to problems with segmentation and etymological identification.20 The phonotactically regulated Yiddish allomorphic infinitive and the 1st and 3rd person plural ending forms of Y. {-en} or {-n} are the cause of this ambiguity. They can occur with verbs of the Germanic, as well as the Slavic or Semitic origin. On the contrary, the formant {-eve} has become an easily recognizable indication of the Slavic-origin of verbs in Yiddish.21 4.1.3 Verbal mat-Bs with Infix Y. {-eve-}. Yiddish borrowed dozens of simple and prefixed verbs with the formative {-eve-} from the Slavic languages. Let us list here some examples of simple verbs, almost all of which can be further prefixed, as it will be discussed further on:

20

21

Stems ending in /-e/ in inflections also occur in verbs of Hebrew origin, cf. Y. xoxmen < H. hahama ‘wisdom’ > Y. ix xoxme. In addition, some forms merged, causing difficulties with the etymologization, cf., e.g., Y. xapn, ix xap ‘to grasp’ < P. chapać ‘idem’ vs G. dial. happen ‘to bite’. It is worth noting that this affix, characteristic of Polish, was also borrowed and replicated in another Germanic language under the strong Polish influence, namely Wymysorys—an insular German variety from the area of Wilamowice, Poland. However, Andrason (2020: 136) enumerates only 18 borrowings with {-owȧ-} in Wymysorys, while the number of verbs in Yiddish ending with {-eve-} is counted in hundreds cf. Stuchkoff (1950).

role of slavic matter borrowings

107

(4) bunteven (zix) < P. buntować (się) ‘to (incite to) rebel’; praceven < P. pracować ‘to work’; bal( j)even < P. balować ‘to party’; malpeven < P. małpować ‘to ape’; žaleven < P. żałować ‘to regret’; moceven < P. mocować ‘to fix’; krempeven < P. krępować ‘to tighten, brace’; špikeven < P. szpikować ‘to stuff’; taseven < P. tasować ‘to shuffle’; buševen < P. buszować ‘to rummage’; maleven < P. malować ‘to paint’; hodeven < P. hodować ‘to breed’; broneven < P. bronować ‘to harrow’; korčeven < P. karczować ‘to clear (a forest)’; čateven < P. czatować ‘to lie in wait’; potakeven < P. potakiwać ‘to nod’; pajatseven < P. pajacować ‘to clown around’; kereven < P. kierować ‘to direct’; miškeven < P. myszkować ‘to snoop around’; cireven < P. cerować ‘to darn’; magleven < P. maglować ‘to press’; and etc. The above examples include verbs with the Slavic roots, as well as some of apparently Germanic origin. However, borrowings with these roots are also well established in Polish and no longer perceived as Germanisms in that language. As such, many of them are direct mat-Bs from Polish, e.g., Y. kereven < P. kierować, maleven, špikeven, cireven, magleven, and etc.22 What is interesting, is that their presence led to the creation of numerous lexical doublets in Yiddish of originally German etymology. A separate section will be devoted to this phenomenon. As we will show further down, massive mat-Bs with {-eve-} have not apparently been without influence on the lexical and grammatical aspects of the Yiddish verbal system. Therefore, let us take a closer look at how word borrowings, along with their derivational morphemes, penetrated from the lexical level to the structural one and how they diffused in the recipient language. The replication of complete sets of meanings (polysemy) in the case of lexemes or functions (polyfunctionality) in the case of bound morphemes is very rarely reported in the scholarship on mat-B. In most cases, only a few selected features of the model unit are replicated in accordance with the communicative needs of the replica language speakers. However, in the case studied here, we can observe remarkable convergence of meanings and functions between cognate units in both model and replica languages. The morpheme Y. {-eve-} turns out not only to be a matter borrowing, but it also replicates all important grammatical functions of its equivalents from the model language and introduces new patterns in the replica language.

22

The area related to tailoring, e.g., Y. liceven, cireven, and fastrigeven, turned out to be particularly susceptible to borrowings of verbs with {-eve-}, cf. Kondrat (2012b) (unpublished doctoral dissertation).

108

geller

As in Polish (cf. example (1)), two basic classes can be distinguished among the borrowings with {-eve-} in Yiddish. One important group is made up of verbs in which this formative acts as a verbalizer of a. nouns and b. adjectives: (5) a. Y. porondkes ‘arrangement’ P. porządki ‘idem’ Y. malpe ‘ape’ P. małpa ‘idem’ Y. bal ‘ball’ P. bal ‘idem’ b. Y. xitre ‘sly, greedy’ P. chytry ‘sly’ Y. prost ‘simply, straight’ P. prosty ‘idem’

> > > > > > > > > >

porondkeven ‘to arrange’ porządkować ‘idem’ malpeven ‘to ape’ małpować ‘idem’ baleven ‘to party’ balować ‘idem’ xitreven ‘to grudge’ chytrować ‘dat. to grudge’ (far)prosteven ‘to rectify’ prostować ‘to correct, to rectify’

Looking at the juxtaposition of nominal forms and their verbal derivatives in the above example (5), it might be tempting to treat them as simple calques because all of the Yiddish forms have their equivalents in Polish. At this stage, we could agree that a particular derivational pattern was replicated and the derivational morpheme {-eve-} is assigned the function of a verbalizer. However, it is possible to distinguish a second large group of verbs with {-eve-}. It consists of simple verbs, which, due to their semantics, express duration and atelicity. As a rule, they imply non-perfectivity in their base form, e.g.: (6) Y. korčeven Y. hodeven Y. kereven Y. pil(n)even

< < <
> > >

Y. pil(n)even Y. smakeven Y. maleven Y. čepen zix

Perfective # # # #

u|pil(n)even po|smakeven de(r)|maleven24 za|čepen

‘to guard, look after’ ‘to taste’ ‘to paint’ ‘to pick on sb’

The above examples (7 and 8) provide an argument for the claim that the category of aspect as pat-B from the Slavic component is at least latently present in the Yiddish system, although definitely to a less formalized degree than in the model languages. Some researchers question the importance of prefixation 23 24

There is a difference of opinion on the category of aspect in Yiddish; for a summary of this discussion from the perspective of mat- and pat-B see Arkadiev (2017:4–6); This involves the replication of the Polish prefix {do-} as a reanalysis of the semi-homophonic Yiddish prefix {der-} < G (d)er-; for more on this see Geller (1994: 82–83).

110

geller

as a means of expressing aspect in Yiddish (Arkadiev 2017: 6). Yet, they cannot deny that for some reason, the replication of the model differentiating between imperfective and perfective forms through the use of the formative {-eve-} and a prefix is “attractive” to Yiddish speakers.25 Most scholars tend to believe that such phenomena related to the category of aspect are, in fact, only a certain semantic gradient existing in many languages, known as Aktionsart, which Yiddish inherited from its German model language. The remodeling of the semantics and function of many German-origin prefixes according to Slavic patterns, which has been repeatedly observed in Yiddish scholarship, can be explained as resemantization or simply semantic expansion. Such an extension of meaning could hardly affect the very essence of the Yiddish tam system, which is naturally resistant to contact-induced change. A strong argument raised in favor of such an approach is the fact that in the Slavic languages every verb must express perfectivity or imperfectivity. This implies the existence of (more or less formalized) aspectual verb pairs and no such regularity can be presented for Yiddish.26 Thus, aspect cannot be regarded as an obligatory grammatical category in Yiddish, but only as an optional semantic means of expression, identified as Aktionsart.27 Since this aspect-related category is also present in German and expressed through prefixes, it is worth taking this opportunity to compare the functions of prefixation in the two model languages: Polish and German. This is important insofar as Yiddish admittedly borrowed aspect pairs (cf. 8), but practically did not import any Slavic prefixes, such as those mentioned in example (8), in the form of mat-Bs. In terms of prefixation, German and Polish are very similar and equally productive, so most prefixed forms in Yiddish are usually considered as derivational calques in which the meaning of the German prefixes and their Polish

25

26

27

In Yiddish, in addition to prefixation of the type: Y šrajbn # onšrajban (p. below ft. X), there are other morphosyntactic means of expressing this category. The most grammaticalized one seems to be a periphrastic construction of the type: Y ton a zog # zogn (cf. Chapter 1). The limitation of the use of un-prefixed past participles in the function of adverbs due to the aspectual meaning of this part of speech was pointed out by Jacobs (2005:71–72): “Use of bare past participle is permitted; however, there is a strong tendency to use (aspectually) a prefix”. The existence of apparently aspectual pairs in Yiddish was pointed out by M. Weinreich, who cited examples, such as: Y šrajbn imp vs onshraybn perf < P pisać E write # napisać E write (cf. chapter 1). For the most up-to-date discussion on aspect in Yiddish against the backdrop of contact linguistics see Arkadiev (2017: 2–6).

role of slavic matter borrowings

111

counterparts are merged. However, this is an oversimplification, given that in both parent languages of Yiddish, this mode of verb derivation plays a different semantic and systemic role. In German, prefixation seems to primarily express spatial deixis; cf.: (9) G. festigen ‘to strengthen, secure’ # be|festigen ‘to attach, tie up’ # zu|kehren ‘to turn towards’ G. kehren1 ‘to turn’ G. kehren2 ‘to sweep’ # aus|kehren ‘to sweep away’ In Polish, even if the spatial deictic semantics co-occurs in the prefix, its temporal deictic function of expressing the completion of an action that points to the perfective aspect definitely comes to the fore. Thus, the spatial meaning of the prefix apparently plays a secondary role to the grammatical category of aspect (cf. Talmy 1982: 237). In fact, in perfective verb forms, different prefixes may be used almost synonymously, regardless of their deictic meanings, which seem to become less relevant when aspect is to be expressed, cf. respectively:

(10) Imperfective P. mocować P. kierować

Perfective > za|mocować, u|mocować, przy|mocować ‘to fasten’ ‘to direct’ > s|kierować, po|kierować, na|kierować

On this basis, it can be postulated that with the transfer of numerous borrowed verb forms with their encoded category of aspect, additional functions were assigned to the Yiddish prefixes of German origin. Extending the meaning of the German-derived prefixes with an additional perfectivization function would not only be possible, but also relatively easy due to the similarity of prefixation patterns in the two languages. However, the replication of the strong aspectual pattern of the Polish model language merely through prefixes would be an inefficient strategy due to the increase in the polysemy of the Yiddish prefixes. For this reason, suffixation seems to be more effective because its grammatical functions are quite clearly distinguished from the lexical ones. Therefore, it can be assumed that the category of aspect, encoded in the Polish-origin lexemes with Y. {-eve-}, also laid the foundation for the intense multiplication of lexical doublets of the Germanorigin units. The German-origin verb doublets in Yiddish are distinguished by the presence or absence of the infix Y. {-eve-}. The ones borrowed directly from German

112

geller

are generally older, as evidenced by some phonetic changes, and do not have the infix. Those that do possess it are later borrowings of Germanisms mediated by Polish.28 In Polish, vernacular Germanisms as verbs of foreign origin received a stem extension with the infix {-ow-} and its allomorphs in this form were borrowed into Yiddish as Polonisms. Additionally, most of the doublets went through a secondary specialization of meaning, cf.:

(11) G. retten G. wünschen G. rauben G. schonen G. schmecken G. richten G. schicken G. kehren

German pattern/meaning

Polish pattern/meaning

Y. retn ‘to rescue’ Y. vinčn ‘to wish’ Y. rojbn/rabirn ‘to rob’ Y. šojnen ‘to protect’ Y. šmekn ‘to feel’ Y. rixtn ‘to arrange’ Y. šikn ‘to send’ Y. kern ‘to turn’

Y. rateven ‘to rescue’ Y. vinčeven ‘congratulate’ Y. rabeven ‘to rob’ Y. šaneven ‘to respect’ Y. smakeven ‘to taste’ Y. rixteven ‘to repair’ Y. šikeven ‘to prepare’ Y. kereven ‘to direct’

< < < < < < <
op|kereven (# P. *odkierować) ‘to direct’. Still, the persistence of both versions of the verb in Yiddish, a simple and an extended one with {-eve-}, indicates an attempt to replicate (lexical-)aspectual relations, such as those existing in Polish, cf.:

(13)

Polish

Yiddish

Perfective Imperfective

Perfective Imperfective

kupić odkupić

kup|owa|ć ‘to buy’ kern od|kup|ywa|ć ‘to buy back’ op|kern

ker|eve|n ‘to turn’ op|ker|eve|n ‘to turn away’

The representation of the aspect category through pairs of morphologically distinctive forms is obligatory in Polish and the distribution of such pairs is relatively well defined. However, it should be emphasized again that in Yiddish, they are still optional and used interchangeably in many cases. Yet, it is worth recalling here that the Slavic category of aspect is a mixed lexicogrammatical one, which makes it vague and ambiguous for the non-native speakers (Arkadiev 2017). Thus, the mechanism of pat-B being carried on the shoulders of mat-B, which is discussed here, is an example of an intermediate state. Although the model was implemented into the recipient language system under the influence of massive borrowing of verbs with {-eve-}, in the end, the category of aspect was not grammaticalized in this form. This was probably

114

geller

due to the degree of its ambiguity and lexico-grammatical heterogeneity in the model language itself. The above observations confirm the hypotheses made in contact studies on pat-B (Heine 2012; Gardani, Arkadiev & Amiridze 2014).29 According to these assumptions, the formally complex Slavic category of aspect replicated in Yiddish is at a less advanced stage than in the model language. 4.1.5

mat-Borrowing of Bound Morpheme {-eve-} and Its Forward Diffusion The situation is different when it comes to the replication of the word-formational function of the {-eve-} formative, i.e., the expansion of vocabulary. Apart from the discussed transfer of the ready-made forms from the source language, there are many verbs easily identifiable as Slavic although they are not attested in Yiddish component languages, such as Polish, Ukrainian, or Belarussian. Such a phenomenon is called forward diffusion.30 Stuchkoff (1950) provides several examples of such autonomous Yiddish word formation, cf.: (14) Y. plodžen, plodjen, plod|eve|n ‘to conceive’ Y. viten, vit|eve|n ‘to welcome’ Y. donos|eve|n ‘to denounce’ Y. sapen, sap|eve|n ‘to pant’

< < <
Y. sapeven vs P. sapnąć > Y. sapen ‘to pant’.

115

role of slavic matter borrowings

the model language. However, and also in this case, the co-occurrence of variants proves that this process is still in progress. The formative {-eve-} undergoes the forward diffusion more often when it occurs in the function of a verbalizer of nouns and adjectives. This can be explained by the fact that verbalization is not limited by any subtle and hidden semantic restrictions. There are dozens of examples of the verb forms derived from nominal parts of speech of Slavic origin:

(15)

Noun Y. stojg ‘haystack’

Verb

< P. stóg ‘idem’

Y. (rak >) raček ‘crayfish’ < Y. butle ‘bottle’


Y. ojsbutl|eve|n ‘to pour’ out.bottle.vbz.inf P. brylant ‘idem’ > Y. briljant|eve|n ‘to shine’ diamond.vbz.inf P. bałagan ‘idem’ > Y. balagan|eve|n ‘to make mess’ mess.vbz.inf P. brat ‘idem’ > Y. brat|eve|n ‘to fraternize’ brother.vbz.inf

Many forms created in Yiddish do not have their equivalents in the Slavic component languages. In other cases, the quoted Yiddish verbs may be replicated from the archaic, Old-Polish forms. This further testifies to the independence of the previously borrowed formative, potentially leading to its grammaticalization. 4.1.6 mat-B & pat-B Backward Diffusion Backward diffusion within word formation takes place when a formative begins to infiltrate lexical material derived etymologically from the component languages other than itself. Thus, in the case of the Slavic influence on Yiddish, the components of German and Hebrew origin are subject to this phenomenon, and examples of changes in both can be found. Let us begin by analyzing examples of the autonomous use of the {-eve-} suffix with stems of German origin. In contrast to the vocabulary cited in example (11), these do not have their equivalents in Polish which, as already mentioned,

32

Cf. P. raczkować ‘to crawl (of toddlers)’.

116

geller

could be regarded both as an intermediary of some borrowings and a direct source of others. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish some of these words that might be treated as calques from Polish, cf.:

(16) Noun

Verb < P.

Verb < G.

Y. heršer ‘ruler’ P. pan ‘lord’

> herš|eve|n ‘to rule’ || Y. heršn ‘idem’ < G. herrschen ‘idem’ < Herr ‘lord’ > pan|owa|ć ‘to rule’ lord.vbz.inf Y. špil ‘game’ > far|špilj|eve|n ‘to lose’ || Y. faršpiln ‘idem’ < G. verspielen ‘idem’ < Spiel ‘game’ P. gra ‘game’ > prze|gr|ywa|ć ‘to lose’ over.game.vbz.inf Y. a dank ‘thanks’ > dank|eve|n ‘to thank’ || Y. *danken < G. danken < G. Dank P. dzięki ‘thanks’ > dzięk|owa|ć thank.vbz.inf

Similar constructions, which look like calques from Polish, can also be found among verbs with the Hebrew stems, cf.: (17) Y. bale-bos ‘householder’ P. gospodarz ‘householder’ Y. lec ‘clown’ P. pajac ‘clown’ Y. sude ‘feast’ P. biesiada ‘feast’

> > > > > >

balebat|eve|n ‘to run the household’ gospodar|owa|ć ‘to run the household’ lec|eve|n ‘to clown’ pajac|owa|ć ‘to clown’ sud|eve|n ‘to feast’ biesiad|owa|ć ‘to feast’

Another group consists of the German-derived verbs, which have their equivalents in German but lack corresponding forms in Polish that could serve as bases for calquing. They often occur as variants of forms taken directly from German with the characteristic Slavic extension with {-eve-}, cf.: (18) Y. vild|eve|n/vildn ‘to rage’ < G. wild ‘wild’ Y. himl|eve|n/himlen ‘to hang by a thread’ < G. Himmel ‘sky’

> wildern ‘to poach, kill game’ > himmeln ‘col. to look extatically into the sky’ Y. far|dixt|eve|n/ fardixtn ‘to write poetry’ < G. Dichtung ‘poetry’ > verdichten ‘to write poetry’

While the vocabulary cited in examples (17) and (18) could be regarded as calques of specific lexemes, the examples cited below (19) point to a systemic replication of the Slavic model. Thus, it can be said that the independence of the {-eve-} formant borrowed as mat leads to its full grammaticalization.

117

role of slavic matter borrowings

4.1.7 Grammaticalization of Derivational Pattern Grammaticalization in the case of mat-B is the highest degree of autonomization and functionalization of an element transferred from the model language to the replica one. As it has been repeatedly pointed out, the replica unit never fully duplicates all the functions of its model. In the case of the bound morpheme {-eve-}, it seems that, out of the three functions its cognates have in Polish, the one pertaining to creating new verb forms was most fully realized in Yiddish. In the case of the optional expression of aspect with a suffix, we can only speak of a latently existing model that offers a possibility of creating aspect pairs. This model was probably motivated and sustained by the long-term direct contact of Yiddish with Polish, the latter providing the dominating use pattern (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 45–77). However, in the case of backward diffusion of a derivational model, we can talk about its grammaticalization. This is proven by verbs created autonomously in Yiddish from stems of various origins. These words do not have congruent equivalents in any of the model languages and their primary purpose is simply to expand the native vocabulary of Yiddish cf.: (19) (G.) (S.) (S.) (H.) (H.) (H.)

> > > > > >

Y. jungač ‘brat’ Y. nartes ‘ski’ Y. puste-pas ‘idly’ Y. taxles ‘practical result’ Y. din-tojre ‘rabbinical court’ Y. porec ‘lord’

> > > > > >

jungač|eve|n ‘to bully’ nart|eve|n ‘to ski’ pustepas|eve|n ‘to idle around’ far|taxl|eve|n ‘to waste’ dintojr|eve|n ‘to sue’ poric|eve|n ‘to act in a lordly manner’

The productivity and full establishment of this model in the Yiddish derivational system is most clearly evidenced by emotive verbs formed from proper names, cf.: (20) Y. Jente > jent|eve|n ‘to curse’ Y. Menaxem-Mendl > menaxem-mendl|eve|n ‘to laze around’ Grammaticalization is a long-term process during which certain patterns of the language use gradually diffuse and slowly stabilize in the course of the functionalization of lexical material for the purpose of denoting specific grammatical functions (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 70–71). In a language contact situation, this process is even more difficult to trace than in the case of a single idiom (Matras 2009: 338–240), but the partial developments still seem quite transparent in Yiddish.

118

geller

4.2

Replication of Full Imperative Paradigm and Optative Mood: Case of Y. (ne)xaj < P. niech(aj) Another interesting case, with an unrecognized potential to initiate morphosyntactic and semantic changes is that of the particle Y. nexaj ‘1. let, 2. if only’, which originated from P. niech(aj) ‘idem’ or U. nexaj.33 From a synchronic point of view, we might assume that we are dealing here with a simple mat-B of a functional word, a particle. This is because particles are placed quite high in the postulated borrowing hierarchies (e.g. Matras 2009, Grant 2012). Words belonging to this class are relatively easy to borrow as they are generally not entangled in the argument structure of a sentence. Their function is most often limited to organizing entire utterances, i.e., units larger than a sentence, and, therefore, they are free from the constraining corset of the morpho-syntactic frame restrictions. However, when taking a closer look at the replica of this seemingly marginal word and its distribution in Yiddish, we should notice that its function goes far beyond the usual role assigned to particles and discourse markers. Moreover, the introduction of P. niech(aj) into Yiddish as Y. nexaj had a significant, twofold impact on reorganizing the Yiddish system. First, this word played an important role in introducing a new, complete paradigm of the imperative-mood inflection with all persons and numbers into Yiddish. The borrowing paved the way for the reanalysis and eventual grammaticalization of the auxiliary verb Y. lozn ‘to let’ < G. lassen, as a replica of Polish niech ‘let’, which served as an analytical exponent of the imperative in the model language. Secondly, the particle Y. nexaj as a mat-B introduced a new distinction within the category of mood, becoming a morphological exponent of the optative, a means of expressing a wish or hope for an action. Thus, on the one hand, the optative was separated from the semantically and grammatically related subjunctive. On the other hand, the two grammatical functions replicated in Yiddish—imperative and optative—are also interrelated, both semantically and morpho-syntactically. According to many researchers (Matras 2007, Heine & Nomachi 2013), such interdependence within a single category, in this case mood, further influences the likelihood of its total reconstruction along the lines of a model language. We can assume that both a borrowing of mat and pat, as well as the grammaticalization process in the recipient system transpired here.

33

Stuchkoff (1950) provides the following variant forms: Y. nixaj; nexaj; nexaj bi; xaj; xaj— nexaj (volt ix); naj (volt ix).

119

role of slavic matter borrowings

Because both functions replicated by Y. nexaj co-occur in a similar relationship within the mood system of the source language, it is reasonable to start with a description of the functional word P. niech(aj) in the model language. 4.2.1 Model-Language Modal Grammatical Features The modern Polish particle niech ‘let’ and its extended variant niechaj ‘idem’ are derived from the Old-Polish verb niechać ‘to let’. It was originally a full verb with extensive semantics and a function comparable to that of its German equivalent—lassen.34 As a verb with a full inflectional paradigm, P niechać formed the imperative mood with its characteristic endings, where P. niech|aj ‘let’ represented the 2nd person singular. With the passage of time and because of its extensive and blurred meaning, the inflected form of P. niechaj began to be used also as a (defective) auxiliary verb. Finally, it became grammaticalized as an exponent of the analytical forms of the imperative and shortened to the particle form of P. niech, lacking the inflectional ending {-aj}, which was unnecessary in this role. In modern Polish, both forms, P. niech and niechaj, coexist with stylistic differences35 as exponents fulfilling two grammatical functions, serving as: a. the functional operator of the imperative mood, and b. an obligatory optative mood marker with a fixed first place in the syntactic structure. The two functions are semantically related (Bogusławski 2002) as expressions of ‘readiness to act’, contrary to similar operators expressing only a wish or hope. This subtle nuancing of the semantic perspective is expressed in the two particles occurring in Polish in wish sentences, both in the first position in the sentence:

(21) Imperative

Optative

P. niech, niechaj, ‘let’, which is action-oriented, e.g.,

P. oby, niechby ‘may’, which expresses only a wish, hope or concern (Żabowska 2014), e.g., P. Nechaj przyjdzie! ‘Let him come!’ P. Oby/Niechby przyszedł! ‘May he come!’

34

35

As an imperfective verb, op. niechać, also created aspectual pairs. Out of its imperfective counterparts, two affective forms have survived in Polish. These are the full verbs P. po|niechać ‘to abandon, to leave be’ and za|niechać ‘to cease’. P. niechaj being literary and elevated.

120

geller

In this context, it should be mentioned that both particles are replicated in Yiddish, respectively as Y. nexaj and abi,36 and they seem to have the potential to introduce the same semantic distinction as in Polish. This observation is another argument that leads to the conclusion that the mood system of Yiddish as a whole was strongly modeled on the Slavic pattern. Yet, the validity of this hypothesis would have to be tested in broader contextual study. 4.2.1.1 Imperative Mood Operator In this role, P. niechaj > niech is used to create analytic forms of the imperative, which form a part of the full inflectional paradigm with all persons and numbers. This paradigm includes synthetic constructions in the 1st and 2nd person plural and the 2nd person singular. The remaining inflectional forms are realized analytically, with the help of the discussed particle niech(aj) and the corresponding personal form of the synthetic future tense in the perfective aspect, cf.:

(22) 1st Person

2nd Person 3rd Person singular singular

P. niech zobaczę zobacz niech see.1.sg.pl.fut see.2.sg.imp let.imp let.imp ‘let me see’ ‘see’ ‘let him see’

36

zobaczy see.3.sg.fut

1st Person plural

2nd Person 3rd Person plural plural

P. zobaczmy see.1.pl.imp ‘let us see’

zobaczcie niech zobaczą see.2.pl.imp let.imp see.3.pl.fut ‘see’ ‘let them see’

Yiddish abi was formed as a contamination of two quasi-homophonic lexical units: the Polish conjunction aby ‘to’ and the Polish optative particle oby ‘may’ (< op. o byś! ‘may you’). Both functions can still be distinguished also in Yiddish, cf. Y abi as a conjunction: Y. zej zajnen grejt ariber cu trogen kolerlej švirigkajtn, abi cu kumen ahejm ‘they were willing to endure any hardship to reach home’; Y. abi as an exponent of optativity in the expression Y. abi gezunt! ‘Health first!’

121

role of slavic matter borrowings

4.2.1.2 Lexical Exponent of Optativity In this function, the particle niechby/niechajby ‘let; if only’ is extended by an additional functional element P. {by}. It is a movable morpheme characteristic of all subcategories of the irrealis mood in Polish, historically created as a result of the truncation of the verb P. być37 ‘to be’. The P. niech(aj)by, placed at the beginning of the wish sentence, is intended to grammatically distinguish the optative modality from other subjunctive moods. The optative constructions with niechby require a verb in the simple past or the perfect tense, cf. (23) a. P. niech by ( już) przyszedł let.opt cond (now) came.pfv ‘If only he came.’ b. P. niech by był przyszedł let.opt cond been came.pfv ‘If (only) he had come.’ A simple transformation test can prove the link between the two modal functions of the particle: in imperative (cf. 4.2.1.1) and in the optative one (cf. 4.2.1.2). In fact, optative sentences can be transformed into imperative ones. For comparison, these expressions are usually formulated in the subjunctive (G. Konjunkiv ii or i) in German. cf.:

(24)

P. Optative vs G. Subjunctive

P. Imperative vs G. Subjuntive

a. P. Niechby już było po wszystkim! > Niech(aj) będzie już po wszystkim! G. Wenn es schon vorbei wäre! Sei es schon vorbei! ‘Let it be over with!’ > ‘Let it be over!’ b. P. Niechby już przyjechali! > Niech(aj) już przyjadą! G. Mögen sie schon kommen! > Wären/Seien sie schon da! ‘Let them come already!’ > ‘Let them come already!’

As mentioned before, both of the above functions are replicated in Yiddish, although in different ways. Using the terminology proposed by Johanson (1992), 37

The present participle ‘by’ is a remnant of the imperative of the auxiliary verb być ‘to be’, and, in fact, the 3rd person singular form cf: sg. 1. bym, 2. byś, 3. by, Pl. 1. byśmy, 2. byście, 3. by ‘would’.

122

geller

in the case of the imperative paradigm, we are dealing with selective copying (Teilstrukturkopieren), and in the case of the optative, with global copying (Globalkopieren). Within the terminology adopted herein, this translates to pat-B and matpat-B respectively. 4.2.2

Yiddish Replica of Full Paradigm of Imperative Mood: Grammaticalization of pat-B Without mat-B Already in the late 19th century, Ludwik Zamenhof, the later founder of Esperanto and author of the first descriptive grammar of the modern Eastern Yiddish, described the complete paradigm of the imperative. He stated that this model included analytic constructions in the 1st and 3rd person singular and plural. These analytic structures were built using a form of the Yiddish auxiliary verb lozn ‘to let’, truncated to the bare stem Y. loz ‘let’ and followed by the corresponding personal pronoun and the infinitive of the main verb (Zamenhof 2012: 85). There was a striking irregularity in the inflectional paradigm presented by Zamenhof. Namely, the personal pronoun in the analytic forms occurred in the nominative, except for the 1st person singular, where it was only able to take the form of an oblique case (i.e., dative or accusative in Yiddish)—Y. mix. In the 3rd person plural, due to the unification of the pronoun, it is not clear whether it was the nominative or the oblique case. Additionally, here the auxiliary word took on the full personal form of the verb Y. lozn, cf.:

(25) 1st Person

2nd Person 3rd Person singular singular

Y. lo(z) mix zen ze loz let.imp me.acc see.inf see.2.sg.imp let.imp ‘let me see’ ‘see’ ‘let him see’ 1st Person plural

er zen he.nom see.inf

2nd Person 3rd Person plural plural

Y. lo(z) mir zen zet(s)38 lo(zn) zej zen let.imp we.nom see.inf see.2.pl.imp let.imp.pl they.nom see.inf ‘let us see’ ‘see’ ‘let them see’

38

Zamenhof gives here the so-called Polish Yiddish form, for which the 2.P.pl. of pronoun

123

role of slavic matter borrowings

Since Zamenhof’s time, this pattern was further unified and eventually grammaticalized. Subsequently, Yiddish grammars (e.g., Zaretski 1926, Mark 1978) also included the full inflectional paradigm of the imperative. However, they no longer referred to Y. lozn as an auxiliary verb, but as a particle instead (Mark 1978: 289). The operation of suprasegmental phonological rules is evident here (Geller 2001: 124–133). The etymological Y. lozn takes the form of Y. lo when the following pronoun has a consonantal onset, or Y. loz when the pronoun has a vocalic onset. The inconsistency in the spelling of the particle and the pronoun proposed in modern grammars: jointly in the 1st person singular and plural, and separately in the 3rd person singular and plural, is neither justified, nor does it reflect the actual pronunciation. In each of these cases, we are dealing with enclitic forms, which together with the truncated auxiliary, make up a phonological word stressed on the first syllable, resulting in Y. lozer for the 3rd person singular and Y. lozej for the 3rd person plural.39 Cf.:

(26) 1st Person singular

2nd Person singular 3rd Person singular

Y. lomix zen ze see.inf see.2.sg.imp let.imp ‘let me see’ ‘see’ ‘let him see’

lozer zen let.imp see.inf

1st Person plural

3rd Person plural

2nd Person plural

zen zet Y. lomir let.imp see.inf see.2.pl.imp ‘let us see’ ‘see’ ‘let them see’

lo(z)zej zen let.imp see.inf

The juxtaposition of the imperative inflectional paradigms of both model and replica languages despite significant similarities still reveals some differences at the morpho-syntactic level. The grammaticalized Polish auxiliary niech(aj) ‘let’ was relexified in Yiddish, i.e., replaced by its closest translation equivalent.

39

sounded ets, hence the ending {-(t)s} in the postposition. In the grammars of standard Yiddish, the forms of 2.P.pl. do not have the ending -s. Cf. Evidence of Yiddish Documented in European Societies (eydes); http://www.eydes​ .de/ (09.02.2022).

124

geller

Y. lozn ‘to let’ < G. lassen ‘idem’. This is a verb with a very similar semantic range to the former full verb in the model language—op. niechać. It is worth noting that the replica auxiliary word, Y. lo(z) < lozn, was also shortened to the stem (or first syllable), originally corresponding formally to the 2nd person singular in the imperative (cf. German lass). The same applies to P. niechać > niech(aj). Thus, both languages have developed truncated forms in the function of the imperative auxiliary. To form the imperative paradigm, the Polish particle joins the synthetic personal form of the full verb in the future tense, which carries the categories of person and number. This development is due to the fact that Polish is a prodrop language, i.e. one in which an overt subject is not obligatory. In Yiddish, on the contrary, imperative forms are created by the auxiliary word lo(z) linking clitically to the corresponding personal pronoun. What is particularly important is that Yiddish auxiliary word also replicates the government relations of the model language in which, unlike in German where lassen governs the accusative case, P. niech (E let) occurs with the nominative. Only in the 1st person singular, Yiddish replicates the German model of lassen + acc, yielding the form Y. lomix < loz mix (acc) < G. lass mich ‘let me’. The above morpho-syntactic inconsistency again points to the mixed nature of the Yiddish linguistic system. However, this by no means invalidates the thesis that the full system of imperative inflection in Yiddish is a replica of the Polish model. This only shows that pattern copying did not proceed consistently, which is in line with the scholarship on pattern replication.40 We have no precise confirmation of when mat-B Y. nexaj first appeared in Yiddish. From the historical research conducted to date, it does not look like the word was present as a mat-B before the 19th century (cf. e.g. Kerler 1999, Neuberg 1999, Timm 2005, Geller 2015). However, we must emphasize that the available data is still only scant. Nevertheless, this dating seems unlikely since, on the one hand, we have attestations of another Yiddish particle of Slavic origin from the early 17th century—Y. xoče < op. chocia/chociaż, which has survived to this day. On the other hand, we have in this source a proof of an imperative mood form for 3rd person singular corresponding to today’s Y. loz er ‘let him’ from the same period (Geller 2015: 163).41

40

41

Cf. Heine & Nomachi (2013: 94) “[…] most cases of grammatical replication involve grammaticalization, where speakers of the replica language create a new use pattern or category on the model of another language. But as a rule, these newly created structures are less grammaticalized than the model categories: they may be less fixed morphosyntactically and/or used less frequently and in a smaller range of contexts”. It has to be noted, that contact linguistics hardly knows instances of whole paradigm bor-

role of slavic matter borrowings

125

Does the lack of an attestation for the borrowing of P. niech concurrent with the postulated systemic change weaken our hypothesis? It does not seem so. Firstly, because the historical data for Yiddish is scarce. Secondly and more importantly, in this function, P. niech was not just a discourse marker organizing the utterance. It has been documented as an auxiliary word which was grammaticalized for the purpose of creating personal forms of the imperative mood according to strict agreement rules. Thus, it was easier to replicate this function via relexification of the replica language own lexical resources. The new pattern had to be somewhat adapted to the relexified native form. The main verb had to occur in the infinitive, as opposed to the synthetic future tense of the Polish model, because the latter form simply does not exist in Yiddish. 4.2.3

Yiddish Replica of Optative Mood: Grammaticalization of mat-B with pat-B At first glance, the case of Y. nexaj could be classified as typical mat-B, understood as a “contact-induced transfer involving phonetic substance of some kind or other” (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 6). However, an analysis of examples taken from this study corpus demonstrates that this borrowing had further implications for a systemic change in Yiddish, where it was grammaticalized as an exponent of the new modal category. It follows from the very definition of grammaticalization (cf. 2.6) that there had to be a particular lexical unit at the beginning of this process. P. niech(aj) as a model auxiliary particle for the restructuring of the imperative paradigm was eventually relexified in Yiddish, i.e., replicated by reanalyzing the native Germanic element Y. lo(z). Nevertheless, Y. nexaj as regular mat-B of P. niech(aj). is also known in Yiddish. Analyzing the particles usage and distribution in the Yiddish literary corpus can lead to interesting conclusions.42 There are quite a few attestations of this borrowing presence and the analysis of the various instances of its usage allows us to reconstruct the gradual processes of infiltration. The contextual occurrences of Y. nexaj methodically delineate the path from a lexical borrowing, through the replication of its function, to the final grammaticalization of the latter in the new system. Once again, it is not the chronological presentation of attestations that proves the above statement. The Eastern-Yiddish sources do not cover the nearly seven centuries of the language history. Rather, the existing corpus shows causal linguistic interactions forming into a pattern.

42

rowing (Aikhenvald 2006: 19). Therefore, the case discussed here seems to be rather a proof of an inherited pattern. See https://ocr.yiddishbookcenter.org/

126

geller

4.2.3.1 mat-B as Code Switching (cs) Among the attestations taken from the literary corpus, there are numerous examples where the particle Y. nexaj occurs as code switching along with the whole phrase taken from Polish or another Slavic language, cf.: (27) a. Y. nexaj a šlak trafi P. niech szlag trafi let.imp a strike hit.fut ‘Goddammit!’ b. Y.

nexaj tobi bože daje krenk in di in the let.imp you.acc God gives.npfv sickness P. Niechaj tobie Bóg daje chorobę w let.imp you.acc God gives.npfv sickness.acc in Y. (contd.) bejner i dobre kadoxes bones and good.pl fever P. (contd.) kościach i dobrą gorączkę bones.loc and good.acc fever ‘May God send upon thee sickness in the bones, and a good deal of fever.’

The first example (27a) could be considered as a citation of the Polish idiom: Niech (to) szlag trafi! ‘Goddamn it!’ with minimal adaptation to the Yiddish morpho-syntactic frame that involved inserting an indefinite article before the deverbal noun Y. a šlak ‘a hit’. The second example (27b) leaves no doubt that it is a code switching alternation. This sentence, taken from a classic of Yiddish literature, is a malediction, artfully created by Sholem Aleichem, a writer known for his colorful language. It is significant here for our consideration that the first phrase of Y nexaj tobi bože daje is most likely a contamination of the Polish idiomatic exclamations: daj Boże! ‘God grant’! and P. niech Bóg da! ‘may God give!’.43 This allows us to assume that in the minds of the users, Y. nexaj was already linked to the optative function but still had an unstable grammatical role. In order to avoid such incoherence with respect to the source language, speakers often employ a method of neutralizing code switching by consecutively supplying the closest translation equivalent, cf.

43

The phrase Y. nexaj tobi bože daje ‘may God give you’ can also be interpreted as a partial

role of slavic matter borrowings

127

(28) a. Y. nexaj sabaka darmo ne breže, dos hejst loz a hunt ništ biln umzist Br. хай сабака дарма не брэша let.imp dog vainly not bark.3.prs.npfv this means let.imp a dog not bark in.vain ‘Let the dog not bark in vain, that means do not let the dog bark in vain.’ b. Y. nexaj sobi idje … zol zi zix gejn P. niechaj sobie idzie … let.imp rfl.dat goes.npfv shall she rfl go ‘Let her go … she should go.’

Neutralization of code switching can be introduced by an appropriate phrase of the type ‘that means, that is’, as in example (27a), or follow without any conjunction (27 b.) 4.2.3.2 mat-B and Reanalysis Let us recall that in the case of the model Polish P. niech(aj) extended by the particle P. by (P niech(aj)by ‘if only’), refers in general to the modal category of irrealis. It is expressed in Yiddish through various morphological forms of the conditional mood. Although in the corpus we can also find examples of the phrase Y. nexaj bi as a replica of the Polish particle, they are rather few and seem more like code switching, cf.: (29) Y. nexaj bi voltstu epes ojsgetrogn let.opt cond will.2.sg.cond something out.carried P. niechaj by-ś coś wyniósł let.opt cond 2.sg something out.carried ‘You could have at least taken something out.’ Most commonly, the functional P. by is replicated through reanalysis, probably due to the unit ambiguity and polyfunctionality. Thus, the next step in the gradual infiltration of the recipient system through the mat-B of a functional unit is an attempt to replicate the basic grammatical function encoded in it with the use of the native linguistic means. As mentioned above, the general aim is to replicate the function of the irrealis mood. Historically, the function of this category operators was performed in Yiddish by the vestigial preterite personal forms of auxiliary verbs with the

loan translation of P. niechaj tobie Bozia daje ‘idem’. The form bože is a plausible phonological Yiddishization of P. Bozia ‘dim. God’, and the grammatical agreement between the subject bože and the predicate daje follows the rules of Polish for such a sentence.

128

geller

German umlaut. The longest preserved forms include the 3rd person singular Y. het < G hätte and Y. ver < G wäre, cf.: (30) Y. nexaj het er let.opt have.3.sg.cond he P. niechaj by let.opt cond ‘If only he were a real Jew.’

gevezn a rexter been a real był prawdziwym been.3.sg real.sg.inst.m

jid Jew Żydem Jew.inst

Since Western Yiddish lost the preterite tense long ago and Eastern Yiddish hardly had it (Chang 2001), the constructions using these obsolete lexicalized irrealis forms quickly fell out of use. They were replaced by the personal form of the auxiliary verb in the present tense, which in combination with a past participle simply formed the analytic past tense, replicating the model construction (22), cf.: (31) Y. nexaj hot er getraxt let.opt have.3.sg he been P. niechaj by pomyślał let.opt cond been.3.sg ‘If only he might have thought.’ In modern Yiddish, the Polish conditional mood exponent {-by}, which can combine with any verb, is also replicated by the modal verbs Y. lozn ‘to let’, zoln ‘shall, should’, and voltn ‘will, would’ cf. (32a)

Y. nexaj lozn jidn nebex let.opt let.3.pl Jews poor.things P. niechaj by Żydzi niebogi let.opt cond Jews poor.things ‘Let the poor Jews try too.’

ojx also też also

(32b) Y. nexaj zol er mir xoč let.opt should he me.dat even P. niechaj by mi chociaż let.opt cond me.dat even ‘He could have at least sold it to me.’

farzuxn try.pl spróbowali tried.pfv.pl

farkojfn sell sprzedał sold.3.sg

Using the terminology proposed by Heine & Kuteva (2005: 60), the various efforts to replicate the function of the mat-B P. niechby cited here should

129

role of slavic matter borrowings

be classified as instances of replicating grammatical use patterns rather than changes within the grammatical category of mood itself. The latter refer to a situation in which the exponent of the category is necessary for its expression. Conversely, grammatical use patterns merely refer to variability in the organization and structure of the utterance, the choice of a speech formula adopted and used. However, Yiddish did not stop at this stage and introduced a fully grammaticalized optative construction, while maintaining the status of P. niechaj as a mat-B. 4.2.3.3 mat-B and Grammaticalization As mentioned earlier, the optative is a special variety of irrealis which has its own exponents in the Yiddish grammatical system that differ from those existing in German (cf. Geller 1999). It is most often formed using the grammaticalized preterite of the G. auxiliary verb mhg. weln (> nhg. wollen inf. > wolte pret > Y. veln ‘will’ inf.) > Y. voltn ‘would’ inf. in the corresponding personal form and with a past (or pluperfect) participle or infinitive following, cf.:

(33)

Indicative present Indicative perfect Conditional Y. ix zog ‘I say’

ix hob gezogt ‘I have said’

ix volt gezogt/ix volt geven zogn ‘I would say/I would have/had said’

Due to the function of its cognate in the source language, Y. nexaj was primarily connected with the conditional mood. Therefore, the final grammaticalization of the whole optative was based on this construction, already existing in Yiddish, to which Y nexaj was added as an obligatory element in the initial position in the sentence structure, cf.

(34a)

Conditional (pertaining to present) Y. nexaj volt er gezogt let.opt would he said P. niechaj by powiedział let.opt cond said.pfv.m ‘If he would say.’

Conditional (pertaining to past) # nexaj volt er geven zogn let.opt would he been say # niechaj by był powiedział let.opt cond been said.pfv.m ‘If he would have said.’

130

geller

Corpus data confirm that constructions with the reconstructed new auxiliary verb Y. voltn in the personal form are the most common collocations with Y. nexaj. (34b) Y. nexaj volt zi mix xoč let.opt would she me.acc even P. niechaj by (ona) mnie choć let.opt cond (she) me.acc even ‘If she would at least catch me.’

gexapt caught złapała caught.pfv.f

This regularity of forms led some grammarians, who were familiar with this subtle nuancing probably due to their knowledge of one of the Slavic model languages, to distinguish a separate mood created with the help of Y. (ne)xaj (Zamenhof 2012: 85; Falkovič 1940: 196). However, these scholars do not agree on the name of the construction itself.44 Unfortunately, modern scholars and grammarians seem to overlook this special category, viewing its exponent merely as one of the many borrowed discourse particles and ignoring its restructuring function altogether (cf. Schäfer 2020). 4.3

Replication of Adverbial Markedness Pattern: Case of Y. bokem < P. bokiem ‘sideways’ The adverbial system in Yiddish is another interesting example of the implicit contact influence of the Slavic model. The research problem in this case boils down primarily to the question of whether the numerous lexical borrowings from Polish among Yiddish adverbs could have influenced the remodeling of the whole system of part-of-speech division in the replica language. As a result of the attempt to replicate the function and status of the adverb in the model language, this word class may have become morpho-syntactically marked in Yiddish. The situation here is much more complex since, in contrast to the mechanisms described in sections 4.1 and 4.2, there is practically no transfer of a specific matter unit to which we could attribute the function of initiating the sequence of processes leading to grammaticalization, which we wish to reconstruct here. We assume that what contributed to the systemic change was the markedness of this part of speech in the model language. In this case, the replication 44

Zamenhof (2012:84–85) distinguishes the subjunctive mood (which “expresses a possible or conditional action”) from the optative mood. Besides the imperative, Falkovič (1940:196) lists three other irrealis constructions: (nit kejn faktiše modusn [non-factual moods]) the conditional mood (bading-modus), the mixed mood (gemišter modus), and the “regretting” mood (badojer modus).

role of slavic matter borrowings

131

involved almost exclusively pat-B, i.e., the adaptation (reanalysis) of a few native morphemes of the replica language to perform the original functions of the given part of speech as a syntactic category. It is more difficult to provide an argument for the external influence of an abstract pattern in the absence of concrete linguistic matter as a carrier of a specific function. Obviously, the possibility that we are dealing with an independent internal process having its source in an already existing tendency can never be excluded. Yet, in such a case, how can we explain the large number of the Slavic adverbial mat-Bs in Yiddish? Therefore, in accordance with the main thesis of this chapter, we will again opt for the interpretation that assumes an initiating role of lexical borrowings (mat-B) in the change of systemic patterns (pat-B). The mechanisms of both overt and covert infiltration, leading to the takeover of markedness as a systemic feature (Matras 2009: 159–161), will be discussed methodically. This time, I will start the analysis with the description of the adverbial system as presented in Yiddish grammars, from which it can be concluded that this system is essentially based on the German model. I will then juxtapose this system with a description of the place, function, and derivation of adverbs in Polish. Next, I will cite lexical borrowings from the model language in Yiddish and discuss their functioning in the recipient system. Finally, I will show the impact of their markedness and the ways of introducing the systemic change towards the formal distinction of the adverb in Yiddish. 4.3.1 Adverbial System in Yiddish Descriptive grammars of Yiddish (Zamenhof [1880] 2012, Zaretski 1926, Mark 1978, Jacobs 2005) vary in their presentation of the adverb as a part of speech, but none of them pays particular attention to distinguishing it as a separate class. Zaretski (1926: 139–141) offers the most radical means of classification, using only formal criteria and without reference to the function. As such, he describes adverbs in a generalized manner merely as the uninflected content words. Nevertheless, the situation of the adverb in language systems seems to be somewhat more complicated, since grammars of other languages also have trouble with distinguishing this type of a word as a distinct part of speech. Possibly, this is because of the heterogeneous nature of this class, as it is situated between lexis and morphosyntax. On the one hand, adverbs may include intrinsically uninflected words that are often treated as particles. On the other hand, the class may also encompass words belonging to other autosemantic parts of speech which have the syntactic function of modifying or specifying the predicate. This diversity may require special adverbial exponents to distinguish the different types from one another.

132

geller

Languages choose diverse strategies here, depending on other grammatical, especially syntactic parameters existing in the given idiom. This is why the adverb, being a derivative of other parts of speech, includes an identifying morphological exponent in some languages, while in others, it can do without it. In the present discussion, we will be primarily interested in the second group of adverbs, which are, so to speak, secondary to the primary parts of speech. In this context, we will refer to the degree of specialization and formalization of derived adverbs in the system of a given language as their markedness in terms of being distinguished as a separate part of speech. Yiddish grammars primarily consider the adverb as an uninflected word class. Such words, sometimes referred to as particles, are considered proper, core, or primary adverbs. They are (a) simple words or (b) their reduplications, synchronically not segmentable into morphemes, e.g.: (35)

Primary (lexical) adverbs of different origin: a. Y. do, dort(n), šojn, bald, azoj, tejkef, kojm, mistome, davke, take, kimat, tomer, agev b. Y. kojm-kojm, šir-šir, kap-kap, het-het

In general, it is a small, closed class of function words, too modest to fulfil all the semantic and syntactic tasks assigned to adverbs.45 That is why other parts of speech and some prepositional phrases that do not have any formal exponents are also used as adverbs in syntactic constructions. Adjective stems without endings (i.e., with a null morpheme in this position), as well as past and present participles, occur most frequently in this role. Since their adverbial character results solely from their position and function in the sentence, they are sometimes called secondary or syntactic adverbs, e.g.: (36)

Secondary (syntactic) adverbs of non-Slavic origin: a. adjectives: Y. šejn ‘beautiful, pritty’, rojt ‘red’, alt ‘old’, štil ‘quiet, still’ b. present participles: Y. švajgn|dik ‘silent’, traxtn|dik ‘thinking’ past participles: Y. faratraxt ‘lost in thought’, deršlogn ‘depressed’ c. nouns: Y. zumer ‘in the summer’, mitog ‘at midday’, jontev ‘at holiday time’, d. prepositional con- Y. afs-naj ‘anew’, far-der-far ‘therefore’, mit-amol ‘sudstructions: denly’, af-der-eleter ‘in one’s old age,’ ba-tog ‘by day’

45

Semantically, adverbs are usually further classified as temporal, local, modal, causal and other adverbial modifiers.

role of slavic matter borrowings

133

There is also a third group, which seems to be the most numerous, consisting of (secondary) adverbs derived from other parts of speech that use more or less specialized affixes. Yiddish grammars list both prefixes and suffixes as adverbial formatives (cf. Zaretski 1926: 139–141; Mark 1978: 354–355; Jacobs 2005: 195– 198). It is worth noting that among the prefixes used in this derivation, there are representatives of all three component languages of Yiddish. At the same time, against the background of the dominant stock of German-origin morphemes, adverbial formatives originating from Hebrew and Polish stand out as mat-Bs. Formally, they usually combine with nouns or other primary adverbs, cf.: (37) G.: P.: H.:

Adverbial derivational prefixes (by origin): ein/her46 > Y. {a-} > a|hejm ‘at home’, a|ponem ‘apparently’, a|štejger ‘for example’ oto, ot > Y. {ot-} > ot|do ‘right here’, ot|icts ‘righ now’, ot|azoj ‘this way (modal)’ bə- > Y. {be-/bi-} > be|sod ‘in secret’, bi|frat ‘in detail’, be|ojfn ‘in the manner of’47

Suffixes used in adverb formation include only formatives of Germanic origin, which are specialized in derivation from specific parts of speech, cf.: (38)

Adverbial derivational suffixes of German origin (according to morphological function): a. used with adjective and participle bases: Y. -erhejt, e.g. Y. gezunt|erhejt ‘healthily’ ~ P. zdrowo ‘idem’, Y. alt|erhrejt ‘in old age’ ~ na starość ‘idem’, Y. štil|erhejt ‘quietly’, ~ P. cichcem ‘idem’, Y. švajgendik|erhejt ‘silently’ ~ P. milczkiem, milcząc ‘idem’

46

According to Mark (1978: 354), it is more of a contaminated form with a complex etymology. Possible elements involved in the hybrid are: the indefinite article/preposition (e.g. Y. a|her < G. ein|her ‘into’), a proclitic and phonetically reduced prepositional form (e.g. Y. a|runter < G. her|unter ‘downwards’), but also a Slavic-origin emphatic particle P. a (e.g. Y. a ͜ ništ? < P. a ͜ nie? ‘don’t you think so?’). Most of the examples given in literature seem to confirm that Hebrew-Aramaic prefixes may be about progressive diffusion, since they combine almost exclusively with lexemes of Hebrew-Aramaic origin. Examples of backward diffusion with Hebrew-Aramaic-derived prefixes (le-, me-, ke-) are given by Jacobs (2005: 197–198), including, e.g.: Y. bigvald ‘by force’ < Y. gvald < G. Gewalt ‘violence, force’ (cf. also > P. gwałt ‘dat. violence, force’ > gwałtem ‘dat. by force’).

47

134

geller

b. used with singular and plural noun bases: Y. -vajz, e.g. Y. kind|vajz ‘as a child’, ~ P. dzieckiem ‘idem’, Y. kale|vajz ‘while still a maiden’ ~ P. panną ‘idem’ Y. emer|vajz ‘in buckets’ ~ P. wiadrami ‘idem’, Y. šoen|wajs ‘for hours’ ~ P. godzinami ‘idem’ c. used with petrified prepositional constructions: Y. -en, -ens or -s, e.g. Y. in-der-emes|en ‘in truth’ ~ P. w prawdzie, po prawdzie ‘idem’, Y. far-ajor|en ‘a year ago’ ~ P. przed rokiem ‘idem’, Y. in-der-woch|en ‘during the week’, ~ P. w tygodniu ‘idem’, Y. fun-der vajt|ns ‘from afar’ ~ P. z oddali ‘idem’, Y. cu-kop|ns ‘at the head (of a bed)’ ~ P. u wezgłowia ‘idem’, Y. far-mitog|s ‘before noon’ ~ P. przed południem ‘idem’ The above examples present the most important modes of adverbial derivation in Yiddish. In summary, the adverbs of the first two groups (examples (33) and (34)) have no additional morphological exponent, as in German. Those in the third group (examples (35) and (36)) use derivational affixes, most often suffixes of German origin. At first glance, it might seem that Yiddish quite faithfully replicates the Germanic system in this respect in terms of inflection (uninflected forms), word formation (formatives of Germanic origin), and syntax. On the other hand, the cited examples could be considered as lexical calques as well, since all of them have equivalent forms and meanings in Polish, as has been indicated in example (38). 4.3.2 Adverbial System in Polish Model Language In Polish, as in German and Yiddish, the adverb is an uninflected part of speech. Here, too, it is possible to distinguish between a small closed class of primary, lexical adverbs and a large open class of secondary adverbs, derivable from other parts of speech only through suffixation. Although adverbs of both these types are represented in Yiddish in the form of mat-Bs, here we will be primarily interested in the second group. It is possible to distinguish several fairly clear derivational patterns for the adverb in Polish, depending on the type of a word-formational base, cf.: (39)

Patterns of suffix adverbial derivation in Polish: a. From primary adjectives:48 suffixes {-o}, or {-‘e}, e.g.: P. cich|y m, cich|a f, cich|e n ‘silent’ > cich|o ‘silently’ P. ładn|y m, ładn|a f, ładn|e n ‘nice’ > ładn|ie E ‘nicely’

48

Adjectives in Polish carry in their base form the mandatory inflectional exponent of grammatical gender.

role of slavic matter borrowings

135

b. From deadjectival nouns: suffixes {-nie} or {-owo}, e.g.: P. dzień ‘day’ > (dzien|ny >) dzien|nie ‘daily’ P. cel ‘target’ > (cel|owy >) cel|owo ‘intentionally’ P. zima ‘winter’ > (zim|owy >) zim|owo ‘winterly’ c. directly from nouns: the instrumental49 case inflectional ending, e.g.: P. zima sg.f ‘winter’ > zim|ą ‘in winter’ P. dziecko sg.n ‘child’ > dziecki|em ‘as a child’ P. tył sg.m ‘back’ > tył|em ‘backwards’ P. godziny pl.f ‘hours’ > godzin|ami ‘for hours’ P. dni pl.m ‘days’ > dni|ami ‘for days’ P. pasja sg.f ‘passion’ > pasja|mi ‘passionately’ The productivity of the last model (39c) meant that the inflectional endings of the neuter/masculine (P. {-em}), feminine (P. {-ą}), and plural (P. {-ami}) forms of the instrumental case were reinterpreted, reanalyzed, and eventually grammaticalized to play an additional role of morphological exponents of secondary adverbs. In modern Polish, the enumerated morphemes produce lexicalized adverbial forms that are often no longer recognizable as derivatives, cf. P. przodem ‘ahead’, < P. przód ‘front’, P. razem ‘together’, < P. raz ‘one time’ P. ogółem ‘overall’, < P. ogół ‘totality’ and etc. As we can see from the examples (39a–c) and in contrast to German, all derived adverbs in Polish have their unique obligatory morphological exponents. 4.3.3 Adverbial mat-Bs of Slavic origin In the lexical borrowing scales proposed in literature (e.g. Matras 2009:157), which are based on generalized frequency, adverbs take a distant seventh place.50 In the research on Polish borrowings in Yiddish, adverbs rank right after adjectives in the fourth position, and their presence in this idiom is hard to overlook. Yiddish borrowed about fifty adverbs from Polish, both the primary and especially the secondary ones, i.e., the ones resulting from derivation.

49

50

This is one of the seven cases in Polish declension which determines the inflectional ending together with number and gender masculine/neuter singular /-em/, feminine singular /-ą/, plural irrespective of the genus /-ami/. Sometimes the inflection in this case also results in alternations within the stem, cf. P. tydzień ‘week’ (masculine) > tygodniami ‘for weeks’. Cf. Grant (2012) for a revised borrowability scale of function words.

136 (40)

geller mat-B: primary adverbs of Polish origin: Y. akurat, jakoš, male (vos, ver), pevne, puki, take, zaraz P. akurat, jakoś, mało (co, kto), pewnie, póki, tak(o), zaraz E. just, somehow, hardly (anybody) certainly, while, so, in deed shortly

Some of the borrowed secondary adverbs lost the morphological distinction between the adjectival form, cf. P {-owny/-a/e}, and the adverbial form, cf. P {-ownie}, existing in the model language. In the process of phonetic adaptation to the Yiddish system, all these adverbs merged into one form, creating a common class of adjective-adverbs, cf. (41)

mat-Bs: secondary adverbs of Polish origin with a phonological merger of adjectival and adverbial forms P. adjective: {-(own)y/-a/-e} pewn|y ‘certain’ rapt|owny ‘sudden’ grunt|owny ‘profound’ P. adverb: {-(own)ie} pewni|e ‘certainly’ rapt|ownie ‘suddenly’ grunt|ownie ‘profoundly’ Y. adjective/ adverb: {-ovne} pev|ne ‘certain(ly)’ raptov|ne ‘sudden(ly)’ gruntov|ne ‘profound(ly)’

Adverbial forms derived directly from nouns constitute another group of matBs within this word class. They were adopted together with the characteristic inflectional ending of the masculine and neuter gender, singular of the instrumental case, P. {-em} (cf. example (39c)). As we remember, the original inflectional ending was reanalyzed and grammaticalized in the model language as an exponent of adverbs derived directly from nouns. It is interesting that denominal adverbs were transferred to Yiddish both along with (example (42b)) and without (example (42a)) their original noun derivational bases, cf.: (42)

mat-Bs: secondary adverbs of Polish origin borrowed without and with their derivational bases Polish Yiddish a. P. pęd ‘rush’ > pęd|em ‘very fast’ (hendem)-pendem ‘idem’ op. rapt ‘assault’ > rapt|em ‘suddenly’ raptem ‘idem’ b. P. bok ‘side’ > boki|em ‘sidewards’ bok > bok|em ‘idem’ P. rak ‘cryfish’ > raki|em ‘backwards’ rak > rak|em/račk|em ‘idem’

The pronounceable morphological element {-em} has a high frequency in Yiddish, because it is a homophonic form occurring independently in lexemes that originate from all component languages of Yiddish. Thus, this element can be found both in lexemes of German origin (e.g., in nouns Y bojdem, šturem, vorem; in adjectives, e.g., Y bakwem, varem, ongenem), and the Hebrew-

role of slavic matter borrowings

137

Aramaic ones (in nouns e.g., ojlem, xojlem, heskem). Therefore, it is a highly ambiguous morpheme used in both derivational and inflectional morphology. It is possible that this polyfunctionality prevented the Polish inflectional morpheme {-em} from becoming productive in the function of adverbial derivation, even though it was relatively easily segmentable from its derivational base also in Yiddish (cf. example (42b)). Y. plucem ‘suddenly’ might be the only example of this unit backward diffusion. In view of the uniqueness of this word, it would have to be assumed that it is a hybrid form resulting from the contamination of two synonymous lexemes: Y. plucling (< G. plötzlich) + Y. raptem (< P. raptem ‘suddenly’), rather than a restrained attempt to productivize this formative. This would not be the only example of hybridization among the Yiddish adverbs. In this context, we might mention interesting forms involving pairing of adverbs (sometimes with the same meaning) derived from two different component languages and with a Polish element in the initial position, cf.: (43) Hybrid pleonastic forms origin: Y. piki-van ‘until’ Y. zaraz-tejkef ‘right away’ Y. prost-pošet ‘simply’

of reduplicated adverbs of heterogeneous < P. póki ‘till’+ G. wann ‘when’ < P. zaraz ‘soon’+ Y-H. tekef ‘instantly’ < P. prosto ‘simply’ + H. pašut ‘simply’

On the basis of the above description of replication of Polish adverbs in Yiddish, it could be considered that the former language impacting the adverbial domain left only an extraordinarily numerous group of direct mat-Bs, representing, in fact, random, isolated lexical units. Looking at this phenomenon from the outside, there is no indication that these borrowings left any trace in the Yiddish morphological or functional patterns concerning this part of speech. However, a noticeably high number of these borrowings among matBs, as well as the noteworthy cases of tautological adverbial doublets with a Slavic element in the initial position (example (43)) may indicate that the Slavic adverbs were somehow particularly attractive to Yiddish speakers. This observation encourages us to launch a search for further explanations. 4.3.4

Markedness as pat-B: Need to Distinguish Between Adverb and Adjective As shown in section 4.3.2, Polish lacks syntactic adverbs, which is due to the basically free word order in this highly inflectional language. The Polish adverb

138

geller

is a marked class with its own morphological exponent. This allows clear identification of the adverb as a separate part of speech regardless of its syntactic position, which is generally impossible in German and Yiddish. In both these languages, it is only the position and function in the sentence that let us identify the uninflected form as either an adverb or an adjective. This is due to the fact that the null morpheme (cf. example (44)) is a polyfunctional and the adjectival stem can function both as an adverbial and an adjectival predicate in a sentence, cf.:

(44)

Adverbial a. Y. er zingt šejn G. er singt schön ‘He sings nicely.’

(Predicate) adjective Y. zajn gezang iz šejn G. sein Gesang ist schön ‘His singing is nice.’

b. Y. zi iz švajgendik avekgegangen Y. zi iz švajgendik betejve G. sie ist schweigend gegangen G. sie ist schweigend von Natur aus ‘She went away quietly.’ ‘She is quiet by nature.’

In Yiddish, there was apparently a need to get rid of this ambiguity, regulated only by a syntactic function. In replicating the Polish pattern, Yiddish, in fact, developed a way of marking out the adjective by using inflection controlled by the agreement between the noun and its attribute, cf.

(45)

Adverb a. Y. er zingt šejn G. er singt schön ‘He sings nicely.’

(Predicate) adjective Y. zajn gezang iz šejn G. sein Gesang ist schön ‘His singing is nice.’

b. P. śpiewa piękni|e Y. der/zajn gezang iz a šejn|er ‘He sings beautifully.’ P. jego śpiew jest piękn|y ‘His singing is beautiful.’

The obligatory distinction between the adjective and adverb in the Polish model language seems to be a feature strong enough to be replicated in Yiddish

139

role of slavic matter borrowings

in various and more or less open ways. The distinction was further reinforced on the part of the adjective by the mandatory agreement (also in the predicative function), and on the part of the adverb—by the formal exponent of that part of speech. 4.3.4.1 Reanalysis: Replication of Adverb Markedness While comparing German and Yiddish systems of adverbial derivation, one significant Yiddish innovation can be observed. It is the introduction of an “original”, productive suffix Y. {-erhajt} for the formation of adverbs from adjectives and participles (cf. example (38a)). Actually, this suffix is composed of two separate German morphemes: the polyfunctional Y. {-er} (< G. {-er}) and the word-formational Y. {-hejt} (< G. {-heit}), used to produce deadjectival nouns. The merger of the two is an innovation of the Yiddish language, in which Y. {-erhajt} is considered as the most productive way of making adverbs (Mark 1978: 350). There are many indications that this suffix took over the functions of the specific Polish formatives (cf. example (39)) by becoming a specialized, adverbial part-of-speech marker. The process of reinterpretation that occurred in the case of the suffix Y. {erhejt} will become clearer when we show the morpheme as part of the whole morpho-syntactic paradigm, replicated from Polish into Yiddish, cf.:

(46) infinitive present participle adjective predicate deadjectival adverb denominal adverb

Polish

Yiddish

German

milcz|eć milcz|ąc milcz|ąc|y/a/e milcz|ąc|y/a/e milcz|ąc|o milcz|ki|em

švajg|n švajgn|dik švajgn|dik|er/e švajgn|dik|er/e švajgn|dik/erhejt švajgn|dik|erhejt

schweig|en schweigen|d schweigen|d|er/e schweigen|d schweigen|d schweigen|d

‘to be silent’ ‘silently’ ‘silent’ ‘silent’ ‘silently’ ‘silently’

It can be seen from this overview that, compared to German, Yiddish and Polish show a greater tendency to use morphological markers for different syntactic functions. Polish is the most varied in this respect, which may be due to the language free word order. Therefore, syntactic roles have to be expressed there explicitly, by choosing from a set of different word forms. On the other hand, German is most restrictive in terms of word order, so these roles can be expressed by syntactic positioning. Yiddish occupies an intermediate posi-

140

geller

tion between German and Polish in terms of the rigidity of sentence structure, which can also be seen in the number of varied word forms in the adverbial paradigm (cf. example (46)) and their distribution. 4.3.5 Path Toward Grammaticalization As shown above, grammatical marking of the adverb as a part of speech, likely replicated from Polish, was introduced into Yiddish (cf. example (46)) while retaining the German-origin class of adjective/adverbs, cf.:

(47) Adjective/adverb Adverb Y. štil Y. fincter Y. švajgndik

‘quietly’ štil|erhejt finct(er)|erhejt ‘darkly’ švajgndik|erhejt ‘silently’

It may be considered that the coexistence of both ways of marking the adverbial function, i.e., with the use of the null morpheme and syntactic position (a short form in example (45a)) and by means of word-formational suffixation (a long form in example (45b)), is an intermediate state characteristic of languages remaining under strong influence of another idiom for a long time. Maintaining a state of synonymy between forms, especially in terms of a function, is inconsistent with the principles of language economy. It should be concluded from this that short forms, i.e., primary adjectives and participles, which can be used in the adverbial function, and long forms as morphologically marked adverbs, are not fully equivalent. In order to capture this difference, which cannot be directly expressed in German, we must again refer to the Polish model language. When we compare the alternatively occurring forms of the sample Yiddish adverbs with their translational and distributional equivalents in Polish (s. example (46) below), we will find that they perform exactly the same functions. Their differentiation is very difficult from the position of German or English grammar: (48) a. Y. er hot zix sztil awekgezect. P. Cich|o usiadł. G. Er setzte sich leise hin. ‘He sat down quietly’

a.’ Y. er hot zix awekgezect štil|erhejt. P. Usiadł cichacz|em/cichc|em. G. Er setzte sich leise hin. ‘He sat down quietly’

role of slavic matter borrowings

141

b. Y. er iz švajgndik avekgegangen. b.’ Y. er iz avek švajgndik|erhejt. P. Milcz|ąc wyszedł. P. Wyszedł milcząc|o. G. Er ist schweigend hinausgegangen. G. Er ist schweigend hinausgegangen. ‘He went out silently.’ ‘He went out silently.’

In all four cases (48 a, a’, b, b’), we are dealing with modal adverbs. There are not only formal but also deictic-semantic differences between them. The examples (a) and (b) differ from (a’) and (b’) in the focus on certain elements of the sentence, e.g., the agent or the predicate. In example (48a), Y. štil/P. cicho ‘quietly’ retains its original adjectival meaning, which is directed at the agent (subject) and can be paraphrased as ‘he is quiet while sitting down’. On the other hand, in Y. štilerhejt < P. cichaczem/cichcem/po cichu (example (48a’)), the circumstances of the action (the predicate) are exposed and the deep structure of the utterance could be contained in the description ‘sitting down took place quietly’. On the other hand, in example (48b), Y. szwajgendik/P. milcząc ‘silently’ is a present participle denoting the simultaneity of ‘silence’ and ‘exit’. By contrast, in Y. švajgndikerhejt/milcząco ‘silently’ (example (48b’)) we are dealing with a (modal) adverb as a separate part of speech, referring, as the name suggests, to the verb. It is also worth noting the preferred word order here, i.e., the placement of the form with the suffix Y. {-erhejt} in the postposition, which further emphasizes the markedness of the adverb, both formally and functionally. To sum up, the adverbial exponent did not become obligatory in Yiddish because the unsuffixed forms of adjectives potentially retained their adverbial function, recognizable on the basis of syntactic structure. Thus, from a synchronic point of view, we can describe the secondary adverb marking system in Yiddish as mixed. Given the prolonged contact with Polish, where this part of speech possesses an unambiguous and obligatory exponent, we can conclude that we are dealing here with a replication of markedness. This did not happen by means of borrowing an appropriate lexeme (cf. P. niech ‘let’ in section 4.2) or a formative (such as Y. {-eve-} from section 4.1), abstracted from numerous lexical borrowings along with its assigned function. In the present example, Yiddish produced the specialized suffix {-erhejt}. With it, the language gained not only the morphological distinction of the adverb as a separate part of speech, but also a new deictic perspective expressed in a grammaticalized way. With the help of morpho-syntactic means, it became possible to differentiate the perspective focused on the agent (examples (48a) and (48b)) from the one focused on the action (examples (48a’) and (48b’)). This function is absent in the parts of the Yiddish adverbial system inherited from German.

142 5

geller

Conclusions

Although it is difficult to establish a hierarchy of pat-Bs, some contact linguists claim that grammatical structures are most often replicated at the sentence level, less often at the phrase level, and the least frequently at the word level (e.g., Matras 2009: 244). Indeed, the approach in which lexemes are attributed the power to carry grammatical information is presently rather rarely represented, though not unknown in the language-contact studies (e.g. Romaine 1995: 64). This approach has also been the starting point for the discussion in this chapter. A detailed analysis of three cases with different levels of transparency has allowed me to formulate the cause-and-effect models of the gradually occurring contact-induced changes, leading from mat-Bs to the introduction of the innovative systemic features and their grammaticalization in the recipient language. The examination of such alterations that took place in Yiddish as a result of contact with Polish seems to confirm the initial assumption that the grammaticalization processes may have been originally triggered by massive mat-B, both lexical and morphological. Sometimes, the grammaticalization of new patterns was preceded by a reanalysis of units already existing in the replica language, or the creation of separate units dedicated to the new grammatical functions. The various paths going to the final grammaticalization are shown on the examples of specific systemic changes: – in section 4.1: the introduction of the word-formation model with Y. {-eve-} into Yiddish and the implications of this pattern for the aspectual system; – in section 4.2: the creation of a complete inflectional paradigm of the imperative mood and the introduction of a new modal category of the optative; – in section 4.3: the identification of the adverb as a distinct part of speech using the newly-formed morpheme Y. {-erhajt}. In conclusion, the reasoning presented in the analysis of these cases reinforces the approach that ascribes a much greater role to mat-B in pat transmission than is currently accepted in contact linguistics. Indeed, on the basis of the discussion presented here, it can be concluded that systemic information from the source language, encoded in lexical units, is transferred to the recipient language and may become active. This happens when loanwords of a certain type, or carrying a certain explicit morphological exponent, become abundant enough. Diffusing in the foreign system, the information carried by them activates systemic processes that can lead to the grammaticalization of new features in the replica language.

role of slavic matter borrowings

143

Naturally, this reasoning may be refuted by assuming that the discussed change resulted from the impact of strong typological patterns of the model language. The categories of aspect (section 4.1) and mood (section 4.2), as well as the morphological consequences of the free word order (section 4.3), certainly are characteristic features of the Polish grammatical system. Therefore, they may have reinforced the borrowing of respective types of matter units as their carriers. In fact, this would be the simplest strategy in the process of overcoming language barriers, i.e., leveling systemic differences between interacting languages. However, we are unable to prove this claim since patterns, regardless of their substratal or adstratal origin, are intangible constructs and only a highly abstract and theoretical argument could be applied here. Conversely, exploring the influence of specific mat-Bs was the main focus of the present study. It was important to capture the entanglement of these influences in the mechanisms that can trigger a series of systemic processes enabling innovations to be implemented in the second language. In other words, the goal was to try answering the question of when and under what specific circumstances the process of radical infiltration of the replica language by immaterial patterns from the model language, as well as their stabilization through grammaticalization, is triggered. As it has been emphasized many times in literature, the degree of new pattern (pat) grammaticalization in the replica is usually lower in comparison to the model language: the model and replica are rarely identical.51 In addition, there is generally a transition period when the new pattern coexists or even competes with the similar old one (cf. Chapter 2, section 7). The above assumptions were also confirmed in the analyses conducted here. The wave model (G. Wellenthorie), which assumes that the effects of a change weaken as they move away from their source (Schmidt 1872), also applies here. This relates, for example, to aspectual meanings in Yiddish. These were reinforced by the borrowing of the appropriate infix (see 4.1), but they did not become obligatory as in the model language. The imperative paradigm, replicated from Polish, is another matter. This change, imperceptible at first glance, has significantly influenced the modal system of Yiddish. In German, which is considered the constitutive language

51

Since the introduction of this chapter refers to the metaphor of grammatical dna, the differences between the model and replica can be explained by the notion of mutation that takes place in the foreign environment of the recipient language. A good example of the meandering and final mutation of the information contained in Polish niechaj are the different effects of its replication at the system level.

144

geller

of Yiddish for the purpose of this study, the imperative is an atemporal and impersonal category directed at the recipient of the message (the 2nd person). Conversely, in Polish and other Slavic languages, this category combines both imperative and optative functions. The latter can also be directed at other grammatical persons, hence the need to create a full inflectional paradigm. In addition, it is this extension of the imperative mood semantics that has allowed the same particle Y. nexaj ‘let’ to be used in forming optative sentences. In other words, it served as a surface manifestation of optativity in Yiddish, just as it did in the model language. In this case, we are dealing with the simultaneous replication of several related categories (Heine & Nomachi 2013). At this point the question may arise why P. niechaj was replaced by the German-origin lexeme Y. loz(n) in one function and taken over as the mat-B, Y. nexaj in another. The answer is provided by observations made about the matB hierarchies. The rule of thumb is that the less a given entity is loaded with inflectional functions or entangled in morpho-syntactic or predicate-argument structures, the easier it is to “capture”. In the example discussed here, the imperative auxiliary word is the carrier of the number and person, and this function could not be performed by the uninflected particle P. niech ‘let’. Therefore, in Yiddish, this task was assigned to the German-origin inflected auxiliary verb Y. lozn ‘to let’. However, this word was also gradually truncated to the enclitic constituent {lo(z)-}, a kind of “support” for personal pronouns. Conversely, in the case of the optative, we are dealing with a free morpheme, an actual particle Y. nexaj, organizing or rather modifying the utterance, without the baggage of connectivity restrictions at the level of grammatical agreement. Consequently, in this second function, P. niech(aj) might have been borrowed as mat-B with its specialized grammatical function of expressing optativity. Let us recall that the purpose of the present discussion was not to resolve the question of the diachronic origin of specific contact-induced changes in Yiddish. The question of their substratal or adstratal origin (cf. Chapter 2, section 4.3) is as much a legitimate question as it is one impossible to resolve. Neither a systematically documented history nor an advanced historical grammar of Eastern Yiddish exist as references for comparison. Therefore, the analyses presented here are more of a logical construct and, although based on more or less contemporary corpus data, cannot be treated as reconstructions of the attested diachronic phenomena. Nonetheless, the results of our research have shown that not only the Yiddish grammatical system is of a mixed nature, but also how intricate systemic mechanisms can conduct the process of language mixing. The important role of language users, who are naturally the real actors of the introduced changes, has not been addressed in the present discus-

role of slavic matter borrowings

145

sion. The socio- and psycholinguistic foundations and strategies of mat-B have been repeatedly highlighted and discussed in contact-linguistic literature (e.g. Thomason & Kaufman 1988, Myers-Scotton 2002, 2013, Aikhenvald 2006, Matras 2009). However, the very processes in the recipient system, triggered by changes of the linguistic behavior of speakers, have not been given enough attention. On the other hand, it seems that the mechanisms of contact-induced structural change depend little on the conscious decisions of language speakers. The current scholarship seems to adhere to the theory that in principle, mat-B may not be necessary for a systemic change to occur.52 If so, the pat-B processes would have to be treated autonomously, i.e., without the involvement of the lexical carriers of functional information. Moreover, the contemporary research seems to concentrate more on the speakers’ motivations and the end results of pat-B than on the details of the systemic processes taking place in between. Therefore, in this chapter, I have attempted to propose an explanation of these mechanisms as the systemic cause-and-effect chains. Using the examples from Polish-Yiddish contact, I hope to provide arguments for the assumption that numerous mat-Bs, along with their encoded information about the system from which they originate, may pave the way for and facilitate a structural change, which eventually leads to the contact-induced grammaticalization. 52

This may apply to purely syntactic changes pertaining to the word order, but not to such syntactic phenomena as valence, argument structure, combinatorial rules, or new grammatical categories. This shows that the view of grammar as separate from syntax and understood merely as the word order, as proposed by some earlier grammarians, may be justified.

chapter 4

De-Construction of German-Type Compounds Agata Reibach

1

Introduction

1.1 Object of Study The Slavic influences on Yiddish are best seen in its vocabulary. It is also in this linguistic subsystem that they have been best studied to date. Nevertheless, the Slavic impact on Yiddish is not just limited to lexis, but goes much deeper than matter borrowing.1 There are some less obvious effects in such areas of grammar as the structure of the noun phrase or nominal derivational patterns. This chapter will focus on one such contact feature, namely the Yiddish compounding patterns which stand on the borderline between lexis, morphology, and syntax. This matter first drew my attention during the research for my dissertation.2 As part of this study, I worked extensively on the semantic field of ‘tailoring’. As a result, I was able to observe at least a few different structures functioning as nominal compounds in Yiddish. It turned out that in Yiddish, it is possible to distinguish three compositional constructions serving functions universally fulfilled by compound nouns in German (G. Komposita): – Synthetic compounds that follow the most typical German model, where the modifier comes before the head and the two nouns are connected more or less directly; – Analytical compounds in the form of fixed two-word expressions with the head noun on the left and the modifier immediately after it; – Analytical constructions consisting of a head noun and an adjectival noun (A.n) standing to the left of the head. My work on The Online Dictionary of Polish Borrowings in Yiddish3 confirmed these initial assumptions by providing further examples. This prompted me to

1 Cf. Chapter 2. 2 The unpublished doctoral thesis entitled “Der jidišer šnajder. Żydowsko-polski kontakt językowy na przykładzie pola semantycznego ‘krawiectwo’ w języku jidysz” (“Der jidišer šnajder: Jewish-Polish Linguistic Contact on Example of ‘Tailoring’ Semantic Field in Yiddish”) was defended at the University of Warsaw in 2012. 3 Cf. footnote 90.

de-construction of german-type compounds

147

ask some research questions about the development of such constructions in Yiddish. A deeper analysis of the linguistic data also showed that the Germantype synthetic compounds may have been replaced in Yiddish by competing and synonymous analytical constructions, similar to those frequently found in the other component languages. I will call this process of breaking down the German-type compositions—“the de-construction”. Looking at the available linguistic data from a synchronic perspective, it can be proposed that this deconstruction might have taken place gradually in three steps. The starting point would have been the orthographical separation of the lexemes comprising a compound with a hyphen. Next, the modifier (determinans), expressed as a noun in Germanic compounds, would be separated from the head and then converted into an adjectival noun. However, it would retain its position before the head. Finally, the deconstruction would involve separating both nouns and changing their positions so that the head was on the left and modifier on the right. Consequently, Yiddish compounds of this type came very close to Hebrew and Slavic word-formation patterns. In fact, these steps represent three different ways in which the Yiddish compounding system was transformed, rather than diachronically developed. This will be discussed in detail in section 3.1. An attempt will also be made to explain the tendencies guiding the choice of the appropriate word-forming pattern. As it turns out, the influence of Polish on the Yiddish word-formation system was much more constitutive than has been thought so far. In this chapter, I will illustrate the process and scope of the replication of both Slavic- and Hebrew-type compounding strategies in Yiddish. I will also propose an explanation for the mechanism of the deconstruction phenomenon which ultimately led to a decrease in the productivity of the most expected German-type compounding patterns. I would like to emphasize here that I treat the lexico-grammatical system of Yiddish as an autonomous and independent linguistic structure. I consider the possible influences of the languages with which Yiddish was in contact from this perspective. Despite acknowledging the autonomous character of Yiddish, speakers and scholars alike admit that its lexical system was heavily shaped and stabilized by its component languages, thus making it heterogeneous. The fact that compounding patterns of different provenance coexist in Yiddish provides, in my opinion, one more argument in favor of the mixed nature of this idiom. 1.2 State of Research Jacobs points out that the historical fusion of elements in Yiddish also resulted in their different order in compounds (Jacobs 2005: 168). Yet, they have not

148

reibach

been exhaustively analyzed so far. Even Max Weinreich in his foundational article on Yiddish studies states: “about Yiddish word formation we have almost nothing”. This state of affairs has undoubtedly changed since 1923, the year in which Weinreich made this statement, but there has been no comprehensive analysis of the Yiddish word-formation system so far.4 Only particular aspects of word formation have been the subject of research. Most publications have dealt with the Yiddish derivational system limiting themselves to the description of pre- or suffixation (Landau 1928, Niborski & Vaisbrot 2011). Yiddish grammars (Zaretski 1926, Falkovič 1940, Mark 1978, Katz 1987) contain some but rather general information. Several lists of affixes have also been published (Šapiro, Spivak & Šulman 1984: 670–677, Geller 1994: 212–214). Neuberg (2016) has more recently attempted to deliver a more complete survey of the Yiddish word-formation system. However, he did not go deep into the systemic aspects of the subject, concentrating instead on the formal ones. 1.3 Structure of Chapter The chapter is structured as follows. In the second section, I will present the methodological approach used in the conducted study. In the following section, I will describe the different patterns of nominal compound formation in Yiddish. The observed mechanisms of the German model deconstruction in Yiddish will be analyzed and explained. Finally, different strategies of nominal compounding in German, Hebrew, and Polish, the component languages of Yiddish, will be offered as a background for possible modeling for Yiddish. I will try to demonstrate what was the influence of different idioms on shaping nominal compounding in Yiddish and how the different types of units that can be considered as compounds are distributed. In the last part devoted to the summary and conclusions, I will formulate a hypothesis about the mechanisms of deconstruction and its modes. In addition, I will discuss changes in the Yiddish compounding system induced by contact with the Slavic languages. An explanation of the preference for replacing the typical German synthetic compounds with analytical models of the Slavic and Hebrew type will be proposed. In this way, I will also demonstrate that the presence of various models of compound formation in Yiddish can be taken as an argument in favor of its mixed character.

4 For more on derivational pattern in Yiddish cf. Geller (1994: 167–179, 2004: 174 and n.), Eggers (1998: 293 and n.), Weinreich ([1973] 2008: 525 and n.).

de-construction of german-type compounds

2

149

Methods

2.1 Terminology The observation of repetitive patterns of combining words into constructions functioning as compounds with a head and a modifier in Yiddish was the point of departure for the present study. On the surface level, these compounds might adopt different forms of syntagmatic connections. I treat these compounds as results of a word-forming process, in which two or more words are combined to produce a new, complex lexeme called a compound. In it, one element functions as the head, which is modified or completed by another element, the so-called modifier, which may also be referred to as determinans. The head, functioning as the determinatum in this case, can be placed on the right side of the determinans. In such a case, we deal with the so-called right-headed compound. If the head is on the left side, then the compound is left-headed. Regardless of whether the parts of the compound are written jointly (e.g., cupcake) or separately (e.g., ice cream), they form one lexical unit. Right-headed compounds are very productive and frequent in the Germanic languages. The process of their creation is not limited by specific grammatical categories or other properties of the head (Olsen 2015: 365). Among the Germanic languages, German stands out due to complexity of its compounds in which the number of lexical stems is theoretically unlimited. In comparison with other closely related languages, e.g., English or Dutch, German appears as a particularly “compound-friendly” idiom (Bauer 1998). It is distinguished from other vernaculars in its family not only by its ability to compose more than two constituents, but also by their joint spelling. On the contrary, in the Slavic languages, the German-type compounds formed without an infix are extremely rare and show considerable limitations in their formation and distribution. Hence, it is interesting to trace the patterns by which Yiddish, a fusion language and strongly influenced by both (historical and regional) German dialects and the Slavic languages, creates nominal constructions of the noun + noun (N+N) type or their analytic variants. It should be noted at the outset that the Yiddish word-formation system is more diverse and complex than previously assumed. This is because Yiddish was thought to be an offshoot or a replica of the German language. The contact nature of Yiddish led to shifts, changes, and pattern borrowing, which resulted in the coexistence of several competing ways to realize this type of lexico-syntactic constructions.

150

reibach

2.2 Typology of Compound Constructions Many different ways of compound classification can be found in literature (Scalise & Bisetto 2009). These methods differ primarily in terms of the selected typological criteria. There are also many possibilities of interpreting the semantic relations occurring between the various elements of a compound and their division. Hence, questions are frequently asked about the precision and validity of using specific typologies. For this reason, I would like to dispense with an elaborate classification of compounds. Instead, I will divide them into two broad types: possessive and attributive. In the first type, e.g., Y. onhejb yor ‘beginning of the year’, the head and modifier express meronymy. Usually, the modifier expresses a part of the head understood as a whole. The second type of compounds will be the ones with attributive meaning, in which the modifier specifies the features or functions of the head, e.g., Y. eplbojm ‘apple tree’, Y. blimentop ‘flowerpot’. 2.3 Research Material For the purpose of this study, I collected a research corpus of approximately 150 compounds. I used the Yiddish thesaurus “Der ojcer fun der jidišer šprax” by Nachum Stuchkoff (1950) as the primary source for extracting the material. The corpus was supplemented with compounds taken from my dissertation, as well as the pre-war tailoring manuals.5 Additionally, thanks to the availability of Yiddish corpora, I was able to verify the existence of many compounds, extracted primarily from dictionaries, and I attest to their use in authentic language material. For this purpose, I used the Corpus of Modern Yiddish and the ocr Jochre search engine designed especially for the archives of Yiddish Book Center.6 The next step was to divide the collected corpus according to syntagmatic criteria into right- and left-headed compounds, and then into synthetic and analytic forms. The results of this analysis led me to advance the hypothesis formulated in this chapter. Verification, which involved searching through a large collection of Yiddish written sources, provided an opportunity to supplement the corpus with possessive constructions of an analytic structure not

5 Most of all, the following tailoring manuals have been used: Kunin, I. (1939), Mener-cusznajderaj. Praktiszer hantbuch lojt dem sistem „Adam”. Paris, vol. 2, Wilno; Levitanus, Z.W. (1904), Metode cum zelbst lernen cu sznajden. Heren klejder, militer klejder, kinder klejder, ojch lange judisze malbuszim, Piotrków; and Rejx, X. (1936), Hantbuch far mener-cusznajderaj, vol. 2, Warszawa. 6 See http://web‑corpora.net/YNC/search/ [access: 04.01.2021], and https://ocr.yiddishbookce nter.org/accounts/login/ [access: 04.01.2021] respectively.

de-construction of german-type compounds

151

noted in grammars or dictionaries as a type of compounds. In this construction, the head is modified by a prepositional phrase with Y. fun ‘of’: Y. breg tajx ‘river bank’ vs Y. breg fun tajx ‘idem’. However, these compounds will not be the subject of my consideration. They will only serve a test for possessiveness: if a two-word asyndetic phrase can be paraphrased as the prepositional one with Y. fun, it can be deemed a possessive compound. As described above, it was only possible to conduct my analysis on a selected group of N+N-type compounds. A study of all permutations and forms of probable Yiddish compounds requires advanced technical capabilities. That is why, this study does not provide hard statistical data on the preferred types of Yiddish compounds. However, the quantitative data collected using the aforementioned method allowed me to formulate and then verify the hypothesis regarding the replacement of the German-type synthetic compounding pattern with the Slavic-derived analytical one in Yiddish. In the “Discussion” section, I will present a corpus-based sample study conducted for the lexeme Y. breg ‘shore; edge’ and its partial synonym Y. rand ‘edge’, showing the distribution of different models of compound formation using these lexemes.

3

Compound Types in Yiddish

It is widely believed that Yiddish adopted compositional patterns from German (Neuberg 2016: 2467). However, as a contact language, it was also shaped and subsequently remained to be strongly influenced by its other component languages. These continually contributed to its vocabulary and that is why the lexical system of Yiddish is hybrid in nature. In fact, we can distinguish three types of compounds in the collected corpus. They are generally formed according to the pattern that is dominant in the given component language: a. German-type, right-headed synthetic compounds, b. Slavic-type, analytic, and asyndetic constructions with the head appearing alternately on the right or left side, c. Hebrew-modelled, left-headed analytic, and asyndetic compounds. Interestingly enough, it turned out, that the origin of the constituents in a compound may also influence its construction pattern. Therefore, in Yiddish, there are rival, often synonymous constructions that compete for a place in the language system. Their coexistence can be explained by the fact that Yiddish itself was created in contact. As a result, each language “added” elements of its own word-formation system. The existence of different models can also be explained in other ways, as described in more detail in the “Discussion” section.

152

reibach

3.1

Strategies of Deconstruction of N+N Synthetic Compounds in Yiddish 3.1.1 Right-Headed Compounds with Hyphen (N-N) In the research corpus consisting of textual attestations, it was possible to distinguish the following groups of compounds formed according to the Germanic model. The head stands here on the right while the modifier is on the left: (1) Jointly written compounds consisting of German-origin elements: Y. eplbojm epl + bojm apple tree ‘apple tree’ Y. kindercimer kinder + cimer child.pl room ‘children’s room’ (2) Hyphenated compounds composed of Hebrew-origin elements: Y. xasene-matones xasenematones wedding gift.pl ‘wedding gifts’ Y. mišpoxe-sojdes

mišpoxesojdes family secret.pl ‘family secrets’

(3) Hyphenated compounds whose elements come from different languages (G., H., P.): Y. xupe- večere xupevečere wedding.canopy supper ‘wedding supper’ Y. vinter-palte

vinterwinter ‘winter coat’

palte coat

Y. sosne-vald

sosnepine ‘pine forest’

vald forest

de-construction of german-type compounds

153

In example (1), both constituents of the compounds come from the same source language. In this case, this idiom is also the donor of the word-formation model: Y. epl|bojm ‘apple tree’ < Y. epl ‘apple’ < G. Apfel ‘idem’+ Y. bojm ‘tree’ < G. Baum ‘idem’. Similarly to German, these compounds are written jointly. Many of them were probably adopted into Yiddish as a whole and can be treated as borrowings. Nevertheless, neologisms that have no equivalent in German were also formed according to the same pattern, provided that they still consist of lexemes of Germanic origin: e.g., Y. negl|vaser ‘a form of ritual hand washing’ < Y. negl ‘nails’ < G. Nägel ‘idem’ + Y. vaser ‘water’ < G. Wasser ‘idem’. Such forward diffusion is indicative of the productivity of this word-formation pattern in Yiddish. Although here a compound is limited to two lexical elements, unlike in German where constructions of three or more lexemes are possible. In Yiddish, they would be considered incorrect (Mark 1978: 207). This is due to the ease with which multi-part compounds are replaced in Yiddish by multi-word expressions with adjectival attributes. The lack of more complex compounds may have also resulted, as stated by Neuberg (2016: 2467), from the lack of an official and administrative variety of the Jewish vernacular. In the case of German, it was apparently the official language that proliferated such multi-part constructions. When we look at the compounds created according to the Germanic-pattern that nevertheless include elements coming from donor languages other than German, i.e., for example, from Hebrew (example (2)) or the Slavic languages (example (3)), we can see that they are usually hyphenated. In the case of compounds consisting of Hebrew elements, their written form can be explained by the rule of disjunctive spelling invoked by some Yiddish grammars (Bordin 2012: 120). Conversely, this cannot be done with compounds that contain constituents of the Germanic or Slavic origin. The rule of syllabication, which states that compounds of four and more syllables are written with a hyphen, does not apply here either (Bordin 2012: 120), cf.: Y. no.dl.hal.ter ‘needle holder’, šnol.a.graf.ke ‘safety pin’ vs in.dik-flejš ‘turkey meat’. Hyphenation in Yiddish compounds may also be interpreted as a remnant of an older German pattern of separate spelling that functioned as late as the 17th century. Nevertheless, in my opinion, hyphenation represents the first step towards deconstruction, which the compounds modeled on the German synthetic N+N type underwent. This notation may suggest that the Yiddish speaker was trying to ‘deconstruct’ a complex compound into its constituent elements and break the ‘pressure’ of the German model by separating the head and modifier with a hyphen. This strategy might be tied to a more relaxed word order in Yiddish. Still, it is possible that under pressure from the wordformation patterns modeled on the Slavic and Hebrew compounds, the typi-

154

reibach

cally German ones began to spontaneously disintegrate, as evidenced by their hyphenated spelling. 3.1.2 Right-Headed Compound with Adjectival Noun (A.n+N) The second strategy of deconstruction involves analytic right-headed formations with the modifier in the form of a congruent attribute. The modifier here becomes an adjectival noun standing to the left of the head and ‘replaces’, as it were, the determinatum noun of the German-type compound (G. Grundwort). This construction is fully analytic and characterized by a fixed word order and grammatical congruence. According to Weissberg (1988: 236), Yiddish speakers seem to prefer this type of constructions, cf.: (4) Y. mensker šnajder vs. *meneršnajder man.tailor man.adj.m tailor.m ‘men’s tailor’ Y. hilcerne trep vs. *holctrep wood.stairs wood.adj.m stair.pl ‘wooden stairs’ Y. šnajderše šer vs. *šnajderšer tailor.scissors tailor.adj.pl scissors ‘tailor’s scissors’ This type of constructions is also present in the Germanic languages, including German, e.g., G. Holzkasten ‘wooden box’ vs G. hölzerner Kasten ‘idem’, as against P. drewniana skrzynka ‘idem’. In the latter language, there is no other way of expressing such concepts asyndetically,7 while in German, the use of this analytic structure is limited to material adjectives and marked in other cases (cf. example (11)). In contrast, in Yiddish, like in the Slavic languages, any noun (even a proper name) can be transformed into an appropriate adjectival noun, cf. Y. marcover šnej ‘March snow’ < P. marcowy śnieg ‘idem’ vs G. Märzschnee ‘idem’. The aforementioned evidence suggests that this pattern was replicated in Yiddish under the influence of the Slavic model. Its diffusion gave rise to the next stage of deconstruction of the German-type synthetic compounds. How-

7 Such expressions can also be paraphrased syndetically as pronominal phrases in the Slavic languages, e.g., skrzynka z drewna ‘wooden box’, maszyna do pisania ‘typewriter’.

de-construction of german-type compounds

155

ever, the right-hand position of the head was not changed. At the same time, it should be noted that many analytic constructions of this type have their synonymous counterparts in the German-type compounds: (5) Y. fruxtover fruit.adj.m ‘fruit tree’

bojm tree.m

Y. vinterdike klejder winter.adj.pl clothes ‘winter clothes’

vs fruxtbojm fruit.tree

vs vinterklejder winter.clothes

Y. nacjonale šprax vs nacjonalšprax national.language nation.adj.f language.f ‘national language’ The occurrence of synonymous variant forms is a typical feature of mixed languages (cf. Chapter 2, sections 6.3.2.2 and 7). Yet, there are also analytic constructions of the A.n+N type, which function as compounds, but cannot be easily transformed into the synthetic type. Perhaps their uniqueness and figurative meaning are the reason for blocking the possibility of creating the synonymous Germanic-type compounds, cf.: (6) Y. damsker woman.adj.m ‘ladies’ man’

xosid chassid.m

Y. kabcansker jerid poor.man.adj.m market.m ‘poor man’s market’ Y. marcover šnej March.adj.m snow.m ‘sth. that is gone and no longer matters’ On the basis of the examples collected in the corpus, it can be postulated that the Slavic-type analytic compounds appear with three types of adjectival noun modifiers, created from Slavic, Hebrew, or German-origin words. Interestingly, the usage of each of these types seems to be conditioned by the origin of the modifier, which in turn determines the selection of formatives.

156

reibach

3.1.2.1 Modifier with Formative Sl. {-sk-} The first group consists of compounds with the borrowed Slavic (example (7)) or Hebrew (example (8)) adjectival nouns, which were adapted to the Yiddish inflectional system by taking an appropriate Germanic inflectional morpheme:

(7)

stem

inflectional head morpheme

Y. mensk + er infl.m man.adj P. męsk + i man.adj infl.m ‘men’s tailor’

šnajder tailor krawiec tailor

Y. damsk + er woman.adj infl.m P. damsk + i woman.adj infl.m ‘ladies’ tailor’

šnajder tailor krawiec tailor

The hybrid character of this type of a construction is even more evident in the case of adjectival nouns with the Hebrew-origin word-formation bases, Slavicorigin derivational formatives, and German-origin inflectional endings.

(8)

H. stem

Sl. derivational morpheme

G. inflectional head morpheme

Y. kabcan + sk poor.man der P. kapcań + sk poor.man der ‘poor man’s market’

+ er infl.m + i infl.m

jerid market targ market

Y. mešumad + sk convert der ‘der. vulg. convert’

+ er infl.m

glid member

157

de-construction of german-type compounds

It should be noted that there is a Slavic adjectival derivational morpheme {-sk-} in both of the aforementioned subgroups of examples. However, in example (7), it has been treated as an integral part of the word-formation base while in example (8)—as a productive formative of the Slavic origin. In the first case (example (7)), the base is a borrowing of a Slavic adjectival form, whose integral part is the formative {-sk}, cf. P. dama f. ‘lady’ > P. damski adj. ‘lady’s’. In the second (example (8)), it is used as a separate formative for the formation of adjectival nouns in Yiddish. 3.2.1.2 Modifier with Formative Sl. {-ov-} The second group consists of compounds with adjectival nouns, which were formed with the Slavic formative {-ov-}. Most of the modifiers in this group are of the Slavic origin and may have also been borrowed by Yiddish as whole lexemes. Yet, a closer analysis leads to the conclusion that the Slavic derivational morphemes, as in the case of {-sk-}, became isolated and productive as Y. {-ev, -ov-} < P. {-ow-, -aw-, -ew-}. The use of both these Slavic-origin formatives to create adjectival nouns with non-Slavic stems is an example of the backward diffusion phenomenon: (9)

German-origin modifiers: stem

Y.

fruxt + fruit P. owoc + fruit G. *frucht + fruit ‘fruit tree’

derivational morpheme ov der ow der ig der

inflectional head morpheme + er infl.m + e infl.n + er infl.m

bojm tree drzewo tree Baum tree

158

reibach

(10)

Hebrew-origin modifiers: stem

derivational morpheme

Y.

šabes + ov Sabbath der P. szabas + ow Sabbath der G. *schabbat + ig Sabbath der ‘vodka for Sabbath’

inflectional head morpheme + e infl.f + a infl.f + er infl.m

maške liquor wódka vodka Vodka vodka

3.1.2.3 Modifier with Formative G. {-dik-} The third group is composed of adjectival nouns formed from the Germanic stems with the derivational suffix Y. {-dik-} < G. {-ig}. (11)

German-origin modifiers: stem

derivational inflectional morpheme morpheme Y. vinter + dik + e winter der infl.pl P. zim + ow + e winter der infl.pl G. *winter + ig + e winter der infl.pl ‘winter clothes’

head klejder clothes ubrania clothes Kleider clothes

The equivalent Yiddish derivational suffix {-dik-} was probably created from the functional overlap of two German formatives with a similar meaning: {ig} and {-lich}. They were used to generate adjectival forms from other parts of speech, cf. G. Macht ‘power’ > mächtig ‘power.adj’ vs G. Winter ‘winter’ > winterlich ‘winter.adj’. Both these morphemes have their Yiddish counterparts, but their distribution is different from that existing in German, as was shown in example (11). This also demonstrates that certain combinations existing in Yiddish would be incorrect in German, cf. Y. vinterdik ‘winter.adj’ vs G. *winterig ‘idem’ > G. winterlich ‘idem’, and not only at the lexeme level. Also at the level

de-construction of german-type compounds

159

of analytic compound constructions, certain combinations with an adjectival noun are blocked in German, cf. *winterliche Kleider ‘winter clothes’. Thus, the Yiddish construction of A.n+N discussed here, as exemplified by Y. vinterdike klejder ‘idem’, should be considered as a replica of the analogous Polish pattern, underlying phrases such as P. zimowe ubrania ‘idem’, and etc. 3.1.3 Left-Headed Compounds: Change of Head Position The third type of compounds found in Yiddish are the left-headed ones, in which the head comes before the modifier. These are asyndetic constructions written with a hyphen or separately. (12) Y. ksav-jad

ksavjad writing hand ‘manuscript’

Y. sejfer-dinim sejfer- dinim book law.pl ‘book of laws’ Y. ojneg-šabes ojneg- šabes joy Shabbath ‘the joy of the Sabbath’ Many Yiddish grammars (e.g., Zaretski 1926: 80, Weissberg 1988: 235, and Jacobs 2005), assume that in the case of such compounds, a Hebrew word-formation pattern, the so-called smixut, was taken over. Moreover, as Zaretski notes, this type of compounds is possible in Yiddish only when the first segment is of the Hebrew origin. (Zaretski 1926: 80):8 (13) Y. tojres lokšn Torah.pl noodle.pl ‘rules made up on the spot, lit. the Laws of noodles’ However, left-headed compounds also appear with constituents from languages other than Hebrew-Aramaic. In the research corpus, I found many examples that contradict Zaretski’s statement:

8 All examples come from Weinreich (2008: 618).

160

reibach

(14) Y. mit štot middle city ‘city center’ Y. onhejb jor beginning year ‘beginning of a year’ Weinreich (2008: 618) cited more abstract examples of this type of compounds, which may be evidence for the productivity of the asyndetic, left-headed model: (15) Y. štejger lebn way life ‘mode of life’ Y. ojfn traxtn way thinking ‘way of thinking’ Y. grod ojfšmelcung degree fusion ‘degree of fusion’ Jacobs (2005:146) assumes that there was a (backward) diffusion of the Hebrew word-formation pattern, which became so productive in Yiddish that the origin of the individual constituents of the compound no longer played a role in the creation of new words. It should also be mentioned here that German does possess analogous leftheaded constructions, such as: Leib Brot ‘a loaf of bread’, Tasse Kaffee ‘a cup of coffee’, Glaß Wasser ‘a glass of water’. Nonetheless, their distribution is limited to a structure referred to as the partitive genitive (genitivus partitivus). In it, the head expresses the amount and the modifier—the “substance” (Helbig & Buscha 2005: 501), and assumes an underlying genitive case of the modifier, albeit without surface-level marking. For this reason, the influence of the Slavic pattern should also be considered in the emergence and diffusion of such constructions in Yiddish. Moreover, in my opinion, this influence should be taken into account as a factor in pushing out the right-headed, German-type compounds. Such constructions are frequent and natural in Polish. They consist of two asyndetically connected nouns

161

de-construction of german-type compounds

in the left-headed order. What distinguishes them from Yiddish forms is the fact that Polish, as a highly inflectional language, has equipped the modifier noun with a surface-level exponent of the genitive. (16) Y. sof zac end sentence.(gen)9 P. koniec zdania end sentence.(gen) ‘end of a sentence’ Y. leng talje length waist.(gen) P. długość talii length waist.gen ‘length of the waist’ Y. špic tip P. koniuszek tip ‘fingertip’

finger finger.(gen) palca finger.gen

It is also worth observing that such constructions in Yiddish can be replaced by synonymous prepositional phrases using the formula X fun Y ‘X of Y’, which brings their possessive character to the surface level. In case of such a transformation, the preposition Y. fun becomes the exponent of the semantic relation between two parts of a compound. This is how possessive relations are generally expressed in Yiddish.

(17) polish

koniec zdania początek roku długość talii koniuszek palca

yiddish

sof zac onhejb jor leng talje špic finger

periphrastic english description = = = =

sof funem zac onhejb funem jor leng fun der talje špic funem finger

‘end of a sentence’ ‘beginning of a year’ ‘length of the waist’ ‘fingertip’

9 We shall mark the underlying genitive with brackets from this point on.

162

reibach

In example (17), this preposition has also the function of an auxiliary in an analytical structure expressing an underlying genitive. Conversely, the aforementioned Yiddish compounds, which replicate the Hebrew/Slavic asyndetic pattern (example (16)), have no special surface-level possessive exponent in Yiddish. In contrast, in both Polish and Hebrew, possessiveness is expressed morphologically by suffixes, appended to the modifier and the head respectively. In Yiddish, the only thing that binds them together and makes it possible to treat them as one lexical unit is their unchanging word order, cf. Y. leng talie ‘length of the waist’ vs *talie leng, Y. ojfn traxtn ‘ways of thinking’vs *traxtn ojfn. It should be emphasized once again that this word order is also obligatory in the analogous compounds in the model languages of Polish and Hebrew, irrespective of morphological exponents. According to Max Weinreich, the question of compounds formed according to the Hebrew pattern, in which the first constituent is not of Hebrew origin, “has not been properly investigated so far” (Weinreich 2008: 618). Therefore, some researchers still argue about the origin of the pattern replicated in the Yiddish left-headed possessive constructions and offer various hypotheses.10 Yet, given the analogies described above, it can certainly be claimed that these compounds presence and productivity in Yiddish was at least reinforced by the replication of analogous word-formation patterns in the Slavic languages.

4

Compounds in Yiddish Component Languages

The form and distribution of syntagmatic constructions in the function of compounds differ between the component languages of Yiddish. That is why, I will provide a brief characterization of their typical compound-formation patterns in this chapter. The following sections will focus on those patterns in German, Hebrew, and Polish and how they may have provided competing models for the hybrid compounding system in Yiddish. Especially, I will point out the similarities between them and Yiddish. According to the traditional approach to Yiddish grammar, German was the donor of the word-formation pattern of the constructions under discussion. This scholarship also holds (e.g., Jacobs 2005: 168, Neuberg 2016: 2467–2468) that Yiddish took over certain ways of forming compounds from Hebrew. In

10

Ellen Prince (2001: 273–276) disregards the historical background of the Eastern Yiddish origins and instead, advances the hypothesis that such constructions may have been adopted from Judeo-French.

de-construction of german-type compounds

163

the context of compounding, the Slavic languages have not yet been considered by scholars as model languages in any way. This is due to the fact that at first glance, compounds of the German (synthetic) type do not play a major role in these idioms. Therefore, it is worth revising this opinion and looking at the Slavic vernaculars influence on such formations in Yiddish. I will use Polish as a representative example language for the whole group. 4.1 German Model Compounding is an extremely productive method of generating new words in the Germanic languages. A particular example of this is German, which is characterized by a tendency to create particularly long and complex words: “From the comparative perspective, the German language turns out to be particularly conducive to the formation of compounds. In other words, a compound is a very productive vocabulary model in German” (Schlücker 2012: 2). Also in Yiddish, compounds modeled on the German ones constitute an important part of the lexical subsystem. In German, N+N compounds date back to the oldest stages of language development. They are documented as early as in Old High German (Carr 1939). As stated above, nominal compounds of the N+N type are the main focus and the point of departure of this chapter. They are also the most widespread and productive in German (Schlücker 2012: 2). From a historical perspective, they can be divided into two categories. Grimm (1826) uses the term ‘proper compounds’ for constructions, such as mhg. vogel-weide ‘places where birds are caught or trained’ and mhg. brunn-quell ‘well’, where two lexical stems are connected without using inflectional elements. The second group consists of genitive compounds, called ‘improper’ by Grimm, in which the modifier shows grammatical exponents of the genitive case: mhg. wolfes milh ‘wolf’s milk’ and mhg. sneckin hūs ‘snail shell’. In modern German, these two groups have merged into a single category of compounds that have no grammatical case exponents.11 Typical Modern German compounds are complex lexemes consisting of two or more jointly spelled word-formation bases, treated as single lexical units. They have a binary form and are characterized by a stable structure (Schlücker 2012: 8). In German, compounds are also recursive. This means that each com-

11

The disappearance of genitive compounds in German is due to the introduction of the definite article and the change of their constituents order (Schlücker 2012: 5–6). It is worth mentioning that in German, some compounds with the remnants of the historical genitive are treated synchronically as including an epenthetic [-s-]: G. Jahr|es|zeit ‘time of the year’, Hochzeit|s|kleid ‘wedding dress’, vs Jahr|buch ‘annal’, Zeit|geist ‘zeitgeist’.

164

reibach

pound can be a part of another, larger one. Thus, it is possible to create grammatically and semantically correct compounds consisting of three or even four elements (Bauer 2011: 350). On this point, the German compounds differ from those found in other Germanic languages, e.g., English or Dutch (Schlücker 2012: 8–9). (18) Examples of right-headed compounds in German contrasted with examples of compounds in other Germanic languages: G. Stadtmitte Stadt + mitte city centre centrum D. stadscentrum stad -scity gen centre E. city centre city centre G. Tischrand

Tisch table tafel table edge

+

Hand hand D. handbagage hand hand E. hand luggage hand

+ + + +

D. tafelrand E. edge of table G. Handgepäck

rand edge + rand table of.prep table gepäck luggage bagage luggage luggage

Modern German compounds are written jointly and without a hyphen or a break between lexemes. Although joint spelling is not obligatory, it is one of the most characteristic features of the German compounds. The hyphenation is stylistically marked and only possible in certain cases.12 However, it should be reminded that until the seventeenth century, compounds were often written separately, and for some time the language had competing compounds written in both ways. 4.2 Hebrew Model Hebrew has a productive syntactic construction, functioning as an N+N compound and referred to as construct state or H. smixut. Many studies have been devoted to this topic because smixut is a subject to many syntactic restrictions. 12

On the cases of separate spelling of German compounds cf.: Fleischer & Barz (1995: 193).

165

de-construction of german-type compounds

There is no consensus among scholars of Hebrew word formation about the criteria that allow distinguishing between smixut and other types of fixed syntactic constructions (Borer 2012: 490–511). Yet, these have not been the subject of my inquiries. A brief characterization of Hebrew compounding patterns will follow, since according to the traditional approach, smixut had a direct and formative impact on the development of left-headed compounds in Yiddish. It is worth recalling here that the Slavic analytic compounds may also be leftheaded, while the German ones are consistently synthetic and right-headed (cf. example (19)): (19) H. simxat-tora simxatjoy.cns.f P. radość joy.nom G. Freude der joy.nom art.def.gen.f ‘the joy of Torah’

tora Torah.nom Tory Torah.gen.f Tora Torah

H. bet-ha-sefer bethouse P. dom house.nom G. Haus des house art.def.gen.n ‘school’

ha-sefer book.def.m księgi book.gen Buches book.n

Opposite to the Polish left-headed compounds, in the Hebrew smixut construction, it is the head that carries the congruent grammatical agreement exponents, but only when it is of the feminine gender. In addition, in the Hebrew construct states, the definite article is attached only to the modifier. 4.3 Polish Model In comparison to German, the right-headed N.nom+N.nom compounds are very rare in Polish. The Slavic languages also show great limitations in the formation of such lexical units. Lexemes with a similar structure found in Polish are mostly borrowings (e.g., P. szyberdach ‘sunroof’ < G. Schiebedach ‘sunroof’13). The synthetic compounds that do come about are less productive and exhibit much less longevity. Such untypical constructions are strongly marked 13

A prothetic /r/ was added in Polish.

166

reibach

and often evaluative, cf. P. biedamarket ‘mall for poor people’. In most cases, these are calques of German words, cf. P. cud dziecko < G. Wunderkind ‘wonder child’, or constructions built on the German model: P. bieda szyb ‘bootleg mining shaft’. They were reinforced in the system of Polish probably by hybrid forms, such as: P. ciuchland < P. ciuchy ‘coll. clothes’ + G. Land ‘land, country’,14 and etc. The blocking of the Germanic-type constructions should be explained by the fact that Polish has other productive syntactic formations that perform all the functions of the synthetic compounds (Szymanek 2009: 467, Ohnheiser 2015: 764). In these cases, Polish uses constructions in which the individual parts of the compound are connected with each other by grammatical agreement. Polish grammars use the term open compounds for all such analytic constructions, irrespective of the head position or the grammatical form of the modifier (Grzegorczykowa & Puzynina 1984, Nagórko 2016, Szymanek 2017). While the head is always a noun, the modifier may either be a noun or an adjectival noun. Thus, we can divide the Polish open compounds in two types, based on the form of the modifier which determines the position of the head in most cases. The N.nom+N.gen compounds constitute the first type. In it, the head stands on the left: (20) Examples of the left-headed N.nom+N.gen analytical constructions: G. Stadtmitte P. środek miasta middle.nom city.gen U. centr mista middle.nom city.gen R. centr goroda middle.nom city.gen ‘city center’ G. Tischrand P. krawędź stołu edge.nom table.gen U. kraj stolu edge.nom table.gen R. kraj stola edge.nom table.gen ‘edge of a table’ 14

Given the relatively young age of this word the involvement of an English model is also possible.

167

de-construction of german-type compounds

Most often, such clusters undergo lexicalization and function in the language as lexical units consisting of two lexemes connected by grammatical agreement with a strictly defined word order (cf. e.g., P. spis treści ‘table of contents’, P. stan licznika ‘meter reading’). They play the same role as the synthetic compounds in German. These left-headed constructions are the most productive means of expressing possessiveness in Polish. The A.n+N.nom/N.nom+A.n constructions are the second type. They contain an adjectival noun in pre- or postposition.15 (21) Examples of the left-headed analytic compounds with the adjectival noun A.n in postposition: vs P. fryzjer damski G. Damenfriseur lady.conr.hairdresser hairdresser lady.adj.m ‘ladies’ hairdresser’ G. Handbremse hand.brake ‘handbrake’

vs P. hamulec brake

ręczny hand.adj.m

As it has been mentioned above, it is also possible in Polish to form fixed compounds by means of a congruent modifier, which stands on the left side of the construction: (22) Examples of the right-headed analytic compounds of the A.n+N.nom type: P. letnie igrzyska summer.adj.pl.nom games.nom ‘summer games’ P. lisia fox.adj.f.nom ‘fox’s brush/tail’

kita brush.nom

To sum up, Polish has several ways of compounding. The factor which decides about the choice of the construction surface form seems to be its semantic function. Compounds with possessive meaning are mostly rendered in Pol-

15

An adjectival noun (A.n) can sometimes be replaced by a prepositional construction, cf. P. fryzjer damski ‘ladies’ hairdresser’ > fryzjer dla pań ‘idem’.

168

reibach

ish by using left-headed nominal constructions of the N.nom+N.gen type. Here, both elements are connected by a possessive relation, expressed by the second noun constituent with a genitive exponent. On the other hand, compounds with attributive meaning are mainly expressed in Polish by using analytical constructions of the A.n+N.nom/N.nom+A.n type with the head standing either in the left or right position.

5

Results

There is no direct evidence that the process described here as deconstruction was a diachronic development. Nevertheless, for the sake of better visualization, the above-presented ways of deconstructing the synthetic wordformation pattern of the German-type compounds are idealized here as stages of a gradual process. In its first step, the head would be separated from the modifier by a hyphen, while the order of the compound constituents continued to be preserved. In the second step, it was still possible for the head to remain in the right position, but the modifier noun would be separated and replaced by a congruent adjectival noun. The reversal of the word order would constitute the third and seemingly most radical step, resulting in the creation of an analytic, left-headed construction. However, the distribution of these patterns in use does not appear to be due to the consecutive developments. Below, I will offer an explanation of the rules that determine the preference for one of the aforementioned patterns or the other. 5.1 Role of Head Origin in Choosing Compounding Pattern It has been shown in section 3.1.2 that the modifier origin may have a decisive role in choosing the word-formation morphemes. At this point, a question should be asked whether the etymological origin of the head might also have an impact on choosing the entire word-formation pattern for the compound. The corpus of material shows that there may, indeed, have been such a tendency. Moreover, the origin of the modifier seems not to have had strong influence here. Compounds with the German-derived head are mainly formed according to the Germanic synthetic right-headed pattern, cf. Y. eplbojm, kindhiter, and etc. However, I have still managed to find several compounds developing towards deconstruction. Some of them were hyphenated, e.g., (23) Y. cejlem-kop H. cejlem- G. kop Cross head ‘blockhead’

de-construction of german-type compounds

Y. špic-kop

169

G. špicG. kop Point head ‘a sharp mind (person)’

It seems that this hyphenation applies mostly to those compounds formed from the German material that do not have equivalents in the source language. At the same time, we may also find exceptions, such as Y. neglvaser ‘a form of ritual hand washing’ or Y. lombard-cetl ‘pawnshop receipt’ vs G. Lombardzettel ‘idem’. Therefore, we might only hypothesize about a tendency rather than a rule. Left-headed compounds with the Slavic-derived heads, such as Y. kešene ‘pocket’ (< P. kieszeń ‘idem’), were usually formed according to the “transitional” pattern with a hyphen. Still, we can find some jointly-written exceptions within heterogeneous formations, e.g. Y. epl|kvas ‘cider’. This particular example could have been formed through analogy with Y. epl|bojm ‘apple tree’. P. kešene (24) Y. buzem-kešene G. buzembreast pocket ‘breast pocket’ Y. švebelex-kešene G. švebelexP. kešene match.pl pocket ‘matchbox pocket’ Some compounds in which the lexeme Y. kešene ‘pocket’ is the modifier are also built according to the transitional model with a hyphen: Y. kešene-zejgerl ‘pocket watch’, which indicates that the modifier may also have some influence on the structure of the compound. Conversely, compounds with an adjectival noun are structured exclusively according to the right-headed Slavic pattern, e.g., (25) Y. klapkove kešene lapel.adj.f pocket ‘flap pocket’ Y. ganoviše kešene thief.adj.f pocket ‘thief’s pocket’

170

reibach

All of these constructions have equivalents in Polish, respectively: P. kieszeń klapkowa ‘flap pocket’, złodziejska kieszeń ‘thief’s pocket’. That is why they also might possibly be treated as regular calques. Yet, there are compounds made up of words of the German or Hebrew origin that were also formed according to the Slavic word-formation rules, e.g., Y. hilcerner knop ‘wooden button’, Y. fruxtover bojm ‘fruit tree’, Y. mešumadsker glid ‘der. vulg. convert, a converted Jew’, Y. kabcansker jerid ‘poor man’s market/fair’, and etc. On the other hand, there are certain Polish-origin heads, such as Y. breg ‘shore, edge’ < P. brzeg ‘idem’ that decidedly prefer the Hebrew-Slavic leftheaded pattern.16 (26) Y. breg edge.nom P. brzeg edge.nom G. Seeufer sea.shore ‘seashore’

jam sea.(gen) morza sea.gen

Y. breg tiš edge.nom table.(gen) P. brzeg stołu edge.nom table.gen G. Tischrand table.edge ‘edge of a table’ Y. breg himl edge.nom sky.(gen) P. brzeg nieba edge.nom sky.gen G. Himmelrand sky.edge ‘the edge of the horizon’

16

I have managed to find twenty different compounds with the lexeme Y. breg ‘shore; edge’ playing the role of the head.

de-construction of german-type compounds

171

Similarly to many such possessive compounds, these too can easily be paraphrased and rendered using the prepositional constructions with Y. fun ‘of’:17 (27) Y. breg fun jam shore of.gen sea ‘sea shore’ Y. breg fun tiš edge of.gen table ‘edge of a table’ Y. breg fun himl edge of.gen heaven ‘the edge of the horizon’ The normal and still most frequent way of expressing possessivity in Yiddish is by using the periphrastic phrase “X fun Y”. Yet, as mentioned under 3.1.3, the productivity and diffusion of the new asyndedic possessive compound pattern is quite remarkable. Thus, the prepositional form may be considered as the underlying structure for the new, left-headed N+N compounds, replicating the grammatical agreement that is obligatory in the Polish model. The deep structure in these constructions is in fact the same in both languages, cf. brzeg morza ‘sea shore’ (N.nom+N.gen) = Y. breg ( fun) jam (N.nom+N.(gen)) ‘idem’. Thus both expressions, the asyndedic and the prepositional one, are synonymous and seem to be competing in Yiddish. However, the latter are merely syntactic possessive constructions, whereas the former represent lexicalized fixed expressions, which places them within the category of compounds. In addition, the asyndetic form is syntactically simpler and therefore more attractive in terms of language economy, which may also explain the productivity of the new pattern, as will be illustrated below. Compounds formed according to the German model with Y. breg occur only occasionally, cf. Y. jambreg ‘seashore’. However, the tendency to build analytic forms persists even if a Slavic-derived head is replaced by its Germanorigin synonym, here: Y. rand ‘edge’ < G. Rand ‘idem’. Examples, such as Y. rand bet ‘edge of the bed’ and Y. rand himl ‘the edge of the horizon’ illustrate this tendency. I was able to find only one Germanic-type, right-headed, and synthetic compound with this stem: Y. himlrand ‘the edge of the hori-

17

Fifty-one analytical forms with the lexeme Y. breg ‘shore; edge’ were noted.

172

reibach

zon’. At the same time, many possessive prepositional phrases with Y. rand ‘edge’ may be found in Yiddish. In German, such phrases would have been most likely formed as regular synthetic compounds. Their Polish equivalents are regular, analytic, and possessive compounds of the A.n+N type. Cf. also example (28): (28) Y. rand fun edge of.gen P. krawędź edge ‘edge of a table’

tiš table stołu table.gen

Y. rand fun edge of.gen P. krawędź edge ‘edge of a bowl’

šisl bowl miski bowl.gen

Y. rand fun edge of.gen P. krawędź edge ‘edge of a hat’

kapeljuš hat kapelusza hat.gen

As it is evident from the example of compounds with synonymous lexemes Y. breg ‘shore, edge’ and Y rand ‘edge’, the Germanic word-formation pattern was apparently almost completely supplanted in the word family of Y. breg. There was a systemic shift toward constructions created according to either the Slavic (A.n+N) or Hebrew-Slavic (N+N) patterns. In my opinion, the diffusion and consolidation of analytic left-headed compounds in Yiddish, which most scholars claim to be of Hebrew origin, was made possible by the influence of the analogous model in Polish and other Slavic languages. However, the reverse tendency cannot be ruled out: such a construction may have been adopted from Polish and become fixed in the Yiddish language system thanks to the previous existence of the smikhut construction in Hebrew. 5.2 Role of Semantic Function in Choosing Compounding Pattern A broader analysis of the observed deconstruction process indicates that Yiddish seems to replicate not only N.nom+N.gen and A.n+N constructions themselves, but also the way they are predominantly distributed in the

de-construction of german-type compounds

173

model language. This distribution depends on the semantic function of the given compounds. The attributive meaning, in which the modifier rounds off the head, is expressed in Yiddish by means of analytic compounds with an adjectival noun standing to the left of the head noun: Y. šabasove maške ‘vodka for the Sabbath’, Y. vinterdike klejder ‘winter clothes’. Whereas possessive meanings are rendered in Yiddish using the left-headed N.nom+N.(gen) compounds, cf.: (29) Possessive left-headed N.nom+N.(gen) compounds: Y. onhejb jor beginning.nom year.(gen) P. początek roku beginning.nom year.gen ‘beginning of the year’ Y. mit center.nom P. środek center.nom ‘city center’

štot city.(gen) miasta city.gen

Y. ek velt end.nom world.(gen) P. koniec świata end.nom world.gen ‘the end of the world (as a place)’ As it has been illustrated above, exactly the same correlation between the semantics of the compound and the choice of its formation pattern exists in Polish. The difference in attributive constructions between Yiddish and Polish lies in the fact that in Polish, the adjectival noun can stand both on the left: P. damski krawiec ‘ladies tailor’ and on the right: P. fryzjer damski ‘ladies hairdresser’. However, in Polish, the position of the head also changes the meaning of the compound. For example, P. krawiec damski describes a craftsman, while P. damski krawiec is an idiom denoting the father of several daughters who has no sons. In Yiddish, the adjectival noun can only stand on the left side, cf. respectively Y. damsker sznajder ‘ladies tailor’, damsker frizer ‘ladies hairdresser’ (cf. section 3.1.2). Obviously, Yiddish has attributive constructions with the adjective in the postposition, e.g., Y. toxter tajere ‘dear daughter’ vs Y. tajere toxter ‘idem’, but such a change of a position applies only to phrases with adjectives and not analytic compounds derived from nouns. This stable

174

reibach

prepositioning of the adjectival noun distinguishes such constructions as compounds from ordinary attributive phrases with an adjective modifier. Conversely, in German, attributive and possessive meanings are expressed only through right-headed synthetic N+N type of compounds, e.g., respectively G. Apfelbaum ‘apple tree’, G. Handfläche ‘palm of the hand’. On the other hand, in Hebrew, both of these sematic types are conveyed through left-headed compounds, e.g., H. simchat torah ‘the joy of Torah’, H. helek guf ‘part of the body’, and H. sof ha-olam ‘the end of the world’. In German and Hebrew, the semantic differences are not reflected in the different compounding strategies. Therefore, it can be concluded that Yiddish replicated the Polish model and adopted different ways of rendering compounds depending on the semantic meaning they communicated. Despite the chosen pattern and head position, the common denominator of these structures is their analytic construction. Interestingly, such deconstruction of synthetic compounds seems to be a recurring phenomenon in the contacts of German with other languages. Heine & Kuteva (2005: 46) describe a process of deconstruction of the German-type compounds similar to the one conveyed here, which was a result of the influence of French in Belgium and Italian in Southern Tirol. These Romance languages, just as Polish and some other Slavic languages, are unfamiliar with such noun-compound constructions.

6

Conclusions

Synthetic, right-headed N+N compounds are a very strong typological feature of German which would be expected to be inherited by a genetically related language. Therefore, assuming that Yiddish shares compounding strategies with German due to their common origin, it would follow that German-type compounds should play a dominant role in the language’s word-formation system. However, it turns out that the compounds modeled on the Germanic pattern are often replaced by analytic constructions that replicate models from the other component languages of Yiddish, i.e., Hebrew and the Slavic languages. Thus, it can be hypothesized that under the Slavic and Hebrew influence, the German-type compounds underwent a process of deconstruction. For the sake of clarity of argument, this development can be visualized as proceeding gradually. It would go from ‘transitional’, hyphenated, and rightheaded constructions (Y. lombard-cetl ‘pawnshop receipt’), through the analytic right-headed constructions with an adjectival noun as a modifier (Y. lombardover kvitl ‘pawnshop receipt’), to the asyndetic constructions of two nouns in which the position of the head changed from right to left (Y. onhejb

de-construction of german-type compounds

175

jor ‘beginning of the year’). The latter can also be expressed by the synonymous possessive phrases with Y. fun, cf. Y. onhejb fun jor ‘beginning of the year’. Nonetheless, such prepositional constructions are, in fact, another way of replicating the left-headed Polish N.nom+N.gen structures, cf. P. początek roku ‘idem’ > Y. onhejb jor/onhejb fun jor ‘idem’. Constructions similar to N.nom+N.gen and A.n+N can also be found in German and Hebrew, but their use is relatively limited and marked in both languages. Nevertheless, what is important for the discussion at hand is that, in typical, unmarked constructions in German and Hebrew, the order of constituents is fixed—respectively: right-headed and left-headed. Only Polish contains both of the analytic compound models occurring in Yiddish, with both head positions possible. Moreover, analytic compounds are regular, unmarked, and widely used in Polish Therefore, I would argue that Polish played a significant role in the deconstruction process in Yiddish, ultimately leading to the restructuring of the compound formation and distribution system. This Slavic language served both as the donor of certain compounds as mat-borrowings (Y. klapkove kešene ‘flap pocket’), and formation rules as pat-borrowings. This pattern transfer is evident in the process of backward diffusion, in which the word-formation model was applied without any surface Slavic traces of lexemes of different etymologies (Y. ojfn traxtn ‘way of thinking’ and Y. vinterdike klejder ‘winter clothes’). This hypothesis is further confirmed by the observation that the correlation of the specific compounding strategies and semantic meanings in Yiddish has an equivalent pattern in Polish. Attributive compounds are rendered by the rightheaded A.n+N structures, while possessive compounds are expressed by the left-headed N+N type. Furthermore, there seems to be a tendency to retain the German-type compounding pattern unchanged in Yiddish mostly if the given compound has an equivalent in German, cf. section 5.1. Obviously, this generally pertains to compounds built of German material, which may suggest that they are simple matter borrowings. However, there are still some exceptions both among homogeneous forms, such as Y. lombard-cetl ‘pawn shop receipt’, as well as heterogeneous forms, such as Y. eplkvas ‘cider’. These illustrate the competition between compounding patterns that stem from different component idioms, which is typical for mixed languages. The identification of the Slavic model in compound constructions completes the overall picture of the word-formation system of Yiddish as being deeply infiltrated by the Slavic features as opposed to the German-derived inflectional system. Thus, I might venture to claim that Yiddish is a mixed language not only on the level of the entire system. Subsystems, such as morphology, seem to be further split internally (cf. Perlmutter 1988).

chapter 5

Core Vocabulary Borrowability Restrictions: Case of Semantic Field ‘Body’ Agata Reibach

1

Introduction

The study presented in this chapter addresses some of the questions related to lexical borrowability restrictions, one of the major topics in scholarship on borrowing. This issue has been examined on the example of the Yiddish mixed lexicon. As it has been shown in the previous chapters, the contact-induced changes are evident in grammatical features of Yiddish, such as a noun phrase structure, derivational patterns, the word order, and grammatical aspect. Yet, Yiddish lexicon still constitutes the most obvious proof of Slavic-Yiddish language contact to the extent in which the Slavic lexical entities appear to cover the vast majority of a specific semantic field, regardless of the postulated borrowability restrictions. A promising attempt of tackling the issue of lexicon borrowability was proposed by Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor, who initiated a collaborative project known as The Loanword Typology Project (from here on: ltp).1 The goal of this empirical study was to survey the types of loanwords found in 41 different languages and, on this basis, draw some generalizations concerning borrowability. An additional objective was to elaborate on the list of limitations preventing words from transferring from the donor into the recipient language. A list of 1460 lexical meanings was prepared for the collaborating scholars specializing in 41 different languages to provide translation equivalents for every language included in the project.2 The task was to identify nonnative elements, 1 This project was coordinated by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in the years 2004–2008. For more on the ltp see Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009). 2 Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009: 5) understand the term lexical meaning as follows: “By asking the contributors to provide the counterparts of these meanings, I aimed to obtain comparable lexical samples from all project languages. Note that the list is a ‘meaning list’, not a ‘word list’. The items on the list are meanings that could be relevant in any language, not words of a particular language (they are not words of our working language English).” The ltp meaning list is based on the meaning list of International Dictiornary Series (ids), for more see: Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009: 6).

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

177

that is, loanwords (mat-borrowings) among the possible labels of the given concept. Another objective was to describe their status and provide statistical information, such as the borrowed score, age score, and the simplicity score.3 The results of the ltp corroborated some of the generalizations previously made by researchers. It has been confirmed that the so-called ‘base/core vocabulary’ is more resistant to borrowing than the rest of the lexicon. Yet, trying to define the ‘core vocabulary’ turned out to be a rather perplexing task. Depending on a given approach, the definition reads differently. When studying the ‘core vocabulary’, linguists often work with Swadesh’s (1950) list of non-cultural vocabulary. Its author intended the list to be a set of concepts considered to be resistant to lexical borrowing. What is worth mentioning is that this remarkable undertaking was conducted not on the basis of an empirical study, but rather relied on the author’s intuition.4 Swadesh defines basic vocabulary as “universal and simple things, qualities, and activities, which depend to the least degree possible on the particular environment and cultural state of the group” (Swadesh 1950: 157). As a counterpart to the Swadesh list and based on the results of the ltp, Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009: 68) created an alternative list of 100 top-ranking items with the lowest borrowability index, the so-called Leipzig-Jakarta (from here on: ljl) list. This list was conceived as a full-fledged base vocabulary ranking. While analyzing the second list, it can be observed that semantic fields, such as kinship, sense perception, or the body, being a part of the generic lexical inventory, are more resistant to the borrowing process than others (Haspelmath & Tadmor 2009: 65). This seems to reaffirm the previously-made, intuitive claim made by some scholars that some “(c)oncepts […] are universal and shared by most human societies” (Tadmor 2009: 65). It appears that there is no need to borrow these notions from other languages, since they represent objects or ideas that accompany human beings regardless of their environment. Body parts constitute the most prominent group among all labels included in the study, making up eighteen out of one hundred lexical items on the list of the least likely borrowable lexical items (ljl). This number was the main reason why I decided to take a closer look at this particular semantic field. My

3 Out of these, only the borrowed score is of significance for the study presented in this chapter. For more details see Section 2 below. For details on the other scores, see Haspelmath & Tadmor 2009: 66–68. 4 There are some doubts about reliability of Swadesh’s list of basic vocabulary, cf. e.g. Starostin (2010: 81–83), Tadmor, Haspelmath & Taylor (2010).

178

reibach

choice was also based on the fact that lexemes referring to body parts undeniably belong to the postulated ‘core vocabulary’. The semantic field ‘The Body’ consists of concepts that are, at least in principle, universal and shared by all human societies. Every natural language can be expected to have indigenous words for such primeval concepts and, therefore, have no need to borrow them. Thus, according to the findings of the ltp, ‘The Body’ has turned out to be only the third most borrowing-resistant semantic field. This score shows that the reception, conceptualization, and categorization of the human body is a much more complex and unpredictable issue as it might appear at first glance. It could be assumed that conceptualizations and categorizations of the human body are universal because they are based on the human anatomy. Being more or less the same for all human beings, anatomy is expected to be similarly perceived, categorized, and linguistically expressed by most communities. Moreover, a cross-linguistic study by Enfield, Majid & Staden (2006) gave some insights into the universals of body part label semantics. Yet, body parts pose a special problem in perception and cognition due to their culture-specific exploitation, i.e., myths, taboos, and etcetera.5 In this chapter, I aim to explore to what extent the vocabulary of Yiddish, being a contact language and developing in conditions of permanent speaker multilingualism, corresponds with the results of the ltp. I will also attempt to look at the data beyond the quantitative results and analyze the languagespecific body categorization and seek any possible convergence with the donor languages.

2

Methods

Inspired by the findings of Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009), I made an attempt to apply their research method to the Yiddish language, which was not represented in the original study. The Jews were constantly being confronted with the challenge of overcoming the linguistic barriers, both among different Jewish speech communities and the neighboring peoples. Hence, Yiddish emerged primarily through contact between German, Semitic, and the Slavic languages. In addition, intense and long-lasting language contact along the German-Slavic border led to constant infiltration of new words and concepts into Yiddish.

5 See for example Keith & Burridge (2006). On taboo in the Jewish culture, see for example Nahshon (2008) or Gilman (1992).

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

179

Despite Yiddish long history of development, its vocabulary is still transparently heterogeneous. The origins of individual words are relatively easy to identify, also for the Yiddish users themselves. The mixed nature of the vocabulary can be further explained by the sociolinguistic conditions of the ongoing bilingualism and multilingualism of its speakers since the inception of the language (see Chapter 2). This, in turn, fostered a high degree of stylistic variance in the vocabulary, which has an extensive body of synonyms derived from its stock languages. The methodological difficulty in distinguishing between the indigenous and borrowed vocabulary, as well as the phenomenon of extensive lexical synonymy in Yiddish, would make it difficult to conduct a survey using the methods developed for the ltp. Therefore, firstly I made a preliminary assumption that Yiddish inherited its core vocabulary from German. Thus, lexemes of German origin are to be treated as native whereas the ones of Hebrew and Slavic origin—as borrowings. Secondly, the methods used by Haspelmath & Tadmor had to be significantly modified and adapted in this study to the needs of the still heterogeneous Yiddish vocabulary with a significant number of lexical synonyms. One of the major adaptations made for the study at hand is that I will use only the borrowed score as a possible indicator of the mixed character of Yiddish vocabulary.6 Despite the above-mentioned difficulties, in this study, I aim to explore to what extent Yiddish, being a contact language and developing in conditions of its speakers’ permanent multilingualism, corresponds with the results of the ltp project. I attempted to complete this tasks set forth in my study in the following three steps: First, I collected a corpus of Yiddish translation equivalents for elements of the semantic field ‘The Body’, which consists of 159 meanings in the ltp.7 Since the method of finding one ‘main equivalent’ was not described in a great detail by Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009), I had to arbitrarily choose the prototypical equivalent to the best of my abilities. My final decision was based on research 6 Haspelmath and Tadmor proposed several factors to determine translation equivalents: the representation score, simplicity score, analyzability score, age score, and borrowed score. Out of all these factors, I chose only the borrowed score for the purpose of this study. On the one hand, this was dictated by the reason for this study, which is to identify borrowings in the semantic field of ‘the body’ only, and, on the other hand, by the relative difficulty of establishing these parameters for individual Yiddish lexemes. For example, providing even the approximate first attestation of a given word in Yiddish, on which the age score is based, is very challenging due to the small number of written sources produced before the 18th century and thus, it requires further in-depth research. 7 Out of 1,460 terms collected in the project.

180

reibach

of major lexicographical sources. I attempted to select the most stylistically neutral and least semantically-loaded equivalent. My search of the available bilingual Yiddish dictionaries was also helpful as it allowed me to establish the main equivalent as the first lexeme given in the case of several synonyms coexisting in the dictionary. Due to the heterogeneous character of Yiddish vocabulary and ambiguity of the method of choosing the most prototypical equivalent, I decided to compile an additional set of synonymous words. My much more extensive list of equivalents consists of the documented synonymous translations for each item from the reference list suggested by Haspelmath & Tadmor (1995: 9). In this way, I came up with two sets of data. The first one is a one-element list with a rather arbitrarily determined “prototypical” translation equivalents, the socalled main equivalents. The second, extended one gives broader picture of the translation possibilities, listing more than one Yiddish synonym. The creation of this long catalog seems justified by the very fact that the language still lacks a stabilized standard vocabulary and displays a remarkably high stylistic and dialectal variability, reinforced by the co-existence of different-origin synonyms. In the next step, I calculated the borrowed score for both of these two lists. The borrowed score is a median of all specific-unit scores in a given list. However, in this chapter, it was calculated slightly differently from Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009: 12–13). In the study conducted for the ltp, the scale varies from 0 (no evidence for borrowing) to 4 (clearly borrowed). The remaining points on the scale were assigned according to the following criteria: 1—very little evidence for borrowing (with borrowing score 0.75), 2—perhaps borrowed (with borrowing score 0.50) and 3—probably borrowed (with borrowing score 0.25). Because of the mixed Yiddish vocabulary and the way the language itself came into being, I adopted a simplified zero-one classification in this study. It is based on the native/borrowed dichotomy. Thus, the borrowed score has a binary character—from 0 (no evidence for borrowing) to 1 (clearly borrowed). Consequently, I distinguished German, Semitic, and Slavic elements and counted their respective frequency. Due to numerous hybrid forms containing both Slavic and Hebrew elements and semantic calques I had to add a middle score. In the Haspelmath & Tadmor study, such word forms were not included at all; in mine, they received a borrowed score of 0.5. This approach made it possible to include all lexemes that have the character of borrowing and are not, strictly speaking, lexical borrowings. In doing so, I was working on the linguistic contents of sources gathered for the Warsaw University research project entitled “Long-Lasting Language Con-

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

181

tact and its Lexical and Semantic Outcomes”.8 The main source from which I drew lexical material was “Der Ojcer fun der Yidišer Šprax” by Nahum Stuchkoff, published in 1950. This thesaurus, arranged according to semantic fields, helped to quickly identify vocabulary describing body parts. When there was doubt about the meaning of particular lexemes, bilingual dictionaries were useful, primarily: The “Yiddish-English-Hebrew Dictionary” by Alexander Harkavy [1928] (1988), the “Comprehensive Yiddish-English Dictionary” by Solon Beinfeld and Harry Bochner (2013), and the “Idysh-belaruski sloŭnik” by Aljaksandar Astravuh (2008). The primary source of lexical material, Thesaurus of Yiddish, although published in the United States in 1950, sets itself the task of documenting the state of the language before the Holocaust. It was also my aim to describe the state of this idiom in its greatest flourishing in its “endemic area” of occurrence, i.e., Central and Eastern Europe. Limiting myself to lexicographical sources provided a greater guarantee that they described the general language. It was a variant close to the standard one, which did not record rare idiolectal, sociolectal, or dialectal uses. At the same time, the vocabulary codified in the lexicons made it possible to objectify the intensity and the most frequent areas of language contact. In sum, the conducted study was based on the codified general Yiddish vocabulary, which illustrated the state of Yiddish development as a vernacular in the pre-1939 “Yiddishland”. As the method is based on the native vs borrowed dichotomy, in conducting the empirical research as stated above, I had to follow the axiom of the inherited German vocabulary in Yiddish. This claim is based on the premise that the statistical majority of the Yiddish content morphemes are of German origin. This was also made to ensure greater objectivity and clarity of argument in this study. Thus, I considered all German elements, as well as words belonging to the international medical vocabulary as native.9 Consequently, I assumed all elements of other origin were considered as borrowed in order to make clear distinctions between different components of the Yiddish lexicon. The second step involved analyzing the Leipzig-Jakarta (‘core vocabulary’) list and choosing only the word meanings from the ‘The Body’ semantic field. In addition, I calculated the overall borrowed score for this list. Next, I distinguished the German, Semitic, and Slavic elements and counted their respective frequency.

8 For more on the project, see: https://polonjid.wn.uw.edu.pl/?lang=en [access: 12.01.2020]. 9 Unless their morpho-phonetic form clearly pointed out to a specific component language as more probable source of direct mat-Borrowing.

182

reibach

In the final step, I sought a common pattern for interpreting the statistical data, I analyzed the results for both core and peripheral vocabulary in this particular semantic field, and lastly attempted a comparison.

3

Results

3.1 Comparison with Loanword Typology Project (ltp) Based on the Haspelmath & Tadmor word meaning set, I compiled two lists: 1) the one-unit equivalent list containing the prototypical lexeme and 2) the extensive set of translation equivalents containing synonyms. The entire catalogue of words providing equivalents to ltp ‘The Body’ is to be found in the Appendix to this chapter. The first list consists of 157 items. I ascribed an adequate borrowed score number (from 0 to 1) to all of the items. The result for this short list was 0.20, which translates to 20.3% of borrowings. This is higher from the average score of 14.2% for the semantic field ‘The Body’ in the study of Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009: 64). Moreover, when looking at the long and extensive collection of synonymous equivalents, the results come out quite differently. Namely, this list consists of 472 synonym items with an average of three synonyms per lexeme. Thus, the borrowed score reaches 33.0%, which is remarkably higher than in the ltp list whose score is 14.2%. When calculating the distribution of the German, Semitic, and Slavic elements in the Main Equivalent List, the results read as follows. The German elements, considered in this study as native, and international medical vocabulary, considered in the study as the native vocabulary, comprise the majority at 79.6%, with 125 items (e.g., Y. ojer ‘ear’, bojx ‘stomach’, finger ‘finger’, fus ‘foot’, brust ‘breast’). The Slavic elements, numbering 22 come second with a score of 14.0% (e.g. Y. paxe ‘armpit’, plejce ‘back’, litke ‘calf of the leg’, penxer ‘blader’, pjate ‘heel’). There are 10 Semitic items which make up 6,4% of the total (e.g. Y. xolemen ‘to dream’, hargenen ‘to kill’, guf ‘body’, mojex ‘brain’). Considering the origin of synonymous equivalents from the complete catalogue the results are still different. In the total group of 472 lexemes, there are four unidentified items (0.8%, e.g., Y. zajken ‘to piss’, gavern ‘to dribble’). The most prominent set still consists of 319 German-origin lexical items and international medical terms, which translates to 67.2% (e.g., Y. kajer ‘jaw’, nakn ‘nape of the neck’, cung ‘tongue’, dokter ‘doctor’, vagina ‘vagina’). The second largest one includes the Slavic component: 100 items, making up 21,3 % (e.g., Y. rane ‘wound’, pazuxe ‘breast’, gombe ‘chin’, mrugen ‘to blink’, and xrapen ‘to snore’).

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

figure 1

Borrowed Score for Main Equivalent to ltp List

figure 2

Borrowed Score for Synonymous Equivalents to ltp List

183

184

reibach

figure 3

Distribution Between German, Slavic, and Semitic Elements in Main Equivalent to ltp List

figure 4

Distribution Between German, Slavic, and Semitic Elements in Synonymous Equivalents to ltp List

185

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

Furthermore, there is the Hebrew-Aramaic-derived vocabulary consisting of 49 items—10,7% (e.g., Y. refue ‘medicine’, ejver ‘penis’, zonev ‘tail’). As we can see, the borrowed scores are higher than anticipated by the authors of this method. The next step was to look at the same results for the Leipzig-Jakarta list of ‘core vocabulary’ and attempt a comparison. 3.2 Comparison with Leipzig-Jakarta List (ljl) As an outcome of the Loanword Typology Project a new list of most borrowability resistant items was created. Researchers came out, with a new revised list of the core-vocabulary, comprising merely of 100 meanings, the least likely ones to be borrowed. As many as 18 of them belong to the ‘The Body’ semantic field. Moreover, all of them pertain to body parts. I decided to investigate these items a bit further, again by creating two lists once more: an extensive one with a complete list of stylistic synonyms of different etymological origins and a brief one with just one prototypical equivalent for every assigned meaning. After compiling a list of equivalents and their synonyms corresponding to the universal terms with the lowest probability of borrowing, I obtained the following result for Yiddish. Because of the relatively small number of synonyms in the extensive list, it was possible to integrate both sets into a single table given below, cf. tab. 1.10 table 1

No.

1 2

3

10 11

Leipzig-Jakarta List of Basic Vocabulary. Semantic Field of ‘The Body’ in Yiddish

Rank

2 5

6

Word meaning

Yiddish main equivalents and synonyms

Source word

nose mouth

noz mojl

G Nase G Maul

tongue

pisk11 morde šnobl džub cung

P pysk P morda G Schnabel P dziub G Zunge

The main equivalents are indicated in bold, synonyms are separated by an additional line. Used only for animals and children (endearing).

186

reibach

table 1

No.

Leipzig-Jakarta List of Basic Vocabulary (cont.)

4

7

blood

Yiddish main equivalents and synonyms blut

5

7

bone

juxe/jojx bejn

P jucha G Bein

breast

knox brust

G Kochen G Brust

flesh/meat

bjust buzem pazuxe cic cicke12 flejš

P biust G Busen P pazucha G Zitz P cycek G Fleisch

arm/hand

guf lejb hant

H guf G Leib G Hand

ear neck

orem dlonje ojer haldz

G Arm P dłoń G Ohr G Hals P kark G Nacken G Zahn G Haar

6

7

8

9 10

Rank

12

18

19

22 23

Word meaning

Source word G Blut

11 12

28 31

tooth hair

kark nakn con hor

13

37

leg/foot

čuprine fus

P czupryna G Fuß

raglajim

H raglaim

12

This form might have developed independently with the Yiddish suffix -ke.

187

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions table 1

Leipzig-Jakarta List of Basic Vocabulary (cont.)

No.

Rank

Word meaning navel

Yiddish main equivalents and synonyms pupik

14

42

15 16 17

18

Source word U pupok

59 66 67

knee liver skin/hide

nopl/opl kni leber hojt

G Nabel G Knie G Leber G Haut

83

eye

škure ojg

P skóra G Auge

ejnaim kukers glocers šlipjes balaxes/bolexes zererlex

H ejnaim G gucken G glotzen P ślipie U baluchi, op baluch P zerkadełka, zerkać

In all, I have gathered 45 translation equivalents for these 18 meanings. The majority of items is of German origin and comprises of 27 lexemes (e.g., Y. hor ‘hair’, kni ‘knee’, hojt ‘skin’, con ‘tooth’), translating to 60 % of the total. Three equivalents are of Semitic origin—7% of the total (Y. guf ‘body’, ejnaim ‘eyes’, reglajim ‘feet/legs’). There are 15 lexemes of Slavic origin, which comes to 33 % (e.g., Y. pisk ‘mouth’, kark ‘nape of the neck’, čuprine ‘hair’, škure ‘skin’). The overall borrowed score for eighteen body-part labels in the core vocabulary list reaches 40%. When deciding on just one prototypical equivalent for each of the 18 meanings, the borrowed score is much lower, reaching just 5.3 %, since only one out of 18 main equivalents is of non-German origin, i.e., Y. pupik ‘navel’. The significant statistical differences in these two lists support the claim that the standardized variety of Yiddish definitely would favor the German vocabulary. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that these statistical differences in both lists can confirm the claim made by Weinreich (1938), and reiterated by Schaechter (1969), and Hutton (1988), about the domination of the German-

188

reibach

figure 5

Borrowed Score in ‘The Body’ Semantic Field from Leipzig-Jakarta List of Core Vocabulary (Extensive List)

figure 6

Distribution Between Germanic, Slavic, and Semitic Elements in ‘The Body’ Semantic Field from Leipzig-Jakarta List of Core Vocabulary (Extensive List)

derived vocabulary in Yiddish. There were strong tendencies for favoring words of German origin in the standardization of the Jewish language. With its culture-forming function, German was seen as a prestigious idiom. That is why, in order to get rid of the “jargon” label that has been attached to Yiddish for centuries, the Yiddish-language planners tended to adopt words of German origin.

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

189

figure 7 Borrowed Score in the ‘The Body’ Semantic Field from Leipzig-Jakarta List of Core Vocabulary (Short List)

However, not everyone saw Germanisms as enriching the Yiddish lexical repertoire. The “battle against dajčmerismus”, i.e., German borrowings, was a language policy aimed at removing them from the Yiddish language (cf. Weinreich 1938, Schaechter 1969, Geller (2011a), and Zamenhof 2012 [1890]). However, the situation with the Yiddish dialects was completely different: they never showed a tendency to acquire German words and more often borrowed words from the co-territorial Slavic languages. To conclude, the scores calculated for the four lists are as follows: ltp: 20.3% (‘The Body’ short), 33% (‘The Body’ extensive), ljl: 5.3% (ljl short), and 40% (ljl extensive). Three scores calculated for these research records from Yiddish are in most cases higher than the median established by Haspelmath & Tadmor for all 41 languages, which was 14.2%. These results are especially striking for the list of the core vocabulary, which, in theory, is borrowing-resistant. However, when comparing the results achieved with other contact languages, it turns out that this phenomenon is not only specific to Yiddish. For instance, for Selice Romani, an Indo-Aryan Roma language,13 the borrowed score for the ‘The Body’ semantic field reaches 57.2% (Elšik 2009: 278), which—as a reminder—was 21% for Yiddish. 13

Selice Romani, a dialect spoken by the village in south-western Slovakia, developed, just like Yiddish, in permanent speakers’ multilingualism and intense language contact

190

reibach

3.3 Core and Peripheral Vocabulary Obviously, the entire semantic field of ‘The Body’ is much broader than what is included in the selective collections of basic vocabulary proposed in the ltp project. In Yiddish, this field consists of more than 1,400 words. This number is based on the contents of the sources mentioned in Section 2. By exploring these comprehensive collections, I was able to gather not only the basic vocabulary denoting the major body parts according to the Leipzig-Jakarta list, but also more specialized words, referring to the more marginal body parts. Without a doubt, names of the main body parts, such as the ear—Y. ojer < G. Ohr, the leg—Y. fus < G. Fuß, and the head—Y. kop < G. Kopf, originate from German, the provider of the core lexical labels for Yiddish. These are obviously also the most frequent lexemes in everyday speech, which certainly favors their firm position in the lexicon. Thus, they seem not to be “endangered” by borrowings, though it is not always the case. If however, we look at the more specific, peripheral parts such as the shoulder blade—Y. lopetke < P. łopatka, the gum—Y. jasle < U. jasla / Y. dzjonsle < P. dziąsło, intestines or guts—Y. kiške < P. kiszka, or the calf—Y. litke < P. łydka, we must state that they mostly come from the Slavic languages. Sometimes the body-part labels of Slavic origin occur as less frequently used synonyms for the German words, e.g., Y. hift ‘hip’ (< G. Hüfte ‘hip’) vs. bjodre ‘hip’ (< P. biodro ‘hip’); Y. nirn ‘kidney’ (< G. Niere ‘kidney’) vs. nerke ‘kidney’ (< P. nerka ‘kidney’), Y. hojt ‘skin’ (< G. Haut ‘skin’) vs. škure ‘skin’ (< P. skóra ‘skin’). In turn, there are other Yiddish lexemes of Slavic origin which denote prevalent base terms such as Y. kark < P. kark ‘nape of the neck’, Y. plejce < P. plecy ‘back’, Y. pupik ‘navel’ < U. pupok, Y. dlonje ‘hand palm’ < P. dłoń. These primary terms of Slavic origin have their less frequent German synonyms (cf. Appendix). As suggested by Matras (2009: 170–171), there is some reluctance to borrow vocabulary that is considered as intimate, as well as frequently used kinship terms, as opposed the more remote ones. This pattern also appears to be true for the Yiddish semantic field of ‘The Body’ in Yiddish. There the core body-part labels, such as ‘head’, ‘leg’, or ‘stomach’ tend to be of German origin. On the other hand, the peripheral body parts, e.g., ‘gums’, ‘kidney’, and ‘nape of the neck’ have a tendency to be borrowed from the Slavic languages. Yiddish appears to follow this borrowability tendency to a great extent. At the same time, the German and Slavic names often appear interchangeably as synonyms. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the overall number of Slavisms in the semantic field of “The Body” is unexpectedly high (cf. Figs. 3, 4, 6). with surrounding major languages, also shows a high degree of synonymy. However, the authors of ltp study don’t treat it as a as a mixed language, but as a ‘very high borrowers’ ‘very high borrowers’ (Haspelmath & Tadmor 2009: 56–58).

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

191

As stated above, the Slavic borrowings are rather to be found in the peripheral vocabulary referring to the marginal body parts and their functions. In terms of the everyday reference and usage frequency in a language, body parts, such as the nape of the neck (Y. kark) or the heel (Y. pjate) occur much more rarely than the core body parts. The results of our study suggest that the speakers of contact languages willingly tend to borrow words assigned to these peripheral body parts from the local neighboring languages. In the case of Yiddish this meant the local Slavic languages. Therefore, it might be argued that the less frequently used vocabulary is much more prone to the borrowing process if no respective label previously existed in a given contact language. In Yiddish, some of these labels can be traced back to as early as the beginning of the 17th century (Y. kiške ‘appendix’, Y. bjelme ‘leucoma’ attested in “Sejfer derex ejc ha-xajim” from 1613, s. Geller 2015) or even found in the medieval Hebrew texts dating to as far back as 11th to 13th century (Y. plejce ‘back’, prejdik ‘forequarter meat’, noted by Kupfer & Lewicki 1956). Examples of Slavisms found in the Hebrew medical texts can also be found in Tuszewicki (2015). Moreover, these instances of usage show that vocabulary referring to the body displays a tendency to preserve the older word forms, even those that may have already vanished from the donor language.

4

Discussion and Desiderata

The results of the study are mostly statistically-based and the resulting numbers do not appear to contradict the semantic field borrowability restrictions at the quantitative level. However, taking the qualitative aspect into consideration unveils phenomena regarding the conceptual level of the studied borrowings. Some items show an overlap in the mode of conceptualization of body parts between Yiddish and the Slavic languages. A distinct example is Y. fusfinger ‘toe’, which follows a non-German conceptual model ‘finger’ + ‘foot’. Just like Polish and Hebrew, Yiddish, for example, does not distinguish between fingers and toes. In Yiddish, they are all referred to with the term Y. finger (cf. P. palec ‘finger’ and ‘toe’, H. ecba ‘finger’). This conceptualization is completely different in the Germanic languages, including German. There is a distinction between fingers as the parts of a hand, G. Finger, and toes as the parts of feet, G. Zehe. Another conceptual correspondence between Yiddish and the Slavic languages can be noticed in the interchangeable use of labels denoting ‘leg’ and ‘foot’. Both Yiddish and Polish refer to the whole leg, including the feet, with one word: respectively Y. fus and P. noga. Conversely, in German, there is a clear dis-

192

reibach

tinction between G. Bein as the lower limb of the human body from the buttock to the ankle and G. Fuß as its part below the ankle. Once again, we can see a different categorization of the human body between Yiddish and Polish on one hand and German on the other. A similar example is Y. plejce and P. plecy, a single term denoting both ‘back’, the rear surface of the human body from the shoulders to the ‘hips’ and ‘shoulder’. As stated above, sometimes the borrowed vocabulary can preserve meanings from the older varieties of a donor language and in this case, P. plecy ‘back; shoulder’ was present in the 19th century variety of the Polish language (Linde 1811: 733), but gradually fell out of use thereafter. However, the faithful preservation of source-language meaning is more characteristic of lexical relics (cf. Chapter 2). It should be reminded that Yiddish also has a Slavic substrate. Cases such as Y. plejce ‘back’, kiške ‘intestine, gut’ or bjelme ‘cataract’ are considered as relics rather than loanwords (cf. Geller & Gajek 2021). How the existence of a substrate influences the borrowability statistics has not been considered in Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009) and remains a desideratum. My study indicates that confronting lexical borrowability limitations with the lexicon of contact languages may prove fruitful, not only in terms of recognizing the value of the borrowed vocabulary, but also in unveiling the mixed properties of their conceptualization rules. Some other issues that came up in the course of my research and deserve more academic recognition include (1) re-semanticization of the borrowed animal body-part labels as human body-part labels and vice versa (e.g., Y. morde, lopetke, zodik); (2) metonymies and metaphors in the semantic field of ‘The Body’; (3) the need for a broader statistical study of those semantic fields that have even the lower borrowed scores in the ltp. I believe that the findings of this case study on the loanword status in Yiddish has addressed some important issues when it comes to borrowability restrictions in contact languages. My results have also made apparent the limitations of this method by showing how the boundary between the borrowed and the native vocabulary is very fluid in the case of a contact language. In the present study, I have especially focused on the diachronic dimension, with Yiddish preserving the older Slavic body-part labels, no longer existent in the donor language like Y. klub ‘hip’. Another aspect concerns the developments in the field of anatomy in the 19th and 20th century and the introduction of scientific vocabulary in this semantic field. It appears that in this register, there is also a preference for the German-derived vocabulary, e.g., Y. testikl < G. Testikel, Y. penis < G. Penis. This shows that the German vocabulary should be considered as the borrowed one in this case. These examples show how a quantitative study using the ltp

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

figure 8

193

Descritption of Human Body by Slavic-Derived Lexemes source: https://polonjid.wn.uw.edu.pl/

method can be very useful in determining the main donor language for a specific semantic field, but less so in identifying borrowing tendencies in a contact language. It is worth noting that borrowings were often used in Yiddish to descriptively identify sexual organs. Most of the neutral terms come from Hebrew or Aramaic, as these languages were used to write about fulfilling a mitzvah, including those related to procreation: Y. ejver ‘penis’ < H. and Y. majse ‘vagina’ < H. On the other hand, euphemistic, periphrastic, and often vulgar terms for genitals were often taken from the Slavic languages: Y. kutas ‘prick’ < P. kutas, Y. šmok ‘prick’ < P. ćmok ‘cull’, Y. pirge ‘vagina’ < P. pieróg ‘dumpling’. Such procedures

194

reibach

serve primarily as a linguistic taboo on those spheres and subjects that are not spoken about explicitly. To this end, Yiddish often resorts to Slavisms. To sum up, it should be once again stressed that even though most of the words relating to the semantic field of ‘The Body’ in Yiddish come from German, there are still basic body part terms originating form Slavic (e.g., Y. plejce, pupik, kark, dlonje) and Hebrew (e.g., Y. mojex, guf ). Whereas the Hebrew ones entered Yiddish most probably via learned writings, the ones of Slavic origin were both relics and borrowings. Slavisms, despite their peripheral character, play an important role within the whole semantic field of ‘The Body’, which belongs to the most brrowing-restricted semantic areas. Therefore, the very fact that the human body can optionally be described using Slavic-origin words only, as shown in the image below, may indicate that this vocabulary mostly belongs to the substrate layer of Yiddish conceptual and lexical system.

Appendix: Loanword Typology Project List of Meanings and Its Yiddish Equivalents Including Synonyms All lexemes have their etymological origins listed. The main equivalents are in bold, the Slavic words—in italics. Lexemes are provided in the same order as in Haspelmath & Tadmor (2009: 24–25) for the semantic field of “The Body”. bald blind dead deaf drunk healthy lame lazy mute neked pregnant

lise < P. łysy; plixik < ‘bald’ < U. pliš; naket ‘bald’ < G. nackt; blind < G. blind, ništ-zeevdik ‘blind’ < G. nicht sehend; tojt < G. tot, geštorbn ‘dead’ < G. gestorben, šojn ništo ‘dead’ < G. schon nicht da; tojb < G. taub, umhervdik ‘deaf’ < G. {un-} + G. hören; šiker < H. šiker; bazojfn ‘besoffen’ < G. besoffen; batrunkn ‘drunk’ < G. betrunken; gezunt < G. gesund; joderdik ‘healthy’ < P. jędrny; kreftig ‘healthy’ < G. kräftig, lom < G. lamm; krum ‘lame’ < G. krumm; kalike ‘lame’ < P. kaleki; hinkendik ‘lame’ < G. hinkend; kuljave ‘lame’ < P. kalawy; fojl < G. faul; pustepasne ‘lazy’ < op. pustopas / pust-un-pasne ‘lazy’ < op. pustopas; štum < G. stumm; naket < G. nackt; hojl ‘naked’ < G. hohl or U. hołyj; gol/gole ‘neked’ < P. goły; trogedik/trogevdik < G. tragend; švengerdik ‘pregnant’ < G. schwanger; muberes ‘pregnant’ < H. ubar; farpeklt ‘pregnant’ < G. verpackt; bajxldik ‘pregnant’ < G. Bauch ‘belly’ + G. {-dik};

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions sick/ill strong ankle arm armpit back beak beard belly blister blood body body hair boil

bone brain breast

bruise buttocks calf of the leg carcass cheek chest chin claw cold collarbone corpse

195

krank < G. krank; šlaf ‘sick/ill’ < G. schlapp; umgezunt ‘sick/ill’ < G. ungesund; štark < G. stark; gezunt ‘strong’ < G. gesund; kraftik/krefik ‘strong’ < G. kräftig; krepke ‘strong’ < P. krepki; knexl < G. Knöchel; knafl ‘ankle’ < mhg. knöpfel ‘ankle’; orem < G. Arm; hant ‘arm’ < G Hand; paxe < P. pacha; paxve ‘armpit’ < P. pachwa; plejce < P. plecy, rukn ‘back’ < G. Rücken; šnobl < G. Schnabel; džub ‘beak’ < P. dziób; bord < G. Bart; bojx < G. Bauch; penxer/puxir/panxir/paxer < P. pęcherz; bloz < G. Blase; blut < G. Blut; guf < H. guf; kerper ‘body’ < G. Körper; lajb ‘body’ < G. Leib; korpus ‘body’ > G. Korpus; hor < G. Haare; bloter < mhg. blâtere; gešvir ‘boil’ < G. Geschwür; penxer/paxir ‘boil’ < P. pęcherz; grude/hrude ‘boil’ < P. gruda/U. hruda; ojsvuks ‘boil’ < G. Auswuchs; bejn < G. Bein; knox ‘bone’ < G. Knochen; mojex < H. moax; brust < G. Brust; bjust ‘breast’ < P. biust; buzem ‘breast’ < G. Busen; pazuxe ‘breast’ < P. pazuxa; cic ‘breast’ < P. cyc or G. Zitz; cicke ‘breast’ < P. cycek; siniak < P. siniak; klap ‘bruise’ < G. Klaps; bloj ojg ‘bruise’ < G. blaues Auge; zodik < P. zadek; gezes ‘buttocks’ < G. Geseß; hinterhejlek ‘buttocks’ < G. Hinter + H. xelek; litke < P łydka; ikre ‘calf of the leg’ < R. ikra; unterhift ‘calf of the leg’ < G. Unterhüfte; polke/pulke ‘calf of the leg’ < P. pałka; nevejle < H. nevela; pgire/pejger ‘carcass’ < H. peger; bak < G. Backe; brust < G. Brust; brustkastn ‘chest’ < G. Brustkasten; harcbretl ‘chest’ < G. Herz + G. Brett; brustkorb ‘chest’ < G. Brustkorb; kin < G. Kinn; gombe/gembe ‘chin’ < P. gęba; morde ‘chin’ < P. morda; mordečke ‘chin’ < P. mordeczka; berdl ‘chin’ < G. Bart; krel < G. Kralle; farkilung < G. Erkältung + G. Verkühlung; šlislbejn < G. Schlüsselbein; mes < H. met; barmenem ‘corpse’ < H. bar-menen; padle ‘corpse’

196

dandruff disease ear earlobe earwax elbow eye

eyebrow eyelash eyelid face feather fever finger fingernail flesh foot footprint forehead goiter/goitre grave gums hair hand head heart heel hip horn intestines or guts

reibach < P. padlina; pgire ‘corpse’ < H. peger; sterve ‘corpse’ < P. ścierwo; šund ‘corpse’ < G. Schund; šupn < G. Schuppen; krenk < G. Krank(heit); šlafkajt ‘disease’ < G. Schlappheit; xalas ‘disease’ < H. maxala; xarobe/xorobe ‘disease’ < P. choroba; ojer < G. Ohr; lap/lepl/ojer-lepl < G. Ohrläppchen; ojervaks < G. Ohrenwachs; elnbojgn < G. Ellenbogen; ojg < G. Auge; ejnajim ‘eyes’ < H. ejnaijm (dual); kukers ‘eyes’ < G. Gucker; šlipjes ‘eyes’ < P. ślipie; balaxes/bolexes ‘eyes’ < U. балухі, op. Baluch; zererlex ‘eye’ < P. zerkać; brem < G. Brauen; vie < U. vija; ojgen-ledl < G. Augenlid; ponim/ponem < H. panim; parcef ‘face’ < H. parcuf; gezixt ‘face’ < G. Gesicht; ojše ‘face’ < G. Aussehen; vid ‘face’ < R. vid; feder < G. Feder; pux/pex ‘feathers’ < P. puch; hic < G. Hitze; goračke/gorjačke ‘fever’ < P gorączka; finger < G. Finger; nogl < G. Nagel; flejš < G. Fleisch; guf ‘flesh’ < G. guf; lajb ‘flesh’ < G. Leib; fus < G. Fuß; fusdruk < G. Fußabdruck; fus-simen ‘footprint’ < G. Fuß + H. siman; fusšpur ‘footprint’ < G. Fußspur; štern < G. Stirn; gojder < G. Goder ‘goiter/goitre’; krop ‘goiter/goitre’ < G. Kropf, volje ‘goiter/goitre’ < P. wole; kejver < H. kever; grub ‘grave’ < G. Grube; lox ‘grave’ < G. Loch; jasle/jaslje/djasle/asle/aslje < U. jasna; dzjonsle/žonsle ‘gum’ < P. dziąsło; cejnflejš ‘gums’ < Zahnfleisch; hor < G. Haare; čuprine ‘hair’ < P czupryna; hant < G. Hand; jad ‘hand’ < H. jad; lape ‘hand’ < P. łapa; kop < G. Kopf; harc < G. Herz; pjate/pjente < pieta; goler ‘heel’ < ou.; hift < G. Hüfte; klub ‘hip’ < R. kluba; lend ‘hip’ < G. Lende; bjodre ‘hip’ < P. biodro; horn < G. Horn; kiške < P. kiszka; gederem ‘intestines or guts’ < G. Gedärm,

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

197

Gedärme; ingevejd ‘intestines or guts’ < G. Eingeweide; bebexes ‘intestines or guts’ < P. bebechy; bnej-meajem ‘intestines or guts’ < H. meai; jaw bordbejn < G. Bart + G. Bein; kajer ‘jaw’ < G. Kauer; kinbak ‘jaw’ < G. Kinnbacke; morde ‘jaw’ < P. morda; ščoke ‘jaw’ < P. szczęka; poščeke ‘jaw’ < P. paszczęka; kidney nir < G. Nire; nerke ‘kidney’ < P nerka; knee kni < G. Knie; leg fus < G. Fuß; life lebn < G. Leben; eksistenc ‘life’ < G. Existenz; zajn ‘life’ < G. Sein; lip lip < G. Lippe; lefcn ‘lip’ < G. Lefze; varges ‘lips’ < P. wargi; liver leber < G. Leber; lung lung < G. Lunge; medicine medikamet < G. Medikament; refue ‘medicine’ < H. refua; medicin ‘medicine’ < G. Medizin; molar tooth bakcon < G. Backzahn; mouth mojl < G. Maul; pisk ‘mouth’ < P. pysk; nape of the neck kark < P. kark; nakn ‘nape of the neck’ < G. Nacken; genik ‘nape of the neck’ < G. Genick; patilnice ‘nape of the neck’ < P. potylica; nasal mucus smark/smork < P. smark; smorkexc ‘nasal mucus’ < neologism P. smark; šmorglexc ‘nasal mucus’ < neologism P. smark; roc ‘nasal mucus’ < G. Rotz; špik ‘nasal mucus’ < G. Spick; šnoder ‘nasal mucus’ < G. Schnodder; gil ‘nasal mucus’ < P. gil; navel pupik < U. pupok; pempik ‘navel’ < P. pępek; nopl ‘navel’ < G. Nabel; neck haldz < G. Hals; kark ‘neck’ < P kark; nipple or teat cicl < G. Zitze; cicke ‘nipple or teat’ < G. Zitze; opl ‘nipple or teat’ < Y. nopl ‘nipple’; nose noz < G. Nase; nostril nozlox < G. Nasenloch; nozdre ‘nostril’ < P. nozdrze; palm of the hand dlonje < P. dłoń; hantflax ‘palm of the hand’ < G. Handfläche; tener ‘palm of the hand’ < mhg. tëner ‘palm of the hand’; penis penis < G. Penis; ejver ‘penis’ < H. evar; mile ‘penis’ < H. mila; glid ‘penis’ < G. Glied; organ ‘penis’ < G. Organ; boxer (euph.) ‘penis’ < H. baxur; šmok (vulg.) ‘penis’ < P. smok; zonev (vulg.) ‘penis’ < H. zanav; poc (vulg.) ‘penis’ < G. Putz; vejdl (vulg.) ‘penis’ < G. Wedel; physician dokter < G. Doktor; poison gift < G. Gift; sam ‘poison’ < H. sam; pubic hair šandhor < G. Schamhaar + G. Schande; pus ejter < G. Eiter; materje ‘pus’ < P. materia; rope ‘pus’ < P. ropa; rib rip < G. Rippe; žebres ‘ribs’ < P. żebra;

198

reibach

scar

šnar < G. Schnarre; šram ‘scar’ < G. Schramme; blizne ‘scar’ < P. blizna; štrom ‘scar’ < U. šram; heft ‘scar’ < G. Heft; simen ‘scar’ < H. siman; cejxn ‘scar’ < G. Zeichen; skaz(e) ‘scar’ < P. skaza; aksl < G. Achsel; plejce ‘shoulder’ < P. plecy; šulter ‘shoulder’ < G. Schulter; barke ‘shoulder’ < P barka; lopetke (an animal’s shoulder) ‘shoulder’ < P. łopatka; lopetke < P. łopatka; akslblat ‘shoulder blade’ < G. Achselblatt; (suxe)žile < op. suchożyła; šanoder ‘sinew or tendon’ < G. Ader; hojt < G. Haut; fel (animal) ‘skin or hide’ < G. Fell; škure ‘skin or hide’ < P. skóra; šarbn < G. Scherbe ‘shard’; šarbnkestl ‘skull’ < G. Scherbe ‘shard’ + G. Kasten ‘box’; ruknbejn < G. Rücken + G. Bein; šedre ‘spine’ < H. šidra; šedrezajl ‘spine’ < H. šidra + G. Wirbelsäule; varblbejn ‘spine’ < G. Wirbelsäule + G. Bein; milc < G Milz; mogn < G. Magen; gešvilexc < G. Schwellung; ek < G. Ecke; vejdl ‘tail’ < m G. Weide; zonev ‘tail’ < H. zanav; švanc ‘tail’ < G. Schwanz; šlejf < G. Schläfe; bejce < H. bejca; testikl ‘testicles’ < G. Testikel; maskokles ‘testicles’ < H. maskaklot ‘testicles’; dik < G. Dicke; polke/pulke ‘thigh’ < P. pałka; gorgl < G. Gurgel; haldz < G. Hals; kel ‘throat’ < G. Kehle; grober finger < G. Finger; agudl ‘thumb’ < H. agudal; (grober) goj ‘thumb’ < H. goj, dojmen ‘thumb’ < G. Daumen; dojmejl ‘thumb’ < G. Daumen; fusfinger < G. Fuß + G. Finger; cung < G. Zunge; con < G. Zahn; ajter < G. Euter; vagine < G. Vagina; (vajberše) majse (euph.) ‘vagina’ < H.; šejd ‘vagina’ < G. Scheide; muteršejd ‘vagina’ < G. Mutterscheide; oder < G. Ader; vene ‘vein or artery’ < G. Vene; vulve < G. Vulva; drojsndike lipn ‘vulva’ < G. draußen + G. Lippe; špil ‘vulva’ < G. Spiel; talje < G. Taille; fligl < G. Flügel; hejbmuter < G. Gebärmutter; muterlajb ‘womb’ < G. Mutterleib;

shoulder

shoulder blade sinew or tendon skin or hide skull spine

spleen stomach swelling tail temples testicles thigh throat thumb

toe tongue tooth udder vagina vein or artery vulva waist wing womb

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions

wound or sore wrist tired to bathe be alive to be born to beget to bite to blink

to breathe to bury to conceive

to cough to cure to die

199

traxt ‘womb’ < G. Tracht; šojs (poet.) ‘womb’ < G. Schoß; uterus ‘womb’ < G. Uterus; gebojrmuter ‘womb’ < G. Gebärmutter; wund < G. Wunde; rane ‘wound or sore’ < P. rana; make ‘wound or sore’ < H. maka; (hant)gelenk < G. Handgelenk; mid < G. müde; ojsgemučet ‘tired’ < P. wymęczony; bodn (zix) < G. baden; leben < G. leben; gebojrn vern < G. geboren warden; mojled zajn < H. molad; gevinen ‘to beget’ < G. gewinnen; gebojrn ‘to beget’ < G. geboren; hobn ‘to beget’ < G. haben; bajsn < G. beißen; pintlen < Y. punkt ‘point, dot’; blinken ‘to blink’ < G. blinken; blinclen ‘to blink’ < G. blinzeln; blincn ‘to blink’ < G. blinzeln; bliclen ‘to blink’ < G. blitzeln; mrugen/mrigen ‘to blink’ < P. mrugać; mružen ‘to blink’ < P. mrużyć; otemen ‘’ < G. atmen; bagrobn < G. begraben; bahaltn ‘to bury’ < G. behalten; fargejn in trogn < calque of P. zajść w ciążę; trogedik vern ‘to conceive’ < G. werden schwanger; faršvengern ‘to conceive’ < G. schwängern; hustn < G. husten; hejln < G. heilen; kurirn ‘to cure’ < G. kurieren; ojskuriren zix ‘to be cured, recover’ < G. auskurieren; štarbn < G. sterben; ojsštarbn ‘to die out’ < G. aussterben; ceštarbn ‘to die out’ < G. sterben; ojfhern cu zajn ‘to die’ < G. aufhören zu sein; oplebn ⟨ojslebn⟩ di jorn ‘to die’ < G. ableben die Jahren; ojsfeln ‘to die’ < G. ausfallen; ojsgejn ‘to die’ < G. ausgehen; fargejn ‘to die’ < G. vergehen; fargejn in der ejbikajt ‘to die’ < G. vergehen in die Ewigkeit; nifter vern ‘to die’ < H. niftar; nistalek vern ‘to die’ < H. nistalek; nisbakeš vern ‘to die’ < H. nitbakeš; porxe nišmose vern ‘to die’ < H. lehapriax nišmatu; kumen cu got ‘to die’ < G. kommen zu Gott; gejn ⟨avekgejn⟩ fun der velt ‘to die’ < G. gehen von der Welt; faršnitn vern fun der velt ‘to die’ < G.; farendikn di teg ⟨di yorn⟩ ‘to die’ < G. beenden die Tage; avekgebn di nešome ‘to die’ < G. abgeben die Seele + H. našama; ojshojxn dem (lectn) otem ‘to die’ < G. den letzten Atemzug tun or P. wydać ostatnie tchnienie; ojfhern cu otemen ‘to die’ < G. aufören zu atmen; cumaxn di ojgn ‘to die’ < G. zumachen die Augen; cumaxn (mit) an ojg ‘to die’ < G. das Auge zumachen; ajnšlofn ‘to die’ < G. einschlafen;

200 to dream to dribble to drown to fart to have sex

to hiccough to kill

to lick to perspire

to piss

to rest to scratch

reibach xolemen < H. xalam; trojmen ‘to dream’ < G. träumen; slinen < P. ślinić; gavern ‘to dribble’ < ou.; dertrinken < G. ertrinken; dertrenken ‘to drown’ < G. ertrinken; lozn luft < G. Wind lassen or P. puszczać wiatry; farcn ‘to fart’ < G. furzen; ojsnefixen zix < H. nefixa + calque from P wypierdzieć się; šlofn mit < G. schlafen mit; maxn zix flejšik ‘to have sex’ < G. machen sich + G. fleischig; iberšlofn zix mit ‘to have sex’ < calque of P. przespać się z; porn zix mit ‘to have sex’ < G. paaren sich; kumen cu ‘to have sex’ < G. kommen; bojel zajn ‘to have sex’ < H.; bamenen ‘to have sex’ < G.; šlukercn < G. Schuckauf haben; hargenen < H. harag; umbrengen < G. umbringen, kaltmaxn ‘to kill’ < G. kaltmachen; aveklejgn ‘to kill’ < G. weglegen; maxn a sof cu ‘to kill’ < G. machen ein Ende zu; gebn a tojtklap ‘to kill’ < calque of P. zadać śmiertelny cios; gebn dem lectn klap ⟨dem raxmones-klap⟩ ‘to kill’ < calque of P. zadać ostatni cios; cunemen ⟨opnemen⟩ dos lebn ‘to kill’ < calque of P. odebrać życie; avekšikn ojf jener velt ‘to kill’ < calque of P. wysłać na tamten świat; štilmaxn ‘to kill’ < calque of P. uciszyć; bazajtikn ‘to kill’ < G. beseitigen; aropramen fun veg ‘to kill’ < calque of P. sprzątnąć z drogi; merdern/mordn ‘to kill’ < G. morden; mordeven ‘to kill’ < G. mordować; tejtn/tojtn < G. töten; dermordn ‘to kill’ < G. ermorden; tojtšlogn ‘to kill’ < G. totschlagen; deršlogn ‘to kill’ < G. erschlagen; lekn < G. lecken; švicn < G. schwitzen; zajn in švejs ‘to perspire’ < G. schwitzen; prien ‘to perspire’ < mhg. prëglen ‘to fry, to roast’; prejen ‘to perspire’ < mhg. prëglen ‘to fry, to roast’; preglen zix ‘to perspire’ < mhg. prëglen ‘to fry, to roast’; opgejn mit švejs ‘to perspire’ < G. schwitzen; pišn < G. pissen; urinirn ‘to piss’ < G. urinieren; zajn maštn ‘to piss’ < H.; lozn urin ‘to piss’ < G. urinieren; opšlogn vaser ‘to piss’ < G.; matl majim zajn ‘to piss’ < H.; zoljen ‘to piss’ < G. sollen ‘to have to’; zajxn ‘to piss’ < mhg. sîhen ‘strain’; ljoxen ‘to piss’ < Y. ljoxe ‘swine’ < P. locha; ščoxen ‘to piss’ < P. szczać; ljorven ‘to piss’ < U. ljora; šulen ‘to piss’ < ou.; flisern ‘to piss’ < G. fließen ‘to flow’; xapn fiš ‘to piss’ < P. chapać + G. Fisch; necn ‘to piss’ < G. nass machen; fajxtn ‘to piss’ < G. feuchten; gisn ‘(animal) to piss’ < calque of P. lać; ojsgisn zix ‘(animal) to piss’ < calque of P. wylać się; opruen (zix) < G. ausruhen (sich); drapen < P. drapać; ricn ‘to scratch’ < G. ritsen; kricn ‘to scratch’ < G. kratzen;

core vocabulary borrowability restrictions to shit

to shiver to sleep to sneeze to snore

to spit to vomit

to wake up to yawn weak

201

kakn < G. kacken; meloxenen ‘to shit’ < H. malax; drisken ‘to shit’ < P. tryskać; sraljen ‘to shit’ < P. srać; dripen ‘to shit’ < ng. drippen; trenen ‘to shit’ < G. trennen; maxn ‘to shit’ < G. machen; dosn ‘to shit’ < Y. dos ‘this’; arbetn ‘to shit’ < G. arbeiten; paskudjen/paskudžen ‘to shit’ < P. paskudzić; mistikn ‘to shit’ < G. misten; onlejgn ‘to shit’ < G. legen ‘to lay’; maxn unter zix ‘to shit’ < calque of P. robić pod siebie; arojsračkeven zix ‘to shit’ < calque from P. wysrać się; citern < G. zittern; šlofn < G. schlafen; nisn < G. niesen; xrapen/xropen < P. chrapać; xorxlen ‘to snore’ < ou.; šnorxn ‘to snore’ < G. schnarchen; šnarxn ‘to snore’ < G. schnarchen; šnorn ‘to snore’ < G. schnorren; špajen < G. speien; brexen < G. erbrechen; mejkenen/mejkern ‘to vomit’ < ou.; ojsbrexn ‘to vomit’ < G. erbrechen; curikgebn ‘to vomit’ < G. zurückgeben or calque of P. zwrócić; opgebn ‘to vomit’ < G. abgeben or calque of P. zwrócić; ojsmejkenen ‘to vomit’ < ou.; opbrexn ‘to vomit’ < G. erbrechen; kapojr/kapojer šlogn ‘to vomit’ < H.; avekgebn curik ‘to vomit’ < calque of P. zwrócić; gebn xazore ‘to vomit’ < H.; ojskern di (grine) gal ‘to vomit’ < G. auskehren die (grüne) Galle; brexn ⟨ojsbrexn⟩ mit griner gal ⟨mit grin un gal⟩ ‘to vomit’ < G. erbrechen mit grüner Galle; avekgebn ⟨curikgebn⟩ der mames milx ‘to vomit’ < G. zurückgeben das Muttermilch; ojfxapen zix < G. aufwecken + P. chapać; ojfvaxn ‘to wake up’ < G. aufwachen; dervekn zix ‘to wake up’ < G. erwachen; genecn < G. gähnen; švax < G. schwach.

chapter 6

Convergence of Syntactic Structures of Yiddish and Polish Direct Interrogative Sentences: Remarks on Parametric Structure of cp and wh-Movement Anna Pilarski

1

Introduction

1.1 Subject of Study According to the most widely accepted theory on the origins of Yiddish, the Middle High German dialects built the basic framework of the language, as a consequence of the immigration of Jews to regions along the Rhine and Danube in the Middle Ages. Following the later settlement in Eastern Europe, specific language features developed in Yiddish which resulted from intense and long lasting contact with Slavic languages. Polish, being the majority and administrative language of the region for centuries, had exerted a particularly strong influence (cf. chapter 2). Some striking peculiarities in Yiddish grammar against the backdrop of its German parent language understandably draw the attention of scholars. Therefore, it is plausible to search for the source of structural peculiarities in Yiddish syntax in its other linguistic determinant, namely the Slavic languages. The focus of attention here are direct interrogative sentences in Yiddish, commonly known as wh-questions. A descriptive analysis of data concerning these sentences in Yiddish reveals a broad range of syntactic variations regarding the position of the wh-words, the finite verb, as well as the subject and object. We will investigate the extent to which the linear structure of the components in the Yiddish interrogative sentences is influenced by the Polish sentence structure. It is assumed that the wh-movement is motivated by interrogative and focus features. Regarding this, the question of how the interrogative and focus features correspond to one another is to be pursued. Our working hypothesis assumes that the grammatical schema responsible for generating interrogative sentences in the Yiddish language is a result of Polish impact on shaping Yiddish. Consequently, the structure of Yiddish interrogative sentences is to a large extent similar to the structure of such sentences in Polish.

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

203

My research concentrates on the grammatical structure of interrogative sentences and its compatibility with the basic assumptions of the Minimalist Program by Chomsky, as well as the question of how grammatical mechanisms responsible for the position variations of the wh-words are parametrized. 1.2 State of Art The syntactic influence of the Slavic languages has been noted and studied since the very beginning of comparative research on Yiddish. A more or less traditional approach to Yiddish syntax has been applied in works of authors such as Weinreich [1973] 2008, Weissberg (1988), Lowenstamm (1977), Santorini (1992), Diesing (1997), Fleischer & Schäfer (2012), and Aptroot & Hansen (2013). Some aspects of the subject have also been addressed in Reershemius (2001), Krogh (2007), and Schäfer (2017). Many studies clearly show how Slavic languages influenced Yiddish, including its syntax: Weissberg (1988), Schallert (2007), Fleischer (2014), Auwera & Gybels (2013). However, the syntax of Yiddish has been so far hardly analyzed with the application of the generative method. Generative models have been used to describe Yiddish with the view to achieve the first of the afore-mentioned goals in the publications by Prince (1981, 1989), Besten & Walraven (1986), Geilfuß (1991), Diesing (1997, 2004), and Wallenberg (2013). The grammar of Yiddish has been only marginally the object of generative research on the influence of the Slavic languages, Polish in particular, on this Jewish vernacular (cf. publications by Mecner 2013, 2017, Pilarski 2017, 2018).

2

Methods

The contribution at hand focuses on the grammatical structure of the direct interrogative sentences in Yiddish. These will be compared with their Polish and German counterparts. The question to what extent the structure in Polish correlates with the interrogative sentences in Yiddish will be investigated. Furthermore, the rules of grammar which provide explanation for the common features of the Yiddish interrogative sentences and their Polish counterparts will be examined. Interrogative sentences are a particularly interesting object of research on the influence of Polish on Yiddish. A syntactic analysis reveals that the Yiddish sentence structure differs from the structure of the German interrogative sentences but has features making it similar to the Polish interrogativesentence structure. What attracts attention in this type of sentences is the position of interrogative pronouns, as well as the position of both sentence

204

pilarski

subject and object. In terms of the generativist approach, these formal grammatical features present in mental systems are shared by both Yiddish and Polish. A relevant research perspective on Yiddish in comparison with the contemporary systems of Polish and German is provided by a formal grammatical description. The transformational-generative grammar posited by Chomsky (1981, 2000) offers this type of research method. The generative perspective makes it possible to identify specific language features referred to as parameters and analyze them in relation to universal principles, which are suggested to be universal for all language systems. The question concerning the way in which the natural mechanism of a native Yiddish speaker organizes the set of principles in mental systems is of interest here. The study of formal grammatical features contrastively aims at showing how the language system of Yiddish transformed and organized anew the formal grammatical Germanic and Slavic components to create a new language system as a coherent grammar. Thus, generative studies of the Yiddish language make it possible to achieve two goals. The first one is to understand the universal syntactic components characterizing the mechanism active in the shaping of language systems, which are transmitted from generation to generation in mental systems. The second goal is to explain how this mechanism organizes the system of principles when languages mutually influence one another. In the light of the above it is justified to use the generative method to provide an explanation for the syntactic features of Yiddish shared by Yiddish and Polish which differ from German. 2.1 Theoretical Framework The theoretical grounding of the research is constituted by the transformational-generative grammar framework as proposed by Chomsky (1981, 1995, 2000) and the extension of this framework, known as the cartographic approach posited by Rizzi (1997, 2004), Cinque (2002) and Cinque & Rizzi (2008). The cartographic approach is an attempt to draw detailed maps of syntactic structures present in natural languages with highest precision possible. In order to represent the hierarchical sentence structure, this approach employs the X-bar schema. The schema consists of three levels: 1) the verbal phrase level (vp) with the assigned theta-roles, 2) the inflectional phrase level (ip=INFLectional phrase) and 3) the level which, for the sake of terminological simplicity, we can call the complementizer phrase level (cp=Complementizer phrase). These levels are created around functional categories X°, which constitute projection heads for the categories of tense, mood, aspect, voice, and modality with respect to verbs or determiner in nominal phrase projection.

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

205

Chomsky (2000: 102) proposes the following functional categories: C (sentence type/ force: declarative, interrogative, and etc.), T (Tense) and v (the verb head of transitive constructions). In addition to this, Chomsky (2008: 143) perceives phrase C as an abbreviation of the sentence area which Rizzi (1997) describes as the left periphery. The tp constitutes the temporal structure. The phrase v is associated with a complex argument structure (transitivity, causality) (cf. Mecner 2017). It is constitutive for the verbal structure. The vp contains available nps/dp s and thematic roles. vP is a functional superstructure of vp while cp is the functional superstructure of tp. The agreement features [φ] percolate from cp down to tp, vP and vp. This leads to the following concept of the sentence structure (cf. Mecner 2017):

The simple C₋T₋v₋V notation system used in the Minimalist Program literature should not be treated as a faithful reflection of syntactic structures but rather as a schematic representation of the more complex cartographic structures. C, T, v here stand for the respective functional areas. The phrases tp, vP, vp are more specific projections within the inflectional level ip. For the sake of clarity of the analysis and description, these three projections are often not mentioned explicitly and the overarching expression i-domain is used instead. Rizzi (1997: 286–287) analyzes the left periphery of a sentence and integrates the features Topic and Focus1 into syntax by including them in the cp projection

1 There are various definitions as well as types of Topic and Focus. An overview of these is provided for example by Krifka (2006). Through relations between Topic and Focus the informational value of a sentence is expressed. Information structure is the way in which old and new information creates the background of language interaction. Topic is generally the element talked about and concerns the syntactic constituents which complete the information about the existing conceptual focal point. Focus is the element carrying new information

206

pilarski

as the information-carrying functional categories. He postulates the following heads in the cp area: illocution or sentence type (Force), finiteness (Fin) like tense and mood (Rizzi 2004: 6). Focus is situated between Force and Fin. Rizzi (1997) assumes the following division in the proposed projections: [ForceP Forceº [TopP` Topº [FocP Focº [TopP Topº [FinP Finº [ip … According to Belletti (1999: 13; 2004: 16), Focus as a functional category is surrounded by topic projections. FocP (Focus Phrase) and vP are functional projections in which the nominative case is assigned and agreement features are checked in specifier positions (agreement in [φ]-features). Belletti (2004) further assumes that the cp and ip have the same structure. The left sentence periphery (cp) has its counterpart in the ip, which is referred to as a sentenceinternal periphery, i.e., it has a FocP projection, which is surrounded by TopP (Topic Phrase) projections. Both TopP and FocP are correlated with each other. The movement of phrases into the appropriate position has consequences for the semantic interpretation (lf). In the study presented here, the assumption is that the position of constituents in interrogative sentences, including the wh-word position in questions, with respect to lexical features is parametrized by functional categories. Lexical categories together with the superordinate functional projections are the focus of analysis in hierarchical structures. In accordance with Chomsky (1993), phrases build structured sequences of lexical elements, which are represented as sets of features. A lexicon entry is specified by phonological and semantic, as well as inflectional features. Every functional head has simple features specification. The features of functional heads belong to the so-called non-interpretable features (Grewendorf 2002: 156–158). According to one of the essential hypotheses of the Minimalist Program, the syntactic movement operations, which lead to a specific word order, take place only when they serve to check the features (the feature-checking process) (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2008). While functional heads are only checking heads, and concerns the constituent of the sentence to which attention is paid in the utterance. It is marked in different ways in various languages, for instance via stress, word order or morphological marking. As shown by Sabel (2006) [Focus]-features play a morphosyntactic role in the derivation of a wh-question. Depending on the object of research, however, there are various conceptions concerning the types and relations between Topic and Focus (e.g. for Germanic languages among others Abraham 1992, 2005), Reis (1999), for Yiddish among others Prince (1989), and the research perspective such as cartographic approaches by Rizzi (1997, 2004) and Belletti (1999, 2004).

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

207

lexical heads contain only the features to be checked. When the features of the lexical element and the functional head match, the features of the functional head are deleted and as the effect of the deletion, morphological exponents appear. (Chomsky 1993: 12–13, Grewendorf 2002: 158–168).2 The effect of feature checking and movement operations can be illustrated with the following example: (1) dos bux hot gešribn Odem. the.n book.top has written Adam ‘Adam wrote this book.’ (Mecner 2017) The element dos bux ‘this book’ has to have two interpretations: as an argument with a theta- role assigned by the verb šrajbn ‘write’ and as a contrastive topic of the whole structure. The theta-role is assigned in a close dependency relation, i.e., it is assigned by the verbal head Vº. The position in the left periphery is the carrier of the topical information. From this, it follows that there is also a functional head Topº, which activates the respective node (TopP). Its property is to interpret the topical information. Each structure head has only one property and one head cannot have two properties simultaneously: to assume a thematic role and be a topic of a whole structure. Feature checking takes place in a specific head. The constituent dos bux ‘this book’ is the specifier of topical interpretation. Having reached the Topº position in the left periphery, it left a trace (notation t)3 in the structural V position. The example provided above has the following structural representation: [cp … [Spec-top dos bUXi [Top° [… hot gešribn Odem … [vp …. ti]]]]] [cp … [Spec-top the book i [ Top° [… has written Odem … [vp …. ti]]]]] ‘Adam wrote this book.’ Here, I adopt the assumption of Sabel (2000, 2006) and Dikken (2003) that the wh-movement can be motivated either by a [wh]-[interrogative]-feature or by a [Focus]-feature or by both. The parametrized characteristics of the functional categories in a language are crucial for the checking process. Therefore, appropriate positions with functional categories in ip and cp have to be cre-

2 If the features do not match, the processing fails due to the Principle of Full Interpretation at the semantic interface (Grewendorf 2002: 156). 3 The moved constituent and the trace are co-indexed with the same index. Traces make it possible to reconstruct the original position of a given constituent (cf. Grewendorf, Hamm & Sternefeld 1996: 243).

208

pilarski

ated for the [wh]-[interrogative]- or [Focus]-features of the wh-phrases to be checked (Grewendorf 2002: 119). Depending on the order of the wh-phrases after the wh-movement and following Sabel (2006: 149) and his classification of languages with respect to how simple wh-questions4 are built, we can distinguish between wh-ex-situ languages, wh-in-situ languages, and languages with an optional wh-movement, i.e., the ones in which both wh-word positions are possible.5 In the cp phrase structure, feature checking of other elements in interrogative sentences—such as the finite verb, conjunctions, the subject, and etc.—by respective functional categories also plays an important role. Such checking leads to specific positioning of these elements in linear reading. When the possibilities of wh-movement in the cp in Yiddish are examined and compared with Polish and German, a conclusion can be reached as to whether Yiddish is a wh-ex-situ language, a wh-in-situ language, or one with optional wh-movement and as to whether Yiddish is similar to Polish or German in this respect. The question asked here is about the cp configuration accounting for the grammatical structure of the direct interrogative sentences in Yiddish and the way in which this configuration correlates with the cp structure of analogous interrogative sentences in Polish. In other words, it can be said that the cp phrase functions as a marker of grammatical organization in mental systems. An explanation of its structure and functioning will make it possible to determine to what extent Yiddish was influenced by Polish. The analysis of the cp organization will consist of a comparison of the interrogative sentence structure in Yiddish with the structure of such sentences in Polish and German.

4 The term simple question refers here to a question which contains only one wh-phrase. Sabel (2006) starts with an analysis of simple questions and attempts to apply it to wh-questions with more than one fronted wh-phrase. 5 As an example of a wh-in situ language Sabel (2006: 151) following Huang (1981) gives Chinese, in which wh-phrase obligatorily remains in its original position: John mai-le sheme? John bought what, ‘What did John buy?’. Sabel (2006: 149–152) describes a wh-in situ and wh-ex situ language using Madagascan and French as examples. Following Keenan (1976) and Pensalfini (1995) he presents examples of questions in Madagascan, in which the wh-word inona (eng. what) can stand in its original position: Mividy inona Rabe?, Buys what Rabe, ‘What does Rabe buy in the shop?’ (Sabel 2006: 150) or is fronted when the particle no is added: Inona no vidin- dRabe ___ ?, What [particle] buys Rabe, ‘What does Rabe buy in the shop?’ (Sabel 2006: 150). Following Rizzi (1996) he points to the fact that the optional fronting of the wh-phrases only pertains to direct interrogative sentences: Elle a rencontré qui?, She met whom, ‘Whom did she meet?’, Qui a-t elle rencontré?, ‘Whom did she meet?’ (Sabel 2006: 152). In indirect interrogative sentences the wh-word has to be fronted: Je ne sais pas [cp qui [ip elle a rencontré ___ ]], *Je ne sais pas [cp [ip elle a rencontré qui]], I don’t know, whom she met, *I don’t know, she met whom, (Sabel 2006: 152).

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

209

The analysis is not to be viewed as a corpus study and a comparison of a large collection of language data. The aim of this study is to explain the parametric features of the cp phrase, which controls the sequences of elements in the sentences under investigation. The criterion of acceptance of a given language structure by the native speaker plays an important role in the pursuit of the research material. I assume that the collected language data stemming from literary texts, press releases, and didactic texts fulfill the criterion of acceptance. The comparative analysis of the cp phrase parametric features will be conducted on the basis of the following phenomena: – the position of the finite verb in interrogative sentences, – the position of interrogative particles (wh-words and interrogative particle tsi) in relation to the finite verb, – the position of individual wh-words in questions with multiple wh-words, – the position of interrogative particles in indirect questions.

3

Analysis

3.1 Direct Interrogative Sentences in Yiddish The direct interrogative sentences in Yiddish investigated here first are the ones known as wh-questions as opposite to the type of yes-no questions.6 When the syntax of these is analyzed, it can be noticed that the sentences under consideration reveal different positioning of constituents. Hence a fixed and traditional V2 word order, stemming from High German, can be determined: the wh-questions are characterized by the wh-word occupying the initial position (V2), as in (2) and in the yes-no questions, the initial position is occupied by the finite verb (V1), illustrated in (3). (2) vi ruft men dem ort? how calls ndef the.acc.m place ‘What is the place called?’ (Weissberg 1988: 160) (3) host šojn gezen majn guf? have.2.sg already seen my body? ‘Have you seen my body yet?’ (Weissberg 1988: 157) 6 Jacobs (2005: 227) concerning wh-questions also uses the term constituent questions. In Polish and German terminology there is also a differentiation between yes-no questions (or polar questions) (G. Entscheidungsfragen; P. pytania rozstrzygające), and wh-questions (G. Ergänzungsfragen; P. pytania uzupełniające).

210

pilarski

However, under careful consideration, it can also be noticed that a question can take the form of a declarative statement, as indicated in (4) (Weissberg 1988: 157). In such case, the correct interpretation of the sentence depends on the intonation or an addition of the speech act intensifier ha? or ajo?. In the examples provided by Weissberg (1988: 157–158), the speech act intensifier ha? stands at the end of a sentence (5). The speech act intensifier ayo can be placed either at the beginning (6) or at the end of a sentence (7). This can even lead to the V3 word order, as shown in (6). (4) du bist an arumforndiker? you are.sg a round.traveling.nmz.m ‘Are you a traveler?’ (Groh 2000: 46) (5) ir zent a student, ha? you.for are.2.for a student int ‘You are a student, yes?’ (Groh 2000: 48) (6) ajo, ir kent jidiš? int you.for know.2.for Yiddish ‘So, you know Yiddish?’ (Schaechter 1986: B. 102) (7) ir kent jidiš, ajo? you.2.for know.2.for Yiddish int ‘You know Yiddish, yes?’ (Schaechter 1986: B. 102) Moreover, a yes-no question in Yiddish can be built with the application of the question particle ci ‘if, whether.’7 farštejt er španiš? (8) ci ptcl.ynq understands he Spanish ‘Does he understand Spanish?’ (Jacobs 2005: 229) The Yiddish language manifests a particular way of constructing questions concerning the past. Namely, in the perfect tense form, the auxiliary verb can be omitted. In such a case the non-finite verb (a part of the predicate) seems to take over the position of the finite auxiliary verb in the sentence.8 7 The Yiddish question particle tsi in direct questions has in fact no equivalent in English since both if and whether are only used to introduce indirect questions. 8 In the German language this type of constructions are referred to as afinite Konstruktionen,

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

211

(9) šojn gezen di šul? already seen the.sg.f synagogue ‘Have you seen the synagogue yet?’ (Groh 2000: 48) When wh-questions are examined, the following additional phenomena can be noticed. In a Yiddish interrogative sentence, the wh-word can be placed after the subject (10) or the object (which is not asked about in the question) (11) while the subject or the object is moved to the front to the preverbal position. vos vilst? (10) du you.sg what want ‘You want what?’ (Groh 2000: 47) (11) mit dem ojto vu fort ir? with the.dat.n car where go.2.pl you.pl ‘You are going where by car?’ (Groh 2000: 47) Furthermore, in Yiddish, more than one wh-word can be moved to the front to the preverbal position (12) (Multiple fronting), (Diesing 2004: 200–205). Fronting of only one wh-word (Single fronting) (Schallert 2007: 20–21) is also not excluded (13). In the case of multiple fronting, it is the wh-phrase concerning the subject that is fronted. The position of wh-words presented in example (12) is only possible when both syntactic arguments (theta-roles) are expressed by wh-words, compare: (14) with (15).9 This phenomenon will be further explained in the Results section.

which owing to their comprehensiveness used to be a characteristic feature of administrative and legal texts. Schönherr (2018: 555–579) shows that such constructions can be analyzed in elliptic or emphatic contexts, in which they fulfill various pragmatic functions and are used to express fine meaning facets. Therefore they should rather be viewed as phenomena of certain text genres and not as phenomena of everyday speech. Examples and possible meaning of these constructions in Yiddish are provided and elaborated on by Geller (2008a), who presents the possible impact of Polish language on them. Further in the chapter these constructions shall be examined from generative perspective. 9 The focus here is only on the questions about obligatory arguments, i.e. on syntactic constructions as in the examples provided in the text. Questions about facultative arguments, for instance in constructions with the conjunction un as in Farvos un vi azoj hot er es geton? ‘How and why did he do it?’, which can actually be considered an elliptic connection of clauses and which show similar properties in Polish and German, lie outside the scope of the chapter.

212

pilarski

(12) ver vos hot gekojft? who.m what has bought ‘Who bought what?’ (Diesing 2004: 200) (13) ver hot vos gekojft? who.m has what bought ‘Who bought what?’ (Schallert 2007: 21) (14) ver hot gekojft dos hojz? who.m has bought the.n house ‘Who bought the house?’ (15) *ver dos hojz hot gekojft? who.m the.n house has bought ‘Who bought the house?’ The analysis of the interrogative grammar in Yiddish in comparison with Polish and German indicates that the structural features of the wh-questions are a result of the impact of the yes-no question structure. The position of the finite verb is the most significant factor here. Therefore, when the wh-movement is analyzed and elaborated on, it is necessary to determine the position of the finite verb and to closely examine the structure of the yes-no questions. 3.2 Polish and German Counterparts When the examples of the Yiddish direct interrogative sentences presented above are compared with interrogative sentences in Polish and German, we notice that the Yiddish language reveals a bundle of structural features which appertain to its two parent languages. There is an observable structural similarity of direct questions in Yiddish to equivalent questions in both German and Polish. In all of them the verb takes the V2 position in wh-questions and the V1 position in yes-no questions. (16) Y. vos

lejnt

(17) G. Was liest what reads

di

froj

hajnt in

park?

die Frau heute im Park? the.f woman today in.dat park

(18) P. Co czyta ta kobieta dziś w parku? what reads.npfv this.f woman today in park.loc ‘What is the woman reading today in the park?’ (Jacobs 2005: 228)

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

(19) Y. vet

er

(20) G. Wird will

er etwas finden? he.m something find

epes

213

gefinen?

(21) P. Znajdzie (on) coś? find.3.sg.pfv.fut (he) something ‘Will he find something?’ (Auwera & Gybels 2013: 196) The lack of a phonological exponent for the subject10 in Polish makes it possible to interpret it as being present in the preverbal position. If this assumption is accepted, then when intonation is taken into consideration, its use makes the sv order in the Yiddish and Polish interrogative sentences possible but not so in German. (22) Y. er farštejt

španiš?

(23) G. *Er versteht

Spanisch ?

(24) P. On rozumie hiszpański? he understands Spanish ‘He understands Spanish?’ (Jacobs 2005: 229) When the position of the question words with respect to the finite verb is considered, in both Yiddish and German, the basic word order in whquestion is the V2 order, while in Polish the subject can also be positioned before the verb (it can be fronted) in wh-questions, as shown in (31).

10

In Polish the first- and second-person pronouns are typically omitted and their use is considered marked, not neutral. The reason for the absence of this phenomenon in Yiddish is explained in Geller (2008a). Pronominal constructions are regular in Western Slavic languages. Omission of the third-person pronoun is not a regular phenomenon but possible if the logical interpretation of a given sentence permits it. In generative terms: the position with an absent phonological exponent of the subject is filled with an empty category pro, which carries pronominal features, and the Polish language is referred to as a pro-drop (‘pronoun-dropping’) language. Since the chapter does not include a description of Yiddish with respect to its nature as a pro-drop or non-pro-drop language (cf. Prince 1998b), the discussion on the topic of pro-category shall not be pursued.

214

pilarski

(25) Y. vu

lejnt

di

froj

di

cajtung

hajnt?

(26) G. Wo liest where reads

die the.f

Frau die Zeitung heute? woman the.f newspaper today

(27) P. Gdzie czyta where reads

kobieta dziś woman today

gazetę? newspaper.acc

(28) P. Gdzie kobieta czyta dziś gazetę? where woman reads today newspaper.acc ‘Where is the woman reading the newspaper today?’ (Jacobs 2005: 228) The V2 word order typical for German is preserved in the Yiddish yes-no interrogative sentences, which are recognizable as questions owing to the application of an appropriate intonation and the use of the question particle ci. (29) ci meg men zi gletn? ptcl.ynq can ndef her stroke ‘Can one stroke her?’ (Weissberg 1988: 158) The fixed V2 word order is not a typical feature of Polish. However, when a Yiddish yes-no question is compared with its German and Polish counterparts as in (30–32), we can notice that the Yiddish sentence with the V2 word order is compatible with the Polish word order (question in a form of a statement and question with ci). The insertion of the question particle ci in the Yiddish sentence is also a feature of a yes-no question in Polish and is derived from the Polish czy. (30) Y. ci meg ptcl.ynq can

men zi gletn? ndef her stroke

(31) G.

man sie streicheln? ndef her stroke

∅

Darf can

(32) P. Czy można ją pogłaskać? ptcl.ynq can.imprs.pass her stroke.pfv ‘Can one stroke her?’ (Weissberg 1988: 158) The Yiddish yes-no questions also resemble the modern Polish sentence structure in the omission of the auxiliary (finite) verb as a predicate part in the

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

215

perfect tense form.11 The lexical (main) verb appears in its past form (here as a participle) as a sole expression of the past form. (33) Y. ništ gelegt not laid

kejn none

tfiln? phylacteries

(34) P. Nie założył żadnych filakterii? not on.laid.3.sg.m none.acc.pl phylacteries ‘Has he not put on any phylacteries?’ (Weissberg 1988: 159) Similar to Polish and unlike in German, Multiple fronting is allowed in Yiddish. Moreover, in Yiddish and Polish interrogative sentences not only more than one wh-word but also a different obligatory (35–37) or facultative argument (38–40) or particle (41–43) can be fronted.12 (35) Y. ver

vuhin

gejt?

(36) G. *Wer wohin

geht?

(37) P. Kto dokąd idzie? who where.dir goes ‘Who goes where?’ (Diesing 2004: 200) (38) Y.

di the.f

lecte last.f

cajt time

(39) G. *In der letzten Zeit in the.dat.f last.dat.f time

vos hot ir geton? what have.form you.form done was haben Sie gemacht? what have.form you.form done

(40) P. W ostatnim czasie co Państwo robili? in last.inst.m time.inst what you.form did.npfv.form ‘What have you been doing recently?’ (Rozenfeld, spoken, May 28. 2019)13

11

12 13

It is to be noted that in modern Polish language as spoken today there is formally no perfect tense as analytical form. In diachronic perspective, however, a transition can be observed from an analytical form of past tense with an auxiliary verb to a synthetic form in which the participle adopts the function of finite verb (cf. Geller 2008a: 688). In such case the verb stands even in the third position in a sentence. I would like to thank Anna Rozenfeld, for pointing me to some of the examples.

216

pilarski

(41) Y. to

farvos gejst

du

on

hojzn?

(42) G. *Dann warum gehst

du

ohne

Hose?

(43) P To czemu chodzisz bez spodni? then why go.2.sg you.2.sg without pants ‘Then/so why are you going around without pants?’ (Jacobs 2005: 229) The examples provided above show that the position of the verb is not crucial in forming interrogative sentences in Yiddish or Polish. Among the encountered possibilities of syntactic configurations of interest in this study are the ones that concern not the position of the verb but the position of both the interrogative word and constituents relevant for the interpretation of the question, also including the verb.

4

Results

4.1 A cp Split in Yiddish in Comparison to Polish and German From the generative perspective the observed variation concerning the position of elements relevant for interrogative sentences, e.g. of the particle ci or of the wh-elements in direct interrogative sentences in Yiddish, can be ascribed to the parametric features within the universal cp structure. Hence, the following questions require an in-depth explanation: What positions does the cp provide, which license, on the one hand, a preverbal and, on the other hand, a post-verbal position of the question words, and which constrain free placing of the wh-phrases in the left periphery? Is the cp structure in Yiddish compatible with the one found in Polish or German? If an answer to the above-posited questions is to be found, the issue of what features trigger the movement of wh-phrases into the cp area and how these features correlate with the structure of the cp have to be considered. In the further part of the analysis I adopt for the German language the cp phrase structure formulated on the basis of examination of German-language sentences in many recent publications (Fanselow & Felix 1993; Grewendorf, Hamm & Sternefeld 1996; Vater 2002; Abraham 2005). The cp area corresponds with the left sentence bracket in the topological fields theory. A SpecCP position is postulated owing to the sov word order in the German language. The SpecCP position is used for the subject or a topicalized phrase (argumentation by Travis 1991 that in German main clauses with

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

217

ovs word order there occurs a movement into the cp) with simultaneous raising of the finite verb into the C° position in statements in German (Grewendorf, Hamm & Sternefeld 1996: 214, Vater 2002: 128). In case of questions this position is occupied by the wh-word. In German, only one phrase can be found in the Spec-cp position, which is either a wh-phrase or a topicalized or focalized phrase. The C° head in such case serves as a checker. Hence the top or foc features have to be situated in the C° head. The postulate that the [Focus]-feature is located in C° in German is put forward by Sabel (2006: 167). (44) [cp [Spec-cp Was [C’ [C°[Fok] hat [ip Franz_ _ gegessen]]]]]? what has Franz_ _eaten ‘What did Franz eat?’ When it comes to the variation of position of wh-phrases in the Yiddish and Polish direct interrogative sentences, a unified cp structure with a split into top and foc projection can be postulated for both languages. As shown by Mecner (2017) using the example of Yiddish construction with postverbal subject, such a split in the cp correlates with the split into top and foc projection of the ip. In the light of the more recent approaches that posit case checking by Focus (Belletti 1999, 2004; Belletti, Bennati & Sorace 2007; Mecner 2017), it can be namely assumed that in Yiddish and Polish, checking case and agreement features of the subject np can take place in the Spec position of the foc projection of the I domain. Sentences with the post-verbal position of subject np s can serve here as a corroboration of this assumption.14 It is visible here that the final position of the subject np is a neutral position, i.e. the subject np does not carry contrastive stress.15 This provides evidence against positive marking of features in the cp in both languages.

14 15

If the subject np is placed in the FocP projection of the I domain, then it stands at the end of the sentence. As Mecner (2017) shows, the postverbal position of the subject np influences the sentenceinitial position in a way that contrastive stress is no longer applicable: ‘s’hot zix gehert a farštikt špiln.’ it has itself heard a muffled playing, ‘A muffled (sound of) playing was to be heard’ (Mecner 2017, example 30a). Mecner (2017) to show the difference also presents configurations in which contrastive stress intended by the speaker is put, such as in the case of causative transitive verbs with stressed final subject position: dos bux hot gešribn odem. The book has written Adam, ‘adam wrote the book.’ (Mecner 2017, example 4a).

218

pilarski

(45) Y. treft

zix amol

a nes.

(46) P. Zdarza się czasem cud. happens rfl sometimes a miracle ‘A miracle happens sometimes’ (Landmann 1992: 294)16 Mecner (2017) places the top and foc projection between C and tp and shows that the cp area can be activated or deactivated. Decisive for the latter is checking features in relation to Spec-head in the deep focp area. The Focus area of the C domain is not activated when checking features occurs in the focp of tp, from which the focalization of the subject np in the post-verbal position obviously results (48, 49). Following Mecner’s (2017) argumentation a following structure of cp (47a) and ip (47b) can be suggested: (47a)

16

(47b)

However, if the subject np which is talked about takes the preverbal position, then it is stressed.

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

219

The following observations provide arguments for the unified structuring of the cp: the first remark concerns the fact that both Yiddish and Polish reveal visible Focus morphology in the moved wh-phrases. Namely, when a wh-movement occurs, at the same time a focus-particle can be realized. This is noticeable in the interrogative sentences in which a particle is connected with the wh-phrase. (48) Y. vos-že tut men? what.int does ndef ‘What on earth is happening?’ (Mecner 2017) (49) P. Cóż17 on robi? what.int he does.npfv ‘What on earth is he doing?’ In this case the particle realizes the [Focus]-feature. Consequently, the moved wh-phrase, which contains the [Focus]-feature, is situated in the foc projection. Moreover, it is apparent that the phrase can be accompanied by a non-whphrase in the top position, which is characteristic for the syntax of the Polish language (52) and does not occur in the German idiom. If the particle stays in the position after the verb, the result is an ungrammatical sentence (53), (54). This phenomenon justifies the postulate of the split of the cp area into topp and focp. (50) Y. to vos-že zol so what.int should

men ton? ndef do

(51) P. To cóż trzeba zrobić? do so what.int must. imprs.pass ‘What on earth should we do now?’ (Landmann 1992: 289) (52) Y. *to vos zol so what should

17

men že ton? ndef int do

Although it might seem that the form cóż-że would be a better translation of the Yiddish form vos že reflecting the presence of the focus particle, the Polish form cóż is actually more accurate and more commonly used. It is an enclitic form of the phrase co że, which is an equivalent of the Yiddish vos že.

220

pilarski

(53) P. *To co trzeba że zrobić? so what must. imprs.pass int do ‘What on earth should we do now?’ Positive evidence for two separate top and foc projections in Yiddish and Polish is provided by interrogative sentences with the focus particle ci / czy. In both languages the yes-no questions with but also without (33) the focus-particle ci / czy are grammatically correct. If the particle is used, focp has to be activated for it. The particle is situated in the SpecFOCP position of focp in the cp area. The focus-particle ci / czy is placed in a yes-no question for interpretative reasons. Namely, it constrains the potential possibilities of interpretation of the sentences as the particle differentiates a declarative sentence from the interrogative one, since in both languages declarative sentences with verb in the initial position are possible (59); (60). This makes unambiguous interpretation difficult. The use of the question particle allows to eliminate potential misunderstandings in the interpretation of a given sentence as a yes-no question (Pilarski 2017: 137). (54) Y. ci

vojnt

do

di

almone Švarc?

(55) P. Czy mieszka tu wdowa Szwarc? ptcl.ynq lives here the.f widow Schwarz (56) Y. (57) P.

vojnt

do

di

almone Švarc?

Mieszka tu wdowa Szwarc? lives here the.f widow Schwarz ‘Does the widow Schwarz live here?’ (Landmann 1992: 296)

(58) Y. iz gekumen der vinter un`z gevorn is come.ptcp.prf the winter and.is become.ptcp.prf (59) P.

Przyszła came.3.pfv.f

zima i winter and

šreklex kalt. terribly cold

stało się strasznie zimno. became.3.imprs.pfv.n rfl terribly cold

The next argument for the assumption that the cp area in Yiddish was parametrized under the language influence of Polish is provided by the Yiddish interrogative sentences with non-finite verb forms and postverbal focalized phrases.

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

221

(60) Y. geblibn a šnajder? remained.ptcp.prf a tailor (61) P. (Po)został krawcem? tailor.inst remained.3.pfv.m ‘He remained a tailor?’ (Weissberg 1988: 159) It is evident from the sentences presented above that the wh-movement is connected with the special [Focus]-morphology of the verb. Firstly, in such questions there is no auxiliary verb. Secondly, fronting of the non-finite verb requires the focalized phrase to remain in the in situ position. For the first observation, a following explanation can be suggested at this point: in this case, we notice a direct transfer of the structure formation and structural context of questions in the simple past in Polish. It has no perfect tense form. The loss of the simple past form in Yiddish leads in the process of the Polish structure transfer into the formation of questions to a reduction of the content-empty auxiliary verb in favor of the semantically interpretable past participle (G. Partizip ii). The participle serves to mark the past form. The convergence of the discussed Yiddish question form with Polish and the fixation of it naturally has consequences for the structure of the cp area. In parallel with the cp area in Polish, where the fronted verb occupies the C° position, it can be argued for the occupation of the C° position by the fronted past participle in the Yiddish interrogative sentence. In such a case, it can be viewed as a default form, which is connected with a non-marked auxiliary and forms a compound with it. Consequently, checking the agr and fin features in the C° position would take place with the application of the invisible operation, i.e., the one at the level of Logical Form (65), (66). If the verb is in the default form, no overt subject marking occurs. This observation can be confirmed in the discussed interrogative sentences where no subject marking takes place. Due to the absence of visible Finiteness of the fronted participle a second solution can also be suggested. The participle could be located in the SpecFOC position and consequently its [Focus]-features might be checked in the foc-cp projection (65). With this notion, checking the agr and fin features in the C° position would have to, at any rate, take place with the aid of the non-marked auxiliary. With this assumption the split of the cp node into the topp and focp projections is an unavoidable necessity. An explanation of the second observation is provided in Yiddish by the fact that the [Focus]-features can be realized in two structural positions: in the focp of tp and focp of cp. Just like in Polish (64) the checking of the [Focus]-

222

pilarski

features of a šnajder ‘a tailor’ in the Yiddish interrogative sentence (63), (65) occurs in the deep focp of tp. Consequently, the foc projection in the cp area does not have to be activated.18 (62) Y. [cp-top—[cp-foc [cp-C° ∅+geblibnj [cp ∅ [ip [ip-top [ip-T tj [ip-fok remained.ptcp.prf (63) P. [cp-top—[cp-foc [cp-C° (Po)zostałj [cp ∅ [ip [ip-top [ip-T tj [ip-fok remained.3.pfv.m

a šnajder]]]]]]]]? a tailor krawcem]]]]]]]]? tailor.inst

(64) Y. [cp-top—[cp-foc

geblibnj [cp-C° ∅ [ip [ip-top [ip-T tj [ip-fok a šnajder]]]]]]]? remained.ptcp.prf a tailor ‘He remained a tailor?’

The last argument in support of two separate top and foc projections is provided by Yiddish and Polish questions in which, besides a wh-phrase, a nonwh-phrase is additionally contained in the cp area. (65) Y. [cp kejn Amerike in America

ven [cp kumst-u when come.2.sg.you

[ip …]]]?

(66) P. [cp Do Ameryki kiedy [cp przyjedziesz [ip …]]]? to America.gen when come.2.sg.fut.pfv ‘When are you coming to America?’ (Rozenfeld, spoken, May 28, 2019) In this case it is noticeable that the wh-movement is an instance of the [Focus]movement. (67) Y. [cp-top mit di zaxni with the.pl things

[cp-foc vosj [cp tustuk what do.2.sg.you

[ip tk tj ti]]]]?

(68) P. [cp-top Z rzeczamii [cp-foc coj [cp zrobisz [ip tj ti]]]]? with things.inst what do.2.sg.fut.pfv ‘What are you doing with the stuff?’ (Rozenfeld, spoken, May 28, 2019)

If it were a topicalization movement, it would have to co-occur with a focalized constituent, which is not the case (71), (72). The examples in (70–73)

18

The postverbal phrase šnajder (eng. a tailor) can be, following Mecner (2017), viewed as a

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

223

show that focalization and wh-movement are mutually exclusive. In contrast to this, the topicalization and wh-movement result in the correct sentences (68), (69). (69) Y. *[cp-top vosi [cp-fok what (70) P. *[cp-top coi [cp-fok what

mit with z with

di the.pl tymi these.inst

(71) Y. *[cp-top [cp-foc vosi [cp-foc mit di what with the.pl

zaxnj [cp things rzeczamij [cp things.inst zaxnj things

tustuk [ip tk tj ti]]]]? do.2.sg.you zrobisz [ip tk tj ti]]]]? do.2.sg.fut.pfv

[cp tustuk do. 2.sg.you

[ip tk tj ti]]]]]?

(72) P. *[cp-top [cp-foc coi [cp-foc z tymi rzeczamij [cp zrobisz [ip tk tj ti]]]]]? what with these.inst things.inst do. 2.sg.fut.pfv

Both languages actually allow for multiple topicalization.19 (73) Y. [cp-top dem kuxn far der boben the.dat.m cake for the.acc.f grandmother P. [cp-top Ten this.m

placek dla cake for

babci grandmother.gen

[cp-foc ven [cp__ vestu ___ __ bakn]]]? when will. 2.sg.you __bake [cp-foc kiedy [cp__ upieczesz]]]? when bake.2.sg.fut.pfv ‘When will you bake the cake for grandmother?’. From the argumentation and examples provided above, it follows that the [Focus]-features play an important role in both languages and build their own projections.20 With the wh-movement a wh-element is moved into the specifier

19

20

focalized object of a non-causative verb or it can build a Small Clause in the sense of He is a tailor. This issue will not be further discussed here. In this case the topicalized dem kuxn / ten placek ‘the cake’ leaves behind a trace of itself in the ip. The phrase can also have its antecedent in the form of a resumptive pronoun in the situ position: dem kuxn far der boben ven vestu im bakn? / Ten placek dla babci kiedy go upieczesz? The cake for grandmother when will you it bake? ‘The cake for grandmother: when will you bake it?’ Analyses of the issue of participation of the [Focus]-features in the wh-movement in

224

pilarski

position (SpecFOCP) of the checking domain of the [Focus]-feature-carrying the foc° head. Due to constraints relating to the position of the wh-phrases in the split cp area, there also ensue predictions with respect to raising more than one whelement to the cp area. According to the postulate of Sabel (2006: 179), namely, in the case of multiple wh-word-fronting, the wh-elements form a so-called whcluster, i.e., a complex wh-constituent, which is triggered by the strong [Focus]features (Grewendorf & Sabel 1999, Grewendorf 2001). Consequently, it should be asked at this point whether the wh-elements in Yiddish and Polish conform to Sabel’s (2006) postulate. If the observation is to be agreed with that during the wh-movement in Yiddish and Polish [Focus]-features are checked in the focp, then the whelements in (46) represent the [wh]-[Focus]-feature, which is realized overtly.21 As examples in (40–45) show, in this process the parallel wh-top-[interrogative]-movement and focalization as well as more than one focalization are not possible. Similarly there is no positive evidence for the assumption that in the case of multiple wh-movements it is always a wh-[interrogative]- and the wh[Focus]-movement. Any repositioning of wh-phrases in the cp area namely leads to ungrammatical sentences in both languages. (74) Y. ver who

vuhin vet gejn mit where.dir will.3.sg go with

ajx you.pl

(75) Y. *vuhin ver vet gejn mit ajx? where.dir who will.3.sg go with you.pl ‘Who will go where with you?’ (Mark 1978: 380) (76) P. Kto who

dokąd będzie z wami iść? where.dir be.3.sg.fut with you.pl.inst go

(77) P. Dokąd kto będzie z wami iść? where.dir who be.3.sg.fut with you.pl.inst go ‘Who will go where with you?’

21

various languages can be found, among others, in: Culicover & Wilkins (1984); Sadock & Zwicky (1985); Rochemont 1986; Rooth (1992); Horvath (1997); Sabel (2000); Dikken (2003). An overt realization means visible raising and it results from checking of strong features. With respect to the strength of the features to be checked Chomsky (1993) proposes an overt, i.e. visible operation of checking, and the covert one, i.e. at the level of Logical Form.

225

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

Language examples in Yiddish and Polish show that in multiple questions all wh-elements are fronted together and consequently form the wh-cluster, which in both languages is situated in the SpecFOC position. (78) Y. [cp-top [cp-foc veri vuhinj [cp vet who where.dir will

[ip gejn mit go with

ajx tj ti]]? you.2.pl.dat

(79) P. [cp-top [cp-foc ktoi dokądj [cp będzie [ip z wami iść tj ti]]? who where.dir be.3.sg.fut with you.pl.inst go ‘Who will go where with you?’

However, at this point, an observation should not be disregarded that in interrogative sentences with multiple question pronouns in Yiddish one of the whwords, similarly to German (81), can appear at the beginning of the sentence while the other stays in its position after the verb (82), (83).22 Language evidence from Polish also shows that similar constructions can be built in this language (84). (80) G. [cp [SpevcP Weri [C’ [C°(Fo) wird [ip [vp wohin gehen tj ]]]]]? who will where.dir go ‘Who will go where?’ (81) Y. ver vet vuhin gejn who will where.dir go ‘Who will go where with you?’ (82) Y. ver hot vos who has what ‘Who bought what?’

mit ajx with you.pl.dat

gekojft? bought

(83) P. Kto zamierza dokąd dziś iść? who intends where.dir today go ‘Who intends to go where today?’ (Diesing 2004: 200)

22

Morphological exponents are recognizable as effects of the visible operation. However, the covert operations check the weak features, which are not visible in the pf representation. Detailed discussion on characteristic features of interrogative sentences with multiple question pronouns in German can be found in Grewendorf, Hamm & Sternefeld (1996); Grewendorf (2002); Grohmann (2003); Sabel (2006).

226

pilarski

On the basis of this observation, it can be argued for an optional cluster formation in Yiddish, which can be viewed as an effect of the Polish language influence. The possibility of such a cluster formation is connected with the fact that the Focus area of C domain in a declarative sentence in Yiddish can be activated optionally. Therefore, it can be assumed that this affects interrogative sentences. Consequently, the wh-phrase concerning the subject is situated in the tp projection, where the phrase checks its features in the Spec-head configuration. Hence, the other wh-phrase has to remain in the in situ position. (84) Y. [cp (/) [ip veri [I` vet ti vuhin gejn mit ajx]]]? who will where.dir go with you.pl.dat ‘Who will go where with you?’ (85) P. [cp (/) [ip Ktoi [I zamierza ti dokąd who intends where ‘Who intends to go where today?’

dziś iść? today go

4.2

Wh-Ex-Situ and Wh-In-Situ in Yiddish in Comparison with German and Polish On the basis of an obligatory movement of the wh-phrase—in sentences with neutral intonation and without semantic markedness—to the left periphery of a sentence, i.e. to the SpecCP-Position, Sabel (2006: 149–150) describes German as the wh-ex situ language. (86) G. [cp Was [C’ hat Hans __ gekauft]]? what has Hans bought __ was gekauft]]? (87) G. *[cp Hans [C` hat Hans has what bought ‘What has Hans bought?’ (Sabel 2006: 149) Similarly to German, the example sentences in Yiddish (89) and Polish (90) indicate that the wh-phrases do not remain in their original position. They appear outside their basic positions (ex situ), so they can also be classified as the wh-ex situ constructions. (88) Y. [cp vemens fačejle [C’ iz__ whose scarf is ‘Whose scarf is it?’ (Mark 1978: 247)

es]]? it

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

227

(89) P. [cp Co [C` robi__ Marysia]]? what does Maria ‘What is Maria doing?’ However, in contrast to German in the Yiddish (90) and Polish (91) interrogative sentences there occurs no regular movement into the cp area. Following Diesing (2004) and her analysis of verb positions in the interrogative sentences in Yiddish, raising of the question pronoun to the Spec-Tense position in the ip domain in the subject questions with ver / kto ‘who’ can be observed. (90) Y. [IP veri hot who has

[vp ti gegesn eaten

a brukve]]? a rutabaga

[vp ti brukiew]]? (91) P. [IP Ktoi jadł who ate.3.m.npfv rutabaga.acc ‘Who ate a rutabaga?’ (Diesing 2004) It can be assumed that the optional wh-movement to cp depends directly on the optional activation of the cp phrase in Yiddish and Polish. This leads to the conclusion that both languages can be described as idioms with an optional movement to cp. Therefore, it should, therefore, be checked in which configurations the wh-phrases remain in the i-domain and in which ones they are moved to the C-domain in direct questions. It should also be explained which functional categories in the i-domain take over feature checking of the elements responsible for the correct sentence interpretation. The analysis of direct interrogative sentences reveals that the movement of the wh-phrase to cp does not occur in the questions about the subject ver / kto ‘who’. This statement can be confirmed by following observations: first, there are arguments related to the svo basic word order in Polish for the SpecTP position of the i-domain being the subject position and for verb raising to the T° position from the Tense-Agreement Phrase in statements (Pilarski 2002, 2017). In the light of the varying, unstable data evidence from the Yiddish language concerning the svo / sov word order23 and following Bhatt & Yoon (1992) it can be assumed that the SpecTP position is the subject position and consequently the target position for the subject question pronoun in Yiddish (Pilarski 23

The svo word order is suggested by the case government directed invariably to the right: vajl derbaj kumt arajn → nejtike haxnose. (Forward [Šexter 2020]; 19.10.2013) [because this yields → necessary profit] ‘Because this yields the necessary profit.’ As Adams (1987: 12–17) demonstrates on the basis of examples from numerous languages, the direction of case government is to be seen as a general principle which is cor-

228

pilarski

2017). This is suggested by the yes-no questions which begin with the subject (93), (94), the wh-questions with the subject in the SpecTP position (95), (96), indirect interrogative sentences with the subject in the ip area (97), (98), or subordinate clauses embedded by a conjunction with the subject in the SpecTP position (99), (100). (92) Y. [TP [Spec-tp ir

[T° hert]]]?

(93) P. [TP [Spec-tp (Wy) [T° Słyszycie]]]?24 you.2.pl hear.2.pl ‘You hear (it)?’ (Auwera/ Gybels 2014: 200) [tp ti [SpecTP ir (94) Y. [cp vosj hoti you.2.pl what have.2.pl (95) P. [cp Coj [tp what ‘What did you say?’ (96) Y. ix vejs nit I know not (97) P.

[vp __ gezogt tj]]]? said

[SpecTP wy mówiliście [vp ti tj]]}? you.2.pl said.2.pl.npfv

[cp vosj [ip maks hot gegesn what Max has eaten

nie wiem [cp coj [ip Maks what Max not know.1.sg.npfv ‘I do not know what Max ate’ (Diesing 2004)

(98) Salita hot ibergegebn, Salita has over.given role …]]]]] role

[cp az [tp [Spec-tp religje that religion

[T° špilt plays

jadł ti]]. ate.3.sg.npfv

[vP a grojse a big.sg.f

(99) Salita powiedział, [cp że [tp [Spec-tp religia [T° odgrywa [vP Salita said.3.sg.pfv that religion plays.3.sg.npfv rolę …]]]]] role.acc ‘Salita said that religion played a big role …’ (Gellar 2013)

24

ti]].

dużą big.sg.acc

related with the following other syntactic characteristics such as free reversals in simple sentences, possibilities of extraction from embedded sentences initiated with a conjunction as well as simultaneous occurrence of conjunction and the wh-phrase in a sentence. These characteristics can be found in Yiddish and Polish. For discussion on this issue see Pilarski 2017. While it is true that in Polish as a pro-drop language the subject does not have to be phonologically marked, it is placed before the verb at the level of logical form.

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

229

Secondly, it can be assumed, following Mecner’s (2017) analysis of the final subject position in Yiddish, that in Yiddish and Polish the feature checking of the subject np takes place in the Spec position of the focp projection of the i-domain (compare example 45). An argument for the optionality of the wh-movement can also be provided by the interrogative sentences presented by Jacobs (2005: 227–229), in which the wh-phrase conditioned by the intonation appears to the right in its in situ position. lejent di cajtung vu? (100) die froj the.f woman reads the.f newspaper where ‘Where does the woman read the newspaper?’ (Jacobs 2005: 229) The use of contrastive stress and the position of the wh-phrase at the end of the sentence, in its in situ position can be observed in Polish as well. In both languages, this phenomenon is connected with the possibility of feature checking in the focp projection of the i-domain. z ciebie kogo? (101) Kobieta robi woman makes.npfv of you.gen whom ‘A woman makes what out of you?’ This is an argument for optional feature marking in cp in both languages.

5

Conclusions

The syntactic analysis of direct interrogative questions in Yiddish reveals differences when compared with German language but at the same time remarkable similarities with the Polish language. In our examination of the influence of the Polish language on the syntax of Yiddish, we applied the generative method as the analytical-diagnostic tool. The essence of generative research is to explain functioning of mental mechanism, which transformed and integrated the syntactic features of both German and Polish language systems in the course of the development of Yiddish. In generative perspective the linear order of elements in a sentence results from the grammatical organization present in mental structures. Since the mental mechanism is inaccessible to direct observation, certain schemata are formulated. The analysis of linguistic structures at hand was conducted with the application of the C₋T₋v₋V system based on the cartographic schema. The

230

pilarski

focus of attention here was on the left periphery of the sentence schema, i.e. on the cp phrase, and the hypothesis was that the cp is split into the top and foc projection. The position of sentence relevant elements in the C₋T₋v₋V system was also important. It is evident from the comparison of Yiddish direct interrogative sentences with their German and Polish counterparts that the structure of the Yiddish interrogative sentences is strongly influenced by Polish syntax. The descriptive assessment of the data made it possible to observe a broad range of syntactic variations of the wh-word position in Yiddish. The most important characteristics are: – focalization of the subject phrase in the preverbal position (compare example (22), (24)), – incorporation of the question particle ci / czy from the Polish language in yes-no questions (compare example (30), (32)), – reduction of the analytical perfect-tense form in favor of using the participle to mark the past form with focalized np s (compare example (61), (62)), – addition of a focus-particle že /że to the wh-phrase in the preverbal position (compare example (49), (50)), – parallel fronting of an np and a wh-phrase (compare example (38), (40)), – optional multiple wh-fronting (compare example (35), (37)), The investigation of the structure of the compared interrogative sentences allows for their inclusion into a broader functional frame of discourse. The variation of the wh-word positions can be explained by broadening of the left periphery of the sentence structure, i.e., of the cp projection. The movement of the wh-phrases to the cp leads to an assumption that the three analyzed languages can be classified as the wh-ex situ languages. Broadening of the left periphery is realized by the split of the cp system into the top and foc projection, in which the [Focus]- and wh- [interrogative]features are checked accordingly. [cp-top—[cp-foc [cp-C° [cp [ip [ip-top [ip-T [ip-foc ]]]]]]]]? The differences in the distribution of the wh-words in Polish and Yiddish show that the [Focus]-features are responsible for the formation of interrogative sentences. With respect to the position in which the [Focus]-feature can be realized, it can be observed that while the feature in the German language is checked in the functional head C°, it is checked in the functional head of the foc projection in Yiddish and Polish. Consequently, in German only one phrase is situated in the SpecCP position: either a wh-phrase or a topicalized / focal-

convergence of syntactic structures of yiddish and polish

231

ized phrase, while in Yiddish and Polish more than one phrase can be situated there (compare example (44) with (68), (69)). The cp, perceived as branching of the C node into top and focp, is parametrized in Polish and Yiddish in such a way that the respective projections can be activated or deactivated. In German, in contrast, the left periphery is always filled. Activation or deactivation of the topp and focp in the cp is harmonized with the split of the ip into topp and focp. Thus, a visible movement of the wh-phrase is thus motivated by the strong [Focus]-feature either in the focp of the cp or in the focp of the ip. The [Focus]-feature can also be consequently also be generated in the tp (compare example (93), (94)). In both Yiddish and Polish interrogative sentences with more than one whphrase, in contrast to German, all wh-elements can form a cluster. In such case they are moved together to the focp of the cp for the purpose of checking their [Focus]-features (compare example (79), (80) with (81)). Additionally in Yiddish and Polish it is possible to check the [Focus]-features behind the verb in the in situ projection, which makes it possible to describe both languages as wh-in situ languages (compare example (101), (102)). In conclusion it can be stated that the impact of Slavic languages, including Polish, on the Yiddish language has led to an interesting set of parametric features in Yiddish. In this chapter I demonstrate that the cp phrase in direct interrogative sentences in Yiddish is split in a similar way as in the Polish language. Therefore, in the linear reading similar structures can be found. Both languages optionally activate the cp area, which makes it possible to classify them as languages with optional wh-movement. The study of the Yiddish interrogative sentences is undoubtedly worth pursuing, especially with an extension of the scope to include indirect interrogative sentences as well. This will allow for explanation of the C-T-v-V system functioning more comprehensively and its expansion to include further parametric features. To this end, it also seems worthwhile to examine the Yiddish interrogative sentences in comparison with other Slavic languages, such as Ukrainian and Belarusian, which also played a significant role in shaping and developing the Yiddish language.

chapter 7

Yiddish as Donor Language for Polish Michał Gajek

1

Introduction

Although the volume at hand is devoted to the Slavic influence on Yiddish, it bears reminding that while language contact may be asymmetrical, it is rarely one-sided. As it can already be inferred from Chapter 2, Polish was in contact with Yiddish for at least five centuries. During that time, circumstances arose that also promoted transfer from the Jewish vernacular to Polish as a co-territorial majority language. However, the subject of this influence has so far received relatively little attention. There is still a lot to be explored when it comes to Yiddish influence on Polish or the Slavic languages in general. The primary aim of this chapter is to present what can be learned about this influence by applying the contact-linguistic approach. I will also attempt to show some conclusions on the reciprocal impact of low-variety languages on the high-variety ones. I will introduce the topic with a brief overview of the available literature. In the subsequent section, I will outline the contact situation from the perspective of Polish as the recipient language, in accordance with the contact-linguistic theory, as described in Chapter 2. Next, I will present the methodological challenges and some solutions. Afterwards, I will summarize the results of my own studies on Yiddish loanwords in Polish. Finally, I will attempt to put the conclusions from the analysis of the said material into the perspective of what is known of similar contact situations. 1.1 Study of Yiddish Influence on Polish1 The subject of this chapter is a niche within the niche that Yiddish and Polish studies are in global linguistics. Throughout its history, Poland was a greatly multilingual and multicultural country. Polish was in contact with plenty of different idioms: from the classical languages of Latin and Greek, through Euro-

1 For more on the state of research on Yiddishisms in Polish, including a relatively up-to-date bibliography, as well as other subjects within the broader spectrum of Polish-Jewish contacts see Krasowska (2019).

yiddish as donor language for polish

233

pean culture languages such as French and Italian, to colonial German and the East Slavic languages. From the Middle Ages to the end of the Early Modern Period, Polish was also influenced many times by the languages of oriental invaders—the Turks and Tatars. Presently, it remains in a relatively strong contact with contemporary international English. Features transferred from some of these languages, particularly German and the classical ones, have been studied relatively thoroughly. On the other hand, Yiddish influence seems to have been largely underrated and still lacks a dedicated and fully comprehensive study. 1.1.1 In Polish Studies Within Polish linguistics, literature on the subject at hand is mostly fragmentary. Isolated articles on “the Jewish element” in Polish have been appearing since the turn of the 20th century (notably Wiener 1898, Altbauer 1932 [reprinted 2002b] and later articles). Maria Brzezina (1986) was the first, and so far the only, scholar to attempt a comprehensive description, as part of her study on the Jewish ethnolect of Polish, though she admitted herself that she had not exhausted the subject. Moreover, she based her study mostly on attestations taken from different literary genres and treated the lexicon holistically as Jewish vocabulary. Specifically Yiddish material still has to be isolated from it, though Brzezina made an effort to provide a proper etymology for every lexeme. However, some of these etymologies prove to be ambiguous upon closer scrutiny.2 More recently, Cała (2012) published an article on the use of Yiddishisms in the anti-Semitic discourse. Several attempts have been also made to trace Jewish words in the sociolects of criminals (cf. Kurka 1889, Ułaszyn 1951, Małocha 1994 and others). 1.1.2 In Yiddish Studies Understandably, Yiddish scholars concentrate on the Polish, or more generally on Slavic, influence on Yiddish and not the other way around. Among Polish scholars, Geller was arguably the first to focus specifically on the Yiddishderived, as opposed to Jewish or Hebrew, vocabulary, though she did not write extensively on the subject (Geller 1997,2011b). Outside of Poland, David L. Gold is notable for his etymological study of Yiddish borrowings, particularly Gold (2017) which is a valuable insight into the methods and challenges of identifying Yiddish loanwords in Polish at the same time. He was also working on a comprehensive description of Yiddishisms in Polish, but this work seems to

2 For a critical review of this study s. Stankiewicz (1990).

234

gajek

have been put on hold. My own dissertation devoted to the subject at hand (Gajek 2019) is also the most exhaustive one to date. It is based on a relatively extensive but still an incomplete sample of lexical material recorded in Polish dictionaries. In addition, I apply the contact-linguistic methodology to the subject—an approach which promises new insights into Yiddish influence on Polish. 1.1.3 State of Art Even though it was globally a minority language, Yiddish had a relatively large speaker population with several cities and many towns boasting Jewish majorities. With this in mind, the expectation might be that more Yiddish material was transferred into Polish than just a few basic loanwords, as it was long assumed (cf. Brzezina 1986: 48). Indeed, new Yiddishisms are still being identified and added to dictionaries. However, at the same time, the relevant literature remains marginal and fragmentary and sometimes even methodologically flawed.3 1.2 Venues of Yiddish Influence on Polish in Contact-Linguistic Terms Chapter 2 has already provided a contact-linguistic theoretical framework for the study of Polish-Yiddish contact. That contribution describes language contact as primarily driven by the need to overcome communicational barriers, as well as the conflict between one’s own linguistic identity and the prestige of a language used by another group. Furthermore, it is reiterated that there are two general modes of transfer of linguistic matter and patterns. Transfer through shift occurs if agentivity is on the part of the donor-language speakers. Transfer through borrowing takes place if the initiative for change is on the side of the recipient-language users.4 Sociolinguistic conditions for both these modes of transfer will be discussed and weighed in the subsequent sections. 1.2.1 Conditions for Transfer through Borrowing Throughout the development of Yiddish on the Polish territory, the contact situation favored the transfer of Polonisms into the Jewish language and not the other way around. As already shown in Chapter 2, the beginnings of Yiddish

3 Cf. Adamczyk (2018) who treats Yiddish loanwords in the Polish criminal jargon as Hebraisms, even though the users of this sociolect had no meaningful contact with Hebrew. 4 The former type of transfer is also called imposition, and the latter—adaptation (cf. Coetsem 1988, Winford 2007).

yiddish as donor language for polish

235

as an independent language are to be placed no earlier than the 15th century (cf. Chapter 2). This chronology puts the event at about the same time when Polish began its rise to the status of the dominant state language. By the mid16th century it had largely replaced Latin and German in municipal documents and entered the parliamentary, literary, and even religious discourse (as a direct or indirect result of the Reformation). Thus, Polish did not only acquire a demographic, but also a political, pragmatic, and prestigious advantage over Yiddish. Knowledge of Polish became necessary to function within the organism of the state (cf. Klemensiewicz 1976: passim). However, there are a few caveats to the above statement. First of all, only the Polish used by the nobility, and its successor—the intelligentsia, their culture, laws, and sciences, carried prestige. Yet, within this social group, the recognition of the language as an identity factor was ambivalent and fluid. The idiom did gain status, but, at the same time, had to compete with western languages— Latin, and later French. To those members of the nobility that directed their cultural aspirations at Western Europe, Polish was but a vernacular used by servants and common folk. Though, this fact likely worked against the adoption of Yiddishisms into the Polish high variety. It was the endangerment of both Polish culture and identity after the partitions of Poland in the 19th century that decidedly, although not immediately, shifted the balance in favor of the native tongue. At the same time, the masses of uneducated peasantry, which made up the majority of the society, remained largely oblivious to these developments and did not show much linguistic loyalty. This was particularly visible in the ease with which the resettled Polish peasants shifted to local vernaculars in the eastern provinces (Tazbir 2007). The introduction of the patriotically-loaded Polish schooling has contributed to changing this situation since the 19th century, but even after World War ii, there remained pockets of population whose members did not identify their language with any particular culture but would simply state that they spoke “their own” or “the local tongue”. It can be inferred from this that local country dialects lacked both prestige and cultural identification, as it is usually the case with the low-variety idioms. By extension, the same can be said about the argots of city paupers. This “weakness” of the Polish vernacular invited situations in which it could have been dominated by Yiddish. The Jewish language might have commanded relative prestige if Jews were administrators in service of the lords, direct employers of Polish servants, such as Shabbos goyim or child minders, or the clients of service providers, such as coachmen. Furthermore, Yiddish could simply exert pragmatic pressure, or at least be beneficial, if its speakers constituted the local majority.

236

gajek

Aside from these “pockets of Yiddish domination”, Poles of all social strata had business dealings with Jews, who often worked as shop owners, market traders, innkeepers, craftsmen, or professionals. This could have led to the adoption of at least some Yiddishisms, even by the nobles, simply by virtue of the length and frequency of contact. The general pauperization of Poland’s society after the rebellions and wars of the 17th century, combined with the country’s subsequent and gradual democratization in the latter half of the 19th, brought on the intensification of direct contact between Poles and Jews at the lower levels of society. This likely also favored the involvement of Jews with the urban criminal underground. The secret language used by lawbreakers was especially open to the borrowing of alien words to facilitate secrecy. Yiddish, with its repertoire of Hebraisms, as well as formally and semantically altered Germanisms, proved to be a prime source of such material (Brzezina 1986: 105). At the same time, the underground argots, with their Yiddishisms, also served to solidify the distinct identity of their users, as opposed to the “decent people”. The decline of the feudal system and subsequent democratization also facilitated upward social mobility. This meant that some elements of vernacular speech diffused to high-variety Polish, which was gaining shape since the 18th century. This also led to the elevation of some Yiddishisms from the low variety. Still, Yiddish-origin vocabulary was distinctly more frequent in both urban and country dialects than in the literary and cultural language. Modernity with its developments further intensified the propagation of Yiddishisms. New means of communication, increased mobility, and migration from villages to cities gradually dismantled the separatism of social groups and strata, allowing for elements of Yiddish-infused vernaculars to spread. Obligatory public schooling brought together Jewish and Polish children, which allowed Yiddishisms to permeate the youth jargon—a secret in-group language open to foreign elements for purposes of secrecy and identity-building. Finally, literature and press, becoming more profuse and democratic, brought Jewish matters and the vocabulary to describe them to the attention of the evergrowing readership.5 On the one hand, the equation of the literary linguistic form with the national language meant that Yiddishisms appearing in literature gained entry into that dignified variety. On the other hand, the gutter press and pulp literature also employed a less formal language that sometimes included Yiddishisms, especially in the humorous and satirical contexts, contributing to their diffusion. Use of (pseudo-)Yiddishisms was a characteristic of

5 For a discussion of this subject see Wojtyczek (2012). The publication includes a glossary.

yiddish as donor language for polish

237

the satire directed against Jews, as well as directly anti-Semitic writing (cf. Cała 2012). Other forms of culture were involved in the propagation of Yiddishisms in similar ways. These included stage performances, (folk) songs, and later radio broadcasts and cinema. 1.2.2 Conditions for Transfer through Shift In general, shift exerts meaningful influence on the recipient language when entire and significantly large populations undergo it. The extended period of the shift process itself also contributes to the transfer of substratal features. In the case of Yiddish speakers in Poland, these conditions seem to have been partially fulfilled. Up to the late modern period, Polonization of Jews was generally connected with their conversions to Christianity. However, these occurred relatively rarely and were the decisions of individuals and families rather than populations (cf. Jagodzińska 2012). The followers of Jakob Frank’s messianic cult constituted the most notable group of Jews to have converted at one time (Polonsky 2010: 148–149). It was not until the dawn of the Jewish assimilation movement in the 19th century that linguistic and cultural Polonization took on a meaningful scale. Still, only a part of the Polish Jews was keen to assimilate, mostly among the educated middle and upper class, while others were often more or less resistant to the process (cf. Landau-Czajka 2006: 210). Geller (2010a) describes the Polonization of Jews as a process that was well underway until it was interrupted by the Holocaust. She mentions the cultural, administrative and linguistic pressure of the reborn Polish state and its language among the reasons for the advancing assimilation. The sheer number of Polish-language Jewish press titles, including small, local newspapers, testifies to the relatively large scale of this phenomenon (cf. Steffen 2004). However, the individual language shift from Yiddish to Polish often followed the three-generation pattern (Landau-Czajka 2006: passim) in which the first generation was bilingual in the target language, the second used the original language only to a limited degree, and the third was fully monolingual. In such cases, the shift is usually traceless. Only a few relic words are retained, if any (cf. Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 38–39, 119–121). Large-scale assimilation of Jews was a rather late phenomenon and fluent Polish monolingualism was mostly characteristic of the middle class. For these reasons, the role of the transfer through shift may be considered secondary to borrowing in the case of Yiddishisms in Polish. Nevertheless, this does not mean that this mode of contact-induced change was insignificant. The assimilating members of the middle class and intelligentsia in particular were the ones who created Jewish press, literature, and other works of culture in the Pol-

238

gajek

ish language. This put them in a position to propagate assimilation while at the same time transmitting Yiddish-derived words, especially cultural terms.6 1.2.3 Mode of Transfer of Yiddish Features to Polish The contact situation apparently favored the borrowing strategy. There, the agentivity was on the side of the speakers of the recipient language. Polish and Yiddish existed side by side, asymmetrically exchanging adstratal influences. There is a good reason to believe that on the Polish side, the results of this contact were limited to vocabulary. As opposed to language shift, borrowing situations result in systemic change usually in cases of widespread bilingualism and massive lexical transfer (Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 50, 74–76). While the Yiddish loanwords were more numerous than originally assumed by Polish linguists, the number of these words still cannot be considered massive. That being said, there were no attempts to actually prove that statement. Altbauer (1929 [2002c], 1931 [2002d], 1972 [2002a]) and Brzezina (1986) did describe the particular grammatical features of the Jewish ethnolect of Polish. Their work could make a good basis for a comparative study of some features considered dialectal, erroneous, or dated by modern Polish grammars. Because the determination of whether Polish acquired any systemic features from Yiddish remains an open desideratum, all subsequent discussion in this chapter will be devoted to lexical borrowings.

2

Methodological Issues

An analysis of all the above factors allows to determine the channels of transfer of linguistic elements between the languages in question. In turn, identifying these channels provides a basis for making an informed choice of the sources of linguistic material for research. 2.1 Sources and Linguistic Material Based on the identified channels of lexical transfer, several areas of Polish lexicon were singled out as possible sources of the vocabulary for study: 1) professional jargons, particularly those of traders, stallholders, shopkeepers, as well as craftsmen, especially from the textile industry; possibly also the pre-war jargons of private-practice doctors, lawyers, notaries, and bankers, 6 Though, at the same time, the Hebraists among them contributed to the Hebraization of Jewish vocabulary in Polish, cf. Jagodzińska (2008: 144–147).

yiddish as donor language for polish

239

2)

urban dialects and argots, especially those used in shtetls and cities with large Jewish populations, such as Warsaw, Lodz, Lublin, Bialystok, Lemberg, or Vilna, 3) a subgroup of urban dialects connected with the “street” professions, such as coachmen, public service workers, policemen, newsboys, and etc., 4) rural dialects from areas where trade with shtetls, patronage of Jewish taverns, and employment in Jewish homes and businesses would have been strong, 5) secret languages which used Yiddish words and expressions as means of concealing the message and building in-group identity, particularly the criminal and prison argots, but also the jargons of other “underground” groups, such as prostitutes; in the “lawful sector”—the sociolects of school and university students, 6) Polish literature and press, particularly common and satirical publications,7 folk songs, common theater, but also more serious writing including belles-lettres (cf. Wojtyczek 2012), 7) Jewish literature and press, as well as private correspondence, written in Polish, representative of the language of the assimilating parts of Jewish society. The aforementioned listing is obviously idealized. Sources necessary to study all of the stated linguistic domains are often unavailable, at least not in a readily usable form. The study described herein has been conducted on material derived from dictionaries and lexica. While it would have been preferable to exhaust the available direct sources and produce a corpus of citations, this task alone would have required a team effort within a dedicated research project. However, even based on the lexicographic sources, the extraction of Yiddishisms from the scope of loanwords of wildly varying origin, different kinds of Jewish vocabulary, and etymologically uncertain units already presents a specific set of challenges. 2.2 Hurdles of Identification While the study of Jewish vocabulary as a whole has its own merits, researching specifically the Yiddish influence on the Polish lexicon requires strict demarcation between Yiddishisms and other lexical elements brought about by contact with Jews. There are three groups of vocabulary that can possibly be confused with Yiddishisms: 1) Hebraisms, 2) Germanisms and Slavisms from the component languages of Yiddish, 3) exogenous words ascribed to Jews. 7 Anti-Semitic writing bears separate mentioning with its tendency to use Yiddishisms for the pejoratively evocative purposes.

240

gajek

2.2.1 Hebraisms Direct access to biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew was very rare in the Pre-Modern and Early Modern Polish society, limited to scholars wishing to study the Old Testament or other Jewish writings in an untranslated form. Even in the Late Modern Period, contact with Hebrew likely did not go far beyond scholarly interest. Most of the time, Poles could have been exposed to Hebrew vocabulary through contact with speakers of Yiddish. This lexicon might have been provided in five forms: 1) the so-called merged Hebrew, i.e., words and phrases of Hebrew origin integrated into Yiddish, 2) the so-called whole Hebrew, i.e., Hebrew as cited or spoken by Ashkenazic Jews with strong Yiddish interference (cf. Jacobs 2005: 41–44), 3) Modern Hebrew, revitalized by the end of the 19th century, elements of which could have been used by some Jews when writing or speaking Polish, 4) through Bible translations and Church parlance, which mostly entailed the mediation of some other languages, mostly Latin and Greek, e.g., P. serafin vs L. seraphīm/seraphīn (pl.), G. Seraphin (pl.), and 5) as internationalisms, e.g., possibly P. rabin vs G. Rabbiner, F. rabbin, S. rabino, I. rabbino < L. rabbinus. Most of the time, words borrowed from the third of the above sources are relatively easy to differentiate from Yiddishisms due to the drastic phonological differences between Modern Hebrew (which uses Sephardic pronunciation as a model) and Yiddish, especially the local dialect thereof, e.g., H. kneset vs Y. kneses ‘gathering’, H. sukkōt vs Y. sukes, cey. [sɨkʲɛs]8 ‘Jewish festival commemorating the Exodus from Egypt’, H. xaluc vs Y. xolec, cey. [xuʟɛt͜s] ‘pioneer of Palestine settlement’. It is more complicated with samples of merged Hebrew, such as P. szabas/szabat vs H. šabat ‘Sabbath’, P. golus ‘exile, diaspora’ vs H. galut ‘exile’, which do exhibit some Yiddish traits, yet are still distinguishable (Y. šabes, Y. goles, cey. [guʟɛs]). Nevertheless, some words can theoretically be etymologized both from Yiddish and Modern Hebrew, e.g., P. mykwa/mikwa < Y. mikve, cey. [mɨkfɛ], H. mikǝva. In this case, the Yiddish etymology can be tentatively opted for as contact with Jewish culture was much more frequent via Yiddish. Christian religious Hebraisms, such as P. Mesjasz ‘Messiah’, are few

8 As will be explained in section 2.2.2.1, most Yiddishisms in Polish were directly taken over from the Central Eastern (Polish) dialect of Yiddish. Hence, examples cited in this chapter may implicitly be treated as coming from that variety. However, some Yiddishisms do appear to conform to Standard Yiddish, partly because their cey source words do not radically differ from this variety. These will not be marked for dialectal origin and will be transcribed according to the rules set forth in this volume. On the other hand, if cey dialectal features are readily apparent in the Polish forms, Yiddish cognates will be given in phonetic transcription, with their standard equivalents noted in parentheses.

yiddish as donor language for polish

241

and far between and most of them are well studied. Hence, they can be readily excluded from the corpus of Yiddishisms.9 2.2.2 Germanisms Aside from Hebraisms, most of Yiddish vocabulary can be traced back to German and the Slavic languages, particularly Polish (in all of its historical varieties), Ukrainian and Belarusian and their ancestor dialects, as well as Old Czech and Russian. For this reason, it is easy to propose other etymologies than Yiddish when analyzing a suspect word. Actually, such etymologies have been formulated by default in Polish dictionaries, which put Yiddishists in the position of having to revise parts of the established lexicographic canon. Clearly, German-origin words present the most problems as the majority of Yiddish morphemes are derived from the late Middle and early New High German. I have conducted a contrastive analysis of both Yiddish and German dialects used throughout the Polish ethnic territory to come up with the distinctive phonological and phonetic characteristics of the Germanic Yiddishisms. Phonological distinctive features in connection with semantic differences did allow some words previously considered as Germanisms to be identified as Yiddishisms, e.g., P. picować ‘1. to clean something up thoroughly and/or otherwise make it look nice and tidy, 2. to shine, polish, 3. to trick, bluff, to bullshit’ < cey. [pɨt͜sn̩ ] (Y. pucn) ‘1. to clean, tidy up, 2. to shine (something), 3. to cheat, rip off’, as opposed to mhg. butzen (> G. putzen) ‘1. to clean, 2. to embellish’. However, there are certain words that cannot be identified with certainty, e.g., P. geszeft/gieszeft ‘(usually unsavory) business’ < Y. gešeft ‘business’ or G. Geschäft ‘idem’. Though the word came to be associated with stereotypes about Jewish dishonesty in business, its earliest attestations refer to Germans (cf. Lehnwortportal Deutsch). Resemantization under the influence of its use in Yiddish is certainly a possibility, but ultimately nothing can be said for certain. 2.2.2.1 Method of Distinguishing Yiddishisms from Germanisms10 Until recently, there has been no codified test, i.e., no set of diagnostics for distinguishing Yiddishisms from Germanisms. Gold (2017) proposed thirteen

9 10

Also, strong taboos between Christians and Jews make it unlikely that prominent religious terminology would have been transferred directly between the two groups. In the study described herein, the contrastive analysis has only been conducted between Polish, Yiddish, and German, as the elements of the latter two languages are easiest to confuse. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to create a comprehensive test, involving East Slavic and Hebrew (Ashkenazic and Modern) varieties.

242

gajek

general guidelines for determining etymology, based on the analysis of the Polish word bambetle ‘stuff’, a likely Yiddishism. I took a different route and concentrated on the distinctive characteristics of Yiddishisms in Polish, particularly in phonology (Gajek 2019). The point of departure for the identification test was the contrastive and diachronic analysis of the phonetic and phonological systems of the varieties involved in Polish-Yiddish-German contact. This is because phonetic distinctive features (as deducible from written forms) can allow to distinguish Yiddishisms from other vocabulary almost at first glance. The diachronic analysis has been conducted at the level of dialect rather than that of the national language. First of all, the codified, universally-spoken national language (standardized mainly for the purpose of public schooling) is a relatively late phenomenon in the history of Central and Eastern Europe. In the case of Polish and German, the national language may tentatively be considered a factor no earlier than in the 19th century. For Yiddish—practically only in the 1930s with literary varieties developing since the 19th century. Throughout the history of all three languages in question, vocabulary was borrowed mostly from vernaculars and into vernaculars, from which it would be then diffused into the normalized national languages. This is especially true for Yiddishisms, in case of which the Hebrew characters made borrowing from the written language virtually impossible even for the most educated speakers of Polish. The following varieties were chosen for comparison due to their co-territoriality and socio-cultural prominence in the ethnic-Polish linguistic area: 1) the colonial, East-Central German dialects: Silesian, Saxon, and, to a lesser extent, Thuringian, 2) the Central-Eastern (Polish) dialect of Yiddish, 3) the Greater-Polish, Lesser-Polish, and Masovian dialects of Polish. The historical developments of vowel and consonantal sounds in the varieties listed under 1) and 2) were first compared to determine the features that distinguish them from one another. Next, the features determined for Yiddish were “sifted” through the Polish dialects in order to check if the integrative processes could have nullified them. What was left became a catalogue of distinctive or strongly indicative phonetic characteristics, such as the fronting of the oy. short vowel /u/ > /ɪ/ and its long variant /uː/ > /i/. This allowed me to identify such previously unnoticed Yiddishisms as the already mentioned P. picować and its word family (P. pic ‘claptrap, tall story’, picuś ‘der. dandy’, and etc). However, the identification of distinctive phonetic characteristics was only the first step of the test. The remaining stages were as follows: 1) the contrastive analysis of the semantics of the studied words against their possible Yiddish and German etymologies, conducted diachronically to the extent it was possible,

yiddish as donor language for polish

243

2)

the consideration of socio-linguistic factors, such as the association of a given word with a linguistic domain in which Yiddish influence could have been significant. In the end, a revised list of nearly 400 identified Yiddishisms was made available for further analysis, aimed at determining the phonological, morphological, and semantic changes associated with their integration into Polish.11 2.2.3 Slavisms There are some lexemes on the Slavic side that were traditionally interpreted as native Polish words, yet upon closer scrutiny they turned out to be Yiddishisms. For instance, P. łapserdak ‘1. scruff, 2. (little) scamp, 3. good-for-nothing’ was thought to be a compound of P. łapać ‘to catch, snatch’ and P. serdak ‘waistcoat, vest’, literally ‘*vestsnatcher’. The actual etymology leads to cey. [ʟaːpsɛʀdak] (Y. lajbserdak) ‘Jewish ritual undergarment’ (cf. Altbauer 2002b: 103), which through multiple metonymies came to reference slovenly attire, and finally scruffy-looking paupers, often thought of as thieves and trouble makers. 2.2.4 Exogenous Jewish-Culture Words Several words that were counted among “Jewish vocabulary”, at least by laypeople, do not, in fact, come from any Jewish language. A case in point could be P. jarmułka ‘1. skullcap, 2. kipah’—not the borrowing of Y. jarmulke ‘kipah’, which is likely a Polonism or Turkism in Yiddish. The word in Polish is probably of Turkish origin (cf. T. yağmurluk ‘rainwear’). The same is possible for P. chałat ‘gaberdine’ < T. chalat ‘a kind of robe’, another characteristic element of the traditional Jewish attire (cf. Kondrat 2012a). There are also apparent pseudo-Yiddishisms, such as P. dat. col. handełes ‘(Jewish) street seller trading in old wares’ (Doroszewski 1958–1969, Dubisz 2003), which incorporates the Yiddish diminutive handele ‘small-time trade’, but uses an incorrect plural ending -s (Y. diminutives in -le take on the plural marker -ex). While not clearly proving that this is, in fact, the case, this apparent error suggests that P. handełes is a word invented by Poles living in contact with Yiddish speakers. While the problems described above sometimes make it impossible to judge whether a word is of Yiddish origin or not, there is still a great deal that can be added to the body of aknowledge on Yiddishisms in Polish, both in terms of their identification and the intra- and extralinguistic aspects of their assimila-

11

A complete list can be found in an index form in Gajek (2019).

244

gajek

tion. The following chapter will detail some findings based on the analysis of the systemic and semantic integration of the Yiddish loanwords in Polish.

3

Yiddish Loanwords in Polish—Integration and Assimilation

Borrowing and integration can be interpreted as results of many aggregated, deliberate and non-deliberate, decisions of the speakers to utilize specific foreign words and to “make them work” within the framework of their own language by using specific strategies. The extralinguistic contact situation can be assumed to have an influence on these decisions, and thus, indirectly, on the borrowing and integration processes. 3.1 Formal Integration The phonological integration of Yiddishisms in Polish is obviously a normal part of the code switching process, though it was likely intensified by the asymmetry between the two languages. In some contact situations, like the borrowing of Anglicisms into German, speakers try to replicate the original pronunciation (cf. Eisenberg 2011: 92–93, Myers-Scotton 2013: 254–260). However, most Poles did not and had no need to speak Yiddish. They were likely not inclined to make an extra effort to modify their articulation base to include the sounds of that language. The Poles who did speak it relatively fluently would conceivably be compelled to integrate Yiddishisms phonologically so as not to alienate their interlocutors. The assimilating Jews, might also have been inclined to do so in order to better “blend in” with the Polish society, even though they were capable of using unintegrated words. Nonetheless, even if such forms were used, they would still have to be processed by the articulation base of monolingual Poles in the course of diffusion. Most phonological changes can be interpreted as results of the influence of the Polish articulation base on the perception and reproduction of sounds at the moment of introduction. The phonotactic pressure can also be assumed to have played a significant role. The former is especially visible in the replication of the Yiddish weak, unaccented vowels which varied in their phonetic realization. These vowels turned higher or lower as the consonantal surroundings warranted, e.g., P. fanaberie [fanabɛrɪ̯ɛ] ‘whims’ < cey. [ˈfaːnɛ ˈbɛʀɪ̯ɛ] (Y. fajne berje) ‘big shot’, P. dat. puryc [purɨt͜s] ‘1. rich Jew, Jewish gentleman, 2. rich and important man’ < cey. [puʀɛt͜s] (Y. porec) ‘nobleman’. The latter integrative phenomenon is vividly exemplified by the palatalization of certain consonants and its correlation with the use of the vowels /i/ and /ɨ/, e.g. P. myszygiene [mɨʃɨgʲɛɲɛ] ‘hotheaded Jew’ (Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedźwiedzki 1900–1927) vs

yiddish as donor language for polish

245

P. dial. adj. mysigiene [mɨɕigʲɛɲɛ] ‘slightly mad’ (Karłowicz 1900–1911) < cey. [mɛʃɨgʲɛnɐ] (Y. mešugener) ‘madman’. It is possible that a part of the phonological changes in Yiddishisms was the aftereffect of the hypercorrect spelling. There are indications that Yiddish words, when noted by Poles, were being adapted to German orthography, e.g., Y. crim. ubsteken [upʃtɛkɛn] ‘to cheat an accomplice out of their cut’ (as noted in Kurka 1889) < cey. [upʃtɛkŋ̩] (Y. opštekn) ‘1. to unplug, 2. to dish out a blow, 3. to thrust something on someone’ (cf. G. abstecken [apʃtɛkŋ̩] ‘1. to mark, 2. to sketch out, 3. to pin’). Another result of this “Germanization” tendency could have been the reinstatement of vowels or consonants in affixes, usually weakened in Yiddish to the point of elision, e.g., cey. [ba͜ɪg̯ ʲl̩ʲ] (Y. bejgl) > P. bajgiel [ba͜ɪg̯ ʲɛl] ‘bagel’, cey. [xazɐ] (Y. xazer) ‘1. pig, 2. pork’ > P. dat. chazer [xazɛr] ‘1. pork as non-kosher food, 2. swine (of a person)’ (Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedźwiedzki 1900–1927). The changes described above could have also been the result of more or less deliberate integration by assimilating Jews and other Polish-Yiddish bilinguals who were conscious of phonemic forms underlying the concrete pronunciation. While essentially morphological in nature, the above-mentioned developments significantly influenced the phonology of Yiddishisms transmitted through written language to those Poles who were not in active contact with speakers of Yiddish. In morphology, most changes seem to have likewise occurred immediately during the introduction of Yiddishisms. A recent study by Poplack (2018) has shown this to likely be a rule, at least in inflectional languages to which Polish also belongs. This corresponds with the influential Matrix Language Frame Model (Myers-Scotton 2002) in which the language salient in the given utterance (the matrix language) controls the morpho-syntactic frame, i.e., the rules of syntactic positioning and inflectional morphology. This means that inserted words are prone to morphological integration by default, so as to make their functioning within the system possible. Predictably, Yiddishisms were inserted into the typical inflectional paradigms, often based on the form of a given word. There is a basic typological similarity between Polish, Yiddish, and German in the typical structure of nouns. Masculine nouns in their base forms (Nominative, singular) prototypically end in consonants without an inflectional ending while the feminine ones receive a vocalic ending. For this reason, Yiddish nouns ending in consonants, some of them originally neuter, require little or no integrational effort in Polish. They may simply be used as the masculine nominal stems with inflectional morphemes and transformations applied as needed, e.g., Y. kugel ‘traditional Jewish dish made of potatoes and other vegetables, kugel’ > P. Nom., Acc. kugiel, Dat. kugl|owi, Gen., Voc. kugl|u, Inst. kugl|em.

246

gajek

With regard to feminine nouns, a conventional integration strategy seems to have developed, likely due to the length of contact and relatively strong influence of German. Basically, any German or Yiddish feminine noun ending in -e could be readily integrated by replacing that morpheme with the analogous P. -a, e.g. Y. xale ‘Jewish plaited white bread, usually sweet, and traditionally served on the Sabbath, challah’ > P. dat. chała ‘idem’. Additionally, some masculines of that type were inserted into the special paradigm of masculine nouns ending in -a, e.g. cey. [baʟɛguʟɛ] (Y. balegole) ‘coachman’ > P. bałaguła ‘1. coachman, 2. driver’. Changes of grammatical gender that required adding wordformation morphemes were relatively rare, e.g., cey. n. [bix] (Y. bux) ‘book’ > P. crim. f. bicha ‘idem’. These cases likely resulted from the competitive interplay of word form, original gender and the gender of a salient recipient-language pattern-word, cf. P. f. książka ‘book’. Although they might also be explained as lexical hybrids. The choice of a paradigm within the broader declensional classes of masculine personal nouns was also influenced by extralinguistic factors. In some paradigms, the plural forms convey an additional assessment of the designatum: pejorative/derogative, cf. P. cadyki ‘der. tsaddikim’, neutral, cf. cadycy ‘tsaddikim’, and honorific, cf. cadykowie ‘hon. tsaddikim’. These connotations are not always consequently ascribed to specific paradigms, but the tendencies are clear. Polish Yiddishisms run the whole gamut of these “expressive plurals”, though the pejorative ones seem to be favored. It has to be noted that the assignment of these paradigms is fluid in Polish. Almost any masculine personal noun can be ameliorated, derogated, and made humorous or ironic in this fashion, e.g., P. majster ‘1. master craftsman, 2. foreman, 3. master, expert’ > pl. majstry (derogative, humorous), majstrzy (neutral), majstrowie (neutral, honorific, and ironic). This indicates that Yiddishisms were filling a pragmatic gap in the area of (particularly negative) expression. Despite the apparent tendency to integrate inserted foreign words morphologically at the moment of introduction, some Yiddishisms do have alternative, both integrated and unintegrated forms, e.g., P. kiepełe/kiepeła ‘the head as the locus of intelligence, wit’ < Y. kepele ‘1. hypoc. head, 2. the head as the locus of intelligence, wit’. There is also a relatively significant group of nouns ending in -e that have not been morphologically integrated at all, e.g., P. dial. bałaboste ‘Jewish house owner’ (Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedźwiedzki 1900–1927), dat. cycele/cycełe ‘tassels of a prayer shawl’, minche ‘Jewish evening prayer’, szejne-morejne/szajne-morajne ‘(dial.) col. an elegant, rich, and influential Jew’ (Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedźwiedzki 1900–1927, Doroszewski 1958–1969), rebe ‘1. the polite form of addressing the tsaddik by the Chassidim, 2. dat. crim. judge, prosecutor, 3. dat. crim. priest’. Incompletely integrated forms were possible

yiddish as donor language for polish

247

among assimilating Jews. Alternatively, Polish speakers might have actually been choosing to accentuate the foreignness of words specifically connoting the Jewish milieu. Other reasons may have been secrecy in the criminal jargon or rarely, the ambiguity of the sex of the designatum, as in P. bałaboste ‘dial. Jewish house owner (male or female)’ < Y. baleboste ‘house owner, host (female)’. In comparison to nouns, the Yiddish-derived verbs are few and far between. This is to be expected as nouns are universally the most easily transferred part of speech while verbs, bearing the weight of structuring the sentence, require more effort to be made functional in the new system (Matras 2009: 182– 183, Myers-Scotton 2013: 226–230). Examples include: P. crim. kojfować ‘to buy’, picować ‘1. to clean something up thoroughly and/or otherwise make it look neat and tidy, 2. to shine, polish, 3. to trick, to bluff, to bullshit’. Also, due to the fact that verbs are so intertwined in the structure of the sentence, they cannot function in unintegrated and uninflected forms. Some examples of the unintegrated Yiddish verbal forms in the infinitive are quoted in literature, e.g., P. crim. szmir halten ‘to stand watch (while others commit theft)’. However, they are more likely to be citations rather than borrowings. Contrary to verbs, the Yiddish-derived adjectives and adverbs can and do function as unintegrated and uninflected forms, e.g., P. dat. fajn ‘1. good, 2. nice, pleasant, 3. exquisite, 4. delicate, soft, 5. dignified, 6. lively, 7. fitting’ (Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedźwiedzki 1900–1927), P. git ‘good (adv.)’ < cey. [git] (Y. gut). However, the development towards integration can be observed. P. dat. fajn as an uninflected adjective is out of use (replaced by P. fajny in its new meaning ‘cool’), while P. git ‘good’, has both adjectival and adverbial inflected counterparts: cf. P. adv. gitnie/gitowo, adj. gitny/gitowy ‘idem’. The reasons for adverbs (temporarily) resisting integration are likely systemic. Adverbs do not undergo any inflections in Polish, so even though they mostly possess endings, they do not actually require these morphemes to function. Still, endings are needed for derivation in order to clearly mark derivatives as adverbial and avoid confusion with adjectives (cf. Chapter 4.3). Thus, there is an incentive to integrate in the long run if the given word becomes frequent. 3.2 Semantic Integration Although semantics is rarely considered when the integration of loanwords is concerned, the conceptual, connotational, and expressive network is also a system into which new nodes are not haphazardly inserted. Loanwords add new content or compete either with native lexemes or with one another. This results in their semantic development as speakers settle for the best place for them in the lexicon, while it also produces changes in the meanings or connotations of

248

gajek

other words. Hence, integration and contact-induced change can also be spoken of in this context (cf. Nagórko 2007: 227–231). Semantically, loanwords might be separated into cultural and core borrowings (cf. Myers-Scotton 2013). The former fill in lexical gaps in the recipient language, pertaining to all things new or foreign to its culture. The latter duplicate the already existing words in denotation, introducing instead new connotational content, emotive value, or the qualities of novelty and cachet. It turns out that the Yiddish cultural borrowings are less numerous in the study corpus than the core ones, albeit by a narrow margin.12 A likely factor leading to this result is the fact that a part of the Jewish cultural terms was borrowed as Hebraisms, e.g., P. Tora ‘the Torah’ and internationalisms, e.g., P. synagoga ‘synagogue’, while some others function in translation, e.g. P. święto trąbek ‘Rosh Hashanah’.13 Many cultural Yiddishisms are connected directly or indirectly with the domain of religion. This is understandable as religion became a major differentiating factor between Poles and Jews, as well as a strong taboo on both sides. Hence, religious terminology required clear identification, which was facilitated by the foreignness of Yiddishisms, e.g., P. szames ‘assistant in a synagogue’ (cf. P. kościelny ‘church caretaker, sexton’). Most of the time, these words were semantically truncated—out of a sometimes extensive palette of senses, only one or two were chosen according to the denotational needs of the recipient language speakers or their experience with Yiddish users, e.g. cey. [xusɨt] (Y. xosid) ‘1. very pious Jew, 2. follower of Chassidism, Chassid, 3. follower, admirer’ > P. dial. chusyt ‘follower of Chassidism, Chassid’. This is typical of lexical borrowings as opposed to the inherited substratal vocabulary (cf. Geller & Gajek 2021, as well Chapter 2). Sometimes, probably when their knowledge of aspects of Jewish life and culture was shallow, Polish speakers would interpret meanings erroneously, occasionally even grossly, e.g., Y. xazn ‘synagogue cantor’ > P. chazan ‘dial. Jewish slaughterer’ (Wiener 1898, Karłowicz 1900–1911). Moreover, with the severing of direct contact between Poles and Yiddish-speaking Jews, practically all venues of revising the semantic changes in Yiddishisms disappeared. Hence, the processes of sematic drift, archaization, and acculturation (s. below) only accelerated. Words that set root in the Polish lexicon developed different or additional senses as they evolved independently from their Yiddish cognates. Generally, this semantic drift tended to go in the direction of expressive, usually pejora12 13

In my working corpus, around 46 lexical stems can be classified as cultural, and around 53 as core. Actually a translation of the biblical name of this holiday—H. Jom Terua ‘lit. day of blasting (the horn)’.

yiddish as donor language for polish

249

tive or humorous/jocular meanings. An informative example is P. łapserdak ‘1. scruff, 2. scamp, 3. good-for-nothing’. Its development involved an impressive chain of metonymic and metaphoric changes: cey. [ʟaːpsɛʀdak] (Y. lajbserdak) ‘a trimmed, square-shaped undergarment with dangling tassels, worn by observant Jews from the age of three’ > P. łapserdak ‘Jewish gabardine or coat’ > ‘1. shabby Jew, 2. Jewish boy, 3. pej. Jew’ > ‘1. shabbily-clothed man, scruff, 2. rascal, scamp, 3. ne’er-do-well, good-for-nothing’. It can be observed here how the word “sought” its place in the lexical system. In some cases, the mere connotation of Jewishness developed into a denotational sense, or, indeed, the base meaning of the word, e.g., P. Talmud ‘the Talmud’ > P. talmud ‘1. pej. Jew, 2. pej. Jewry’. Desacralization (not necessarily intentionally offensive) was another important development in the semantic integration of religious Yiddishisms, e.g., P. koszerny ‘ritually pure for Jews, kosher’ > ‘1. Jewish (with or without anti-Semitic connotations), 2. pure, clean, unspoiled (as of water, food), 3. trustworthy, safe (as of an online location), 4. legal, permitted’ (Geller 2011b). Acculturation was an important phenomenon connected with cultural borrowings. Direct acculturation takes place if the word loses its cultural connotations without any significant change to its basic meaning, e.g., P. bajgiel ‘Jewish bagel’ > ‘bagel’. Indirect acculturation is a result of a change in basic meaning. The literal, culturally-significant senses are supplanted by the metonymic and metaphoric ones as in P. belfer ‘assistant teacher in a kheder’ > ‘Jewish teacher’ > ‘1. pej. teacher, 2. crim. an experienced, wise, or educated inmate’. In the case of Yiddishisms in Polish, acculturation was drastically accelerated by the eradication of the Yiddish-speaking population in the country. As long as the Jews were neighbors, erroneous opinions could have been validated. After the Holocaust and expulsion of Jews in the late 1960s, this was no longer possible, so Polish speakers have had more room for further metaphorization of Yiddishisms. Core borrowings underwent the same basic changes. As expected, only one or two senses of the original lexeme were usually chosen, likely based on the special conversational effects already present in Yiddish, e.g., Y. kepele ‘1. hypoc. head, 2. the head as the locus of intelligence, wit’ > P. kiepełe/kiepeła ‘the head as the locus of intelligence, wit’. The criminal jargon worked differently in this respect as it took over some words strictly for their denotational senses—here the goal was to find non-transparent word-forms to keep the meaning secret, e.g., Y. slang meline/maline ‘hideout’ > P. crim. melina ‘criminal hideout’. Subsequently, core borrowings underwent semantic development resulting in new or different senses, e.g., P. bałaguła ‘dial. hired coachman’ > ‘1. dial. swashbuckler, 2. dial. bore, moaner, 3. dial. cargo or post wagon’, bałaguły ‘dial. large bells for horses’ (Karłowicz, Kryński & Niedźwiedzki 1900–1927, Doroszewski 1958– 1969, Dubisz 2003). Here too the direction of change was often (though not

250

gajek

always) towards pejorative or (often negatively) expressive meanings. Part of the reason behind this could have been the tabooization of undesired phenomena, as in cey. [ʃɨtfɛs] (Y. šutfes) ‘company, partnership’ > P. sitwa ‘crim. a thieves’ partnership’ > sitwa ‘a clique working to further their interests at the cost of others’. The mediation of criminal argots, themselves bearing negative connotations and representing a low stylistic level by default, could have been another cause. 3.3 Derivation—Development of Word Families Derivation is a clear sign that a loanword has been assimilated into the recipient language and has been living a life of its own within the lexicon. Since speakers usually use the same formal means and strategies to form derivatives of loanwords, it is the semantic side of the process that is the most informative. The directions of derivation may be interpreted within the framework of Bühler’s classic triangle of communicative functions. Derivatives may be formed to fulfil the representational, expressive, and conative functions. Representational derivatives are created primarily for the sake of naming new concepts related to the meaning of the root word. Perhaps the most basic of these are feminine derivatives, built almost mechanically: if there is a noun describing a male, e.g., P. belfer ‘pej. teacher (male)’, at one point, there will often arise a need to describe his female counterpart, e.g. P. belferka ‘pej. teacher (female)’. In the same manner, assimilated Yiddishisms spawned agentive derivatives (P. szaber ‘1. looting of unguarded property, 2. property so looted’ > szabrownik ‘looter of unguarded property’), actions (P. szabrowanie ‘looting of unguarded property’) or characteristics (P. zszabrowany ‘looted while unguarded’). Derivatives expressing family connections (P. cadykowa ‘the tsaddik’s wife’, cadykówna ‘the tsaddik’s daughter’), character (P. szachrajski ‘1. of a person: swindling, 2. of an action, scheme, etc.: swindlery’), possession (P. gojski/gojowski ‘belonging to the goyim’), plurality (P. gojostwo ‘the goyim’) also belong in the category of representational vocabulary. Derivational operations that border on the grammatical subsystem also have to be mentioned. These include negation (P. bezmachlojkowy ‘not connected with a con or swindle’) and verb reflexivity and prefixation (P. od|picować się ‘to spruce up’). Derivation largely limited to the representational function is typical of the more specialized cultural borrowings, which themselves assist primarily the naming of new and/or foreign objects. Expressive derivation in Yiddishisms is far richer than the representational one. This is partly due to the character of the expressive function itself which favors novel and “witty” lexical creations and also puts a lot of emphasis on “freshness”. This means that expressive vocabulary tends to “wear down”

yiddish as donor language for polish

251

quickly, inviting replacement with ever newer forms. However, the tendency to cater primarily to the expressive needs of Polish speakers seems to be a recurring characteristic of Yiddishisms. Some derivations lend expressivity to neutral words (P. bajgielki ‘hypoc. bagels’) while others change or amplify the expressive value of the already marked vocabulary (P. kapcaniuch ‘aug. wally’ < P. kapcan ‘wally’). Negative connotations seem to dominate among Yiddishisms, particularly those expressing hostility and aversion (P. belfrzyca/belfrówa ‘der. teacher [female]’, P. meliniak ‘drunk, hoodlum [as someone who frequents a shady dive]’), as well as disdain and belittlement (P. belferek/belferzyna ‘der. teacher’, picuś ‘der. dandy’). Apart from the need to directly manifest negative emotions and judgements, the richness of the negatively-expressive derivation may again be correlated with a degree of taboo surrounding the offensive or disagreeable content, such as criminal behavior, which calls for the use of euphemisms. Hence, the need to perpetuate and extend the pseudo-euphemistic use of given borrowings through derivation, e.g., P. machlojka ‘con, swindle’ > machloja ‘aug. con, swindle’, machlojkarz/machloj ‘swindler’, machlojczyć ‘to swindle’, zmachloić ‘perf. to swindle’ and so on. This might also be true for the words expressing anti-Semitism, cf. P. pejs ‘der. Jew, lit. sidecurl’ > pejsak/pejsiak, pejsacz, pejsaty, pejsuch ‘der. Jew’; pejsówka, pejsówa, pejsica, pejsiara ‘der. Jewess’; pejsiarnia, pejsiarstwo, pejsownia ‘der. Jewry’. Positive expression is mainly realized through hypocoristic forms, e.g., P. śliczna chawirka ‘beautiful little crib (house)’. In certain cases, this amelioration of meaning only consists in mitigating word negativity, e.g., P. szaberek ‘stealing fruit from an orchard (often considered more of a childish game than a crime); lit. little looting’. Humorous expressiveness may also be essentially positive, e.g., P. siksisko kochane! ‘dear gal!; lit. dear chit’. Note that this example also shows the use of the augmentative for positive marking. Conative derivation aims to elicit specific feelings, attitudes, and behaviors in the interlocutors. Expressive vocabulary often serves in this function to a degree. The conative use might be a strong factor in the derivation of the word P. goj ‘goy, non-Jew’ in the anti-Semitic discourse. Forms, such as gojostwo ‘the Goyim’, gojek ‘little Goy’, gojuś ‘idem’, gojówka/gojówa ‘Goy (female)’, while apparently derogative to non-Jews are actually meant to ascribe to the Jews an elitist or even racist attitude toward everyone else. As such, the aim of these forms can be to evoke or reinforce anti-Semitic sentiments in the recipient. 3.4 Utterance Modifiers What Matras (2009) calls utterance modifiers is a special type of words that merits a separate discussion with regard to borrowing. These are discourse-

252

gajek

level operators used to direct the reactions of the interlocutors and structure the communicative exchange. They include discourse markers, interjections, conjunctions, some particles, adverbs, and more. As expected, based on the borrowing hierarchy proposed by Matras (2009: 157), utterance modifiers make up the third most numerous group among the Yiddishisms in the corpus of this study. Since their use requires anticipating the interlocutor’s attitudes and reactions and choosing appropriate means of modifying them, it is especially taxing on the mental devices responsible for language processing, to the point when code selection becomes of secondary importance. Hence, bilingual speakers are prone to revert to the repertoire of their pragmatically dominant language if the need arises to use utterance modifiers. Interjections stand out in this group of Yiddishisms, e.g., P. aj waj! ‘woe!’ < Y. oj vej! ‘idem’. It seems understandable as the states of heightened emotion also diminish control of speech production. Interjectional hybrid phrases, such as P. wielkie mecyje! ‘big deal!’, are especially interesting. It seems that in this case, two analogously-structured phrases, P. wielkie rzeczy! ‘big deal!’ and Y. a tajre mecije! ‘idem’, were in competition and became what appears to be a case of congruent lexicalization14 (cf. Muysken 2000). The assurance formulas, such as P. pod chajrem! ‘(I swear) under oath’ < cey. [bɛxa͜ɪʀ̯ ɛm] (Y. bexejrem) ‘idem; lit. under (pain of) curse’, P. chłebin ‘I swear’ (Wieczorkiewicz 1966) < Y. (zol) ix lebn ‘(I swear) by my life; lit. I should live’, may be classified as the so-called speech act intensifiers. These are expressions used to direct the listener, e.g., by focusing their attention, enquiring about their understanding, or attempting to persuade them to acknowledge the opinion of the speaker. P. (i) siojn ‘(and) that’s it’ < Y. (un) šojn ‘idem’ is a typical discourse marker, i.e., a word or a phrase that organizes and directs parts of the conversation beyond the immediate sentence. In this case, it signifies the completeness or limitedness of what was said earlier, cf. example (2).15 (1) P. (C)złowiek kupi sobie insze bydlę, postawi inszą chałupę i siojn, już tamto zmartwienie niema … (Junosza 1891: 130) “(Y)ou can buy another beast, build another house, and that’s it, that worry is gone …”

14

15

Congruent lexicalization is a phenomenon of “filling in” spaces in a syntagm with lexemes from the speaker’s known languages when the structures of such a syntagm are congruent in both/all of these idioms. It bears mentioning that the phrase Y. un šojn is itself a calque of P. i już, which makes P. i siojn a case of secondary borrowing and hybridization.

yiddish as donor language for polish

253

Y. me bagegnt zix ejn mol, me dercejlt vegn zix, un šojn.16 “You meet one time, you tell about yourselves, and that’s it”. Adverbs might also be used in a similar fashion, cf. (2) P. No i fajnie, ślub w takim wieku zwiększa szansę że się przysięgi dotrzyma. “Well, cool, marriage at that age increases the chances of keeping one’s vows.” Y. nu fajn, az du kenst kenstu, for arojs. “Well, fine, if you can then go ahead and leave.” Here, P. (no i/to) fajnie ‘(well,) cool’ (cf. Y. nu, fajn ‘well, fine’) is used as a sentence introduction that gives the following utterance a specific emotional coloration and signifies the speaker's attitude. As mentioned earlier in this subsection, utterance modifiers are usually introduced into the target language by the bilingual low-variety speakers. Thus, Yiddishisms of this class are likely a record of such “slips of the tongue” on the part of Jews who spoke Polish. An explanation of why these Yiddishisms were taken over into the speech of the monolingual Poles is indicated in the next section.

4

Yiddishisms in Polish Vocabulary as Example of Low-Variety Influence

That Yiddishisms largely became integrated both phonetically and morphologically was to be expected. Aside from the natural tendency to pre-integrate lexical insertions, as indicated by Poplack (2018) and Myers-Scotton (2013), the factors of pragmatic and demographic dominance, as well as the rather low status of Yiddish did not favor the borrowing of systemic features into Polish. This would have been a requirement for the take-over of truly unintegrated forms. Meanwhile, even the Yiddish nouns ending in -e, which have not received regular inflectional forms, fall into a special paradigm of uninflected words, which is a part of the Polish grammatical system although particularly represented by foreign vocabulary.

16

Unless otherwise indicated, all example sentences come either from the Corpus of Modern Yiddish (2009) or from a free internet query. Original spelling has been reproduced in transcription.

254

gajek

What is noteworthy is that, while some lexical borrowings have become obsolete, many of them have been creatively developed semantically and spawned, sometimes very large, word families through derivation. This is an indication that the Yiddish-derived vocabulary is a living part of the Polish lexicon, even though there is no longer any meaningful contact between the languages. Many Yiddishisms are not perceived as foreign and some, such as P. fajny and git have “made a career” in the youth jargon and are apparently here to stay for the foreseeable future. Another sign of the vitality of Yiddishisms is the spontaneous and spur-of-the-moment derivation, as in example (4): (3) P. Co do mnie to mam na imię Kasia, ksywkowo iCate lub co tam kto wymyśli. “As for me my name is Kasia, iCate per nickname, or whatever you might invent”. Here, P. ksywkowo ‘per nickname’ is an adverbial derivative of P. ksywka ‘nickname’ < Y. ksive ‘1. calligraphic script, 2. a sequence of Hebrew characters, 3. document, 4. passport, 5. crim. letter’ which has been “invented” for the sake of the humorous effect in this one sentence. The fact that some Yiddishisms have so firmly put down roots in colloquial Polish is in tune with what has been observed about borrowings from the lowvariety languages. Such idioms, being marginal, exotic, and even discriminated against, are a good source of “counter cultural” linguistic material. It may be used to distance oneself from a group, display nonconformity, or indicate a personal or group identity. An analogous example is provided by English words, such as pal, borrowed from Anglo-Romani, a language with a similar status to Yiddish in its own linguistic environment (cf. Matras 2009: 150–151). This phenomenon was initially analyzed by Labov (1966) and elaborated on by Trudgill (1972) under the term of covert prestige. As already mentioned in section 3.2, expressive core borrowings are relatively numerous while even cultural borrowings tend to develop in the direction of expressiveness. The Yiddish-origin utterance modifiers also seem to be expressively laden, which might be the pragmatic reason for their takeover by Poles. There are several possible reasons for this expressivity bias. First of all, the number of cultural “entities” to be named with loanwords is finite, while expressive needs are constant and require ever newer forms as words become commonplace with their frequent use and eventually lose their flair. Foreign words generally represent useful material for expressive purposes due to their exoticness, cachet, or other connotations evoked by the donor language and its users (cf. Bańko 2008). While the prestigious foreign languages, such as French

yiddish as donor language for polish

255

were only available to a select few, Yiddish was always close at hand, even for the uneducated masses. Again, the nonconformity and distinguishing potential might have also contributed to the inflation of the expressive function of Yiddishisms. Another factor in this development could have been the apparent shallowness of the knowledge of Jewish culture among Poles. At first, this was caused by many taboos that divided the physically neighboring groups and then, after the Holocaust, by a lack of direct contact with Jews as well as an “internationalist” policy of the communist regime. The question of why negative expressiveness became such a frequent development in Yiddishisms is difficult to avoid. Some possible reasons have already been named: the tabooization of the undesired, objectionable phenomena that called for a pseudo-euphemistic use of foreign words, and the mediation of the criminal or other low-register varieties.17 The low-variety status of Yiddish certainly could have been a factor. However, it should also be taken into account that there are equally or even more pejorative and low-register borrowings from much more prestigious languages, such as German (kibel ‘bog, toilet’, szajs ‘crap’), French (burdel ‘brothel’, kloszard ‘hobo’), and English (dragi ‘drugs (of abuse)’, hejt ‘expressions of a hateful attitude, especially on the internet’, facepalm ‘as in English, the gesture of covering one’s face to indicate embarrassment’, fapać ‘to fap, masturbate’, fuck!/ fak! ‘an expletive’). Ultimately, a quantitative study would be necessary to determine, how much impact the prestige of a language has on the pejorative meaning or pejoration of loanwords from different languages. In the case of the East Slavic borrowings, such as P. jebać ‘to fuck’, barachło ‘1. rubbish, junk (objects), 2. trash (people)’, swołocz ‘trash (people)’, bladź ‘bitch’, obsobaczyć ‘perf. to call sb. names, shout abuse at sb’. and many others, not only low prestige but also ethnic animosity may be a factor. With regard to anti-Semitism, according to Cała (2012), the use of Yiddishisms in anti-Semitic writing was not very frequent in the inter-war period. It seems that the increased scale of this phenomenon is a relatively recent development. Unfortunately, the current online anti-Semitic discourse seems to have more intensively taken to Yiddishisms, such as P. pejs ‘1. sidecurl, 2. pej. Jew’, goj ‘non-Jew, Goy’, as means of derogation and hate speech. Due to the fact that such a derisive behavior is illegal and punishable by law, verbal anti-Semitism appears to acquire certain characteristics of a criminal secret language, paradoxically using Yiddishisms as the quasi-concealment of offensive messages.

17

Danuta Buttler (1978: 145) has noted a general tendency for loanwords in Polish to be negatively expressive.

256 5

gajek

Conclusions and Desiderata

The bilateral relations between Polish and Yiddish are still an open field of research. Specifically, what they could tell us about the influence of minority languages on the majority ones is a new and interesting area of study that is worthy of the attention of contact linguistics. To that end, several desiderata for Yiddish and Polish studies can be proposed. A dedicated lexicon of Yiddishisms in Polish, based on a balanced corpus and utilizing a systematic method of determining etymology, is one of them. So too are further studies of this vocabulary, once properly identified and codified. For example, a corpus of texts, composed in multiethnic cities, such as Warsaw or Lvov and from as early as the 19th century up to the present, could be compiled for the purpose of language-contact study in Poland, not unlike the one used in Poplack (2018). Then, statistical analyses could be run on this corpus to determine true frequencies of Yiddishisms and the changes they have undergone over the last two centuries. Borrowing patterns might yield insights into the relationships between Poles and Jews, as well as general mechanisms of lexical borrowing from minority languages. Another important desideratum would be to determine whether there are any structural features taken over from Yiddish into Polish, particularly in local dialects of towns and cities where Jews were the majority.

References Abraham, Werner. 1992. Überlegungen zur satzgrammatischen Begründung der Diskursfunktionen Thema und Rhema. Folia Linguistica 26(1–2). 198–231. Abraham, Werner. 2005. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich: Grundlegung einer typologischen Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Adamczyk, Angelika. 2018. Hebrew and Polish: Mutual Influences and Their Contribution in Creating a Polish Criminals’ Jargon. Polish Political Science Yearbook 47(2). 424–435. Adams, Marianne. 1987. From Old French to the Theory of Pro-Drop. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(1). 1–32. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in Contact: a Cross-Linguistic Typology, 1–66. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Altbauer, Mosze. 2002a. Bałaguła, belfer, cymes, kapcan, łapserdak, ślamazarny (Glosy do ‘Słownika etymologicznego języka polskiego’ Aleksandra Brücknera). In Maria Brzezina (ed.), Wzajemne wpływy polsko żydowskie w dziedzinie językowej, 101–105. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Altbauer, Mosze. 2002b. O błędach ortograficznych i gramatycznych w zadaniach polskich Żydów przemyskich. In Maria Brzezina (ed.), Wzajemne wpływy polsko żydowskie w dziedzinie językowej, 149–158. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Altbauer, Mosze. 2002c. Polszczyzna Żydów. In Maria Brzezina (ed.), Wzajemne wpływy polsko żydowskie w dziedzinie językowej, 122–147. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Altbauer, Mosze. 2002d. Achievements and Tasks in the Field of Jewish-Slavic LanguageContact. In Maria Brzezina (ed.), Wzajemne wpływy polsko żydowskie w dziedzinie językowej, 29–42. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49. 765–793. Andrason, Alexander. 2020. Polish borrowings in Wymysorys A formal linguistic analysis of Germano-Slavonic language contact in Wilamowice. University of Iceland. Aptroot, Marion & Roland Gruschka. 2010. Jiddisch Geschichte Und Kultur Einer Weltsprache. München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Aptroot, Marion & Björn Hansen (eds.). 2013. Yiddish Language Structures. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110339529. Arkadiev, Peter. 2017. Borrowed Preverbs and the Limits of Contact-Induced Change in Aspectual Systems. In Rosanna Benacchio, Alessio Muro & Svetlana Slavkova (eds.), The Role of Prefixes in the Formation of Aspectuality: Issues of Grammaticalization, 1– 21. Firenze: Firenze University Press. https://doi.org/10.36253/978‑88‑6453‑698‑9.03. Aslanov, Cyril. 2013. Kna’anim vs. Ashkenazim: From Difference to Convergence. In

258

references

Ondřej Bláha, Robert Dittman & Lenka Uličná (eds.), Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background Proceedings of a Conference Held in Prague on October 25– 26, 2012, 11–29. Praha: Academia. Astravukh, Alyaksandar. 2008. Idysh-belaruski sloŭnik. Minsk: Medysont. Auer, Peter. 2014. Language Mixing and Language Fusion: when Bilingual Talk Becomes Monolingual. In Juliane Bester Dilger, Cynthia Dermarkar, Stefan Pfänder & Achim Rabus (eds.), Congruence in Contact Induced Language Change, 294 333. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter. Auwera, Johan van der & Paul Gybels. 2013. On negation, indefinites, and negative indefinites in Yiddish. In Marion Aptroot & Björn Hansen (eds.), Yiddish Language Structures, 185–230. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783 110339529.185. Bakker, Peter & Yaron Matras. 2013. Contact Languages A Comprehensive Guide. Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bańko, Mirosław. 2008. Dlaczego wow? In Grzegorz Dąbkowski (ed.), Reverendissimae Halinae Satkiewicz cum magna aestimatione, 9–21. Plejada. Bauer, Laurie. 1998. When is a Sequence of Two Nouns a Compound in English? English Language & Linguistics 2(1). 65–86. Beider, Alexander. 2001. A dictionary of Ashkenazic given names: their origins, structure, pronunciation, and migrations. Bergenfield: Avotaynu, Inc. Beider, Alexander. 2013. Reapplying the Language Tree Model to the History of Yiddish. Journal of Jewish Languages 1(1). 77–121. Beider, Alexander. 2015. Origins of Yiddish Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beinfeld, Solon & Harry Bochner. 2013. Comprehensive Yiddish-English dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Belletti, Adriana. 1999. Inversion as Focalization and Related Questions. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 9–45. Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low ip Area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of cp and ip: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belletti, Adriana, Elisa Bennati & Antonella Sorace. 2007. Theoretical and Developmental Issues in the Syntax of Subjects: Evidence from Near-Native Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(4). 657–689. Besten, Hans den & Corretje Moed van Walraven. 1986. The Syntax of Verbs in Yiddish. In Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, 111–135. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Bhatt, Rakesh & James Yoon. 1992. On the Composition of Comp and Parameters of V2. In Dawn Bates (ed.), The proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 41–52. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

references

259

Bin-Nun, Jechiel. 1973. Jiddisch und die deutschen Mundarten: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ostgalizischen Jiddisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Bláha, Ondřej, Robert Dittman & Lenka Uličná (eds.). 2013. Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background Proceedings of a Conference Held in Prague on October 25–26, 2012. Praha: Academia. Bordin, Hanan. 2012. Mit vort un majsim: lernbux far vajthalters. Yerušolaim. Borer, Hagit. 2012. Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 491–511. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Brzezina, Maria. 1986. Polszczyzna Żydów. Warszawa, Kraków: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: G. Fischer. Burko, Lejzer. 2015. Maks Vajnrajxs jidiš-mitos (Referat gelejent baj der konferenc “Jidišizm: mitologjes un ikonografjes”, Varše, 15–16 november 2015). Buttler, Danuta. 1978. Rozwój semantyczny wyrazów polskich. (Ed.) Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Warszawa. Cała, Alina. 2012. Zapożyczenia z mowy żydowskiej w narracji antysemickiej. Studia Litteraria et Historica (1). https://doi.org/10.11649/slh.2012.023. Carr, Charles Telford. 1939. Nominal Compounds in Germanic. London: Published for St Andrews University by Humphrey Milford. Chang, Shoou-Huey. 2001. Der Rückgang des synthetischen Präteritums im Jiddischen kontrastiv zum Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, London: mit Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, London: mit Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, London: mit Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, London: mit Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Studies in Linguistics 2. 42–58. Coetsem, Frans van. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris.

260

references

Coetsem, Frans van. 1995. Outlining a Model of the Transmission Phenomenon in Language Contact. Leuvense Bijdragen 84. 63–85. Coetsem, Frans van. 2000. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter. Culicover, Peter W. & Wendy Wilkins. 1984. Locality in Linguistic Theory. Orlando, London: Academic Press. Dawidowicz, Lucy S. 1969. Max Weinreich (1894–1969): the Scholarship of Yiddish. The American Jewish Year Book 70. 59–68. Dawson, Hope C. & Brian D. Joseph. 2019. Andersen (1973) and Dichotomies of Change. In Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in Honor of Henning Andersen, 13–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.345.01jos. Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish vp Order and the Typology of Object Movement in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(2). 369–427. Diesing, Molly. 2004. The Upper Functional Domain in Yiddish. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology, 195–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Dikken, Marcel den. 2003. On the Morphosyntax of Wh-Movement. In Cedric Boeckx & Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.), Multiple Wh-Fronting, 77–98. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Doroszewski, Witold. 1958–1969. Słownik Języka Polskiego. Vol. 1–11. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Dubisz, Stanisław (ed.). 2003. Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego. Vol. 1–4. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe pwn. https://usjp.pwn.pl/ (13 May, 2022). Eggers, Eckhard. 1998. Sprachwandel und Sprachmischung im Jiddischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Eisenberg, Peter. 2011. Das Fremdwort im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Elšik, Viktor. 2009. Loanwords in Selice Romani, an Indo-Aryan language of Slovakia. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the World’s Languages. A Comparative Handbook, 260–303. Berlin: De Gruyter Mounton. Enfield, Nick J., Afisa Majid & Miriam van Staden. 2006. Cross-Linguistic Categorisation of the Body: Introduction. Language Science 28(2–3). 137–147. https://doi.org/​ 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.001. Faber, Alice & Robert D. King. 1984. Yiddish and the settlement history of the Ashkenazic Jews. In David R. Blumenthal (ed.), Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, vol. 2, 73–108. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Falkovič, Elje. 1940. Yidiš. Fonetik, grafik, leksik un gramatik. Moskve: Centraler Felkerfarlag. Fanselow, Gisbert & Sascha Walter Felix. 1993. Die Rektions- und Bindungstheorie. Tübingen: Francke.

references

261

Fleischer, Jürg. 2013. The (original) unity of Western and Eastern Yiddish: an assessment based on morphosyntactic phenomena. In Marion Aptroot & Björn Hansen (eds.), Yiddish Language Structures, 107–124. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://​ doi.org/10.1515/9783110339529.107. Fleischer, Jürg. 2014. Slavic Influence in Eastern Yiddish Syntax. The Case of vos Relative Clauses. International Journal of the Sociology of Language (226). 137–161. https://doi​ .org/10.1515/ijsl‑2013‑0078. Fleischer, Jürg & Lea Schäfer. 2012. Kasus nach Präposition in westjiddischen Quellen des (langen) 19. Jahrhunderts. In Marion Aptroot, Efrat Gal-Ed, Roland Gruschka & Simon Neuberg (eds.), Leket Jidiše študjes hajnt, 415–436. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. Fleischer, Wolfgang & Irmhild Barz. 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gajek, Michał. 2013. The Diaphoneme ei|ai as a Reflex of the Old Slavic Vowel ě in Yiddish. In Ondřej Bláha, Robert Dittmann & Lenka Uličná (eds.), Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background Proceedings of a Conference Held in Prague on October 25–26, 2012, 92–107. Praha: Academia. Gajek, Michał. 2019. Mechanizmy integracji jidyszyzmów w polszczyźnie w świetle badań lingwistyki kontaktów językowych. University of Warsaw. Gardani, Francesco. 2020. Borrowing matter and pattern in morphology. An overview. Morphology 30. 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525‑020‑09371‑5. Gardani, Francesco, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze. 2014. Borrowed Morphology: An Overview. In Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (eds.), Borrowed Morphology, 1–24. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/​ https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513209.1. Geilfuß, Jochen. 1991. Jiddisch als sov-Sprache. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik 3–17. Gellar, Raphael. 2013. Salita, a frumer bokser. Teglexer forverts The Yiddish Daily Forward. https://yiddish.forward.com/articles/174031/ (14 March, 2022). Geller, Ewa. 1991. Jiddische und polnische Parallelen im situationsspezifischen Sprachgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen Komponente des Jiddischen. In Eijiro Iwasaki & Yoshinori Schichiji (eds.), Akten des viii. Internationalen GermanistenKongresses, Tokyo 1990 Begegnung mit dem “Fremden” Grenzen, Traditionen, Vergleiche, 536–544. München: Iudicium. Geller, Ewa. 1994. Jidysz: język Żydów polskich. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe pwn. Geller, Ewa. 1997. Zur Etymologie einiger jiddischer und deutscher Schimpfwoerter und Gaunerbezeichnungen im Polnischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 42(3). 274–284. Geller, Ewa. 1999. Hidden Slavic Structure in Modern Yiddish. In Walter Röll & Simon Neuberg (eds.), Jiddische Philologie: Festschrift für Erika Timm, 65–90. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

262

references

Geller, Ewa. 2001. Warschauer Jiddisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Geller, Ewa. 2004. Jiddisch im Spannungfeld zwischen Germanistik und Slawistik. Convivium. Germanistisches Jahrbuch Polen 171–197. Geller, Ewa. 2008a. Germanocentric vs. Slavocentric Approach to Yiddish. In Waldemar Czachur & Marta Czyżewska (eds.), Vom Wort zum Text. Studien zur Deutschen Sprache und Kultur. Festschrift für Professor Józef Wiktorowicz zum 65. Geburtstag, 681–693. Warszawa: Instytut Germanistyki. Geller, Ewa. 2008b. Spory o genezę jidysz. In Ewa Geller & Monika Polit (eds.), Jidyszland: polskie przestrzenie, 17–43. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Geller, Ewa. 2009. A New Portrait of Early Seventeenth-century Polish Jewry in an Unknown Eastern-Yiddish Remedy Book. European Judaism 42(2). 62–79. Geller, Ewa. 2010a. The Polonization of Yiddish: A Path towards Language-Shift? In Wolf Moskovich (ed.), Jews and Slavs, vol. 22, 95–108. Jerusalem, Kyiv: Dux i kultura. Geller, Ewa. 2010b. Dobra Gitl, słodka Zisl, nadobna Szejndl—o pochodzeniu imion Żydówek polskich. In Joanna Lisek (ed.), Nieme dusze? Kobiety w kulturze jidysz, 131– 152. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Geller, Ewa. 2011a. Zum Kampf gegen ‘Dajtschmerismus’ in der jiddischen Sprache. In Michael Prinz & Jarmo Korhonen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im Ostseeraum, 205–217. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag. Geller, Ewa. 2011b. Koszerny biskup ‚Koscherer Bischof‘, partyjna dintojra ‚Parteirache‘ und andere religiöse Jiddismen in der polnischen Allgemeinsprache. In Alicja Nagórko (ed.), Sprachliche Säkularisierung (Westslawisch-Deutsch), 373–395. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms. Geller, Ewa. 2012. Inwieweit ist Jiddisch sprachtypologisch eine “warme” Sprache. In Hanna Burkhard, Robert Hammel & Marek Łaziński (eds.), Sprache im Kulturkontext Festschrift für Alicja Nagórko, 397–420. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag. Geller, Ewa. 2013. Knaanic Glosses as Code-Switching Phenomenon. In Ondřej Bláha, Robert Dittmann & Lenka Uličná (eds.), Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background Proceedings of a Conference Held in Prague on October 25–26, 2012, 108–128. Praha: Academia. Geller, Ewa. 2015. Sejfer-derech ejc ha chajim. Przewodnik po drzewie żywota. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Muzeum im. Jana iii Sobieskiego w Wilanowie. Geller, Ewa. 2021. Tożsamość języka jidysz. Poradnik językowy (7 (786)). 67–86. Geller, Ewa & Michał Gajek. 2021. Loanwords vs Relics: A New Method in Lexical Borrowing Studies Exemplified by Yiddish Slavic Language Contact. Diachronica: online first. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19047.gel. Geller, Ewa, Michał Gajek, Agata Reibach & Zuzanna Łapa. 2020. Applicability of Word-

references

263

net Architecture in Lexical Borrowing Studies. International Journal of Lexicography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecaa013. Gilman, Sander. 1992. The Jew’s Body. New York, London: Routledge. Gold, David L. 2017. A Sample from a Discursive Etymological Dictionary in Preparation, of Polish Lexical and Semantic Usages of Definite, Probable or Possible Yiddish Origin. On the Etymology of German, Polish, Ukrainian, and Yiddish Nouns Meaning ‘Bench Bed’ (with Thirteen Guidelines for the Study of Yidish Influence on Polish). In Michał Németh, Barbara Podolak & Mateusz Urban (eds.), Essays in the History of Languages and Linguistics: Dedicated to Marek Stachowski on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 219–278. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. Gordon Mlotek, Eleanor & Joseph Mlotek (eds.). 1997. Songs of generations New pearls of Yiddish song. New York: Workmen’s Circle. Graetz, Heinrich. 1907. Geschichte Der Juden 9, Geschichte Der Juden von Der Verbannung Der Juden Aus Spanien Und Portugal (1494) Bis Zur Dauernden Ansiedlung Der Marranen in Holland (1618). Leipzig: Leiner. Grant, Anthony P. 2012. Contact, Convergence, and Conjunctions: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Borrowing Correlations Among Certain Kinds of Discourse, Phasal Adverbial, and Dependent Clause Markers. In Claudine Chamoreau & Isabelle Léglise (eds.), Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change, 311–358. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271430.311. Grewendorf, Günther. 2001. Multiple Wh-Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1). 87–122. Grewendorf, Günther. 2002. Minimalistische Syntax. Tübingen, Basel: Francke. Grewendorf, Günther, Fritz Hamm & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1996. Sprachliches Wissen: Eine Einführung in moderne Theorien der grammatischen Beschreibung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Grewendorf, Günther & Joachim Sabel. 1999. Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus Multiple Specifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(1). 1–65. Grimm, Jacob. 1826. Deutsche Grammatik. Zweiter Theil. Göttingen: Dieterich. Groh, Arnold. 2000. Jiddisch—Wort für Wort. Bielefeld: Reise Know-How Verlag. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. German Is a Multiple Wh-Fronting Language! In Cedric Boeckx & Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.), Multiple Wh-Fronting, 99–130. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Grzegorczykowa, Renata & Jadwiga Puzynina. 1984. Słowotwórstwo rzeczownika. In Renata Grzegorczykowa, Roman Laskowski & Henryk Wróbel (eds.), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego, 332–407. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Hansen, Björn & Sandra Birzer. 2012. The Yiddish modal system between Germanic and Slavonic A case study on the limits of contact induced grammaticalization. In Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli & Björn Hansen (eds.), Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, 427–464. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

264

references

Harkavy, Abraham J. 1865. Ob jazyke Evreev živšix v drevnee vremja na Rusi. Sanktpeteresburg. Harkavy, Alexander. 1988. Yiddish-English-Hebrew Dictionary. New York: Schocken Books. Hary, Benjamin & Sarah Bunin Benor (eds.). 2018. Languages in Jewish Communities, Past and Present. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor (eds.). 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: a comparative handbook. De Gruyter. Berlin. Haugen, Einar. 1950. Problems of Bilingualism. Lingua 2. 271–290. https://doi.org/10​ .1016/0024‑3841(49)90028‑5. Haumann, Heiko. 1990. Geschichte der Ostjuden. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Heine, Bernd. 2012. On polysemy copying and grammaticalization in language contact. In Claudine Chamoreau & Isabelle Léglise (eds.), Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change, 125–166. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10​ .1515/9783110271430.125. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2003. On Contact-Induced Grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27(3). 529–572. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.3.04hei. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd & Motoki Nomachi. 2013. Contact-induced replication Some diagnostics. In Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Shared grammaticalization With special focus on the Transeurasian languages, 67–100. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim Buscha. 2005. Deutsche Grammatik Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin, München, Wien, Zürich, New York: Langenscheidt. Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2013. The handbook of language contact. Chichester: WileyBlackwell. Horvath, Julia. 1997. The Status of ‘Wh-Expletives’ and the Partial Wh-Movement Construction in Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(3). 509–572. Huang, C.T. James. 1981. Move Wh in a Language without Wh-Movement. The Linguistic Review 1(4). 369–416. Hundert, Gershon David. 2004. Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hurch, Bernhard. 2009. Von der Peripherie ins Zentrum: Hugo Schuchardt und die Neuerungen der Sprachwissenschaft. In Karl Acham (ed.), Kunst und Wissenschaft aus Graz, Bd. 2.1.: Kunst und Geisteswissenschaft aus Graz., 1–20. Wien: Böhlau. Hutton, Christopher. 1988. Early Yiddish Texts and Western Yiddish Dialectology. In Dovid Katz (ed.), Dialects of the Yiddish Language: Papers from the Second Annual Oxford Winter Symposium in Yiddish Language and Literature, 14–16 December 1986, 21–26. Oxford [etc.]: Pergamon Press.

references

265

Jacobs, Neil G. 1990. Economy in Yiddish vocalism A study in the interplay of Hebrew and non-Hebrew components. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jagodzińska, Agnieszka. 2008. Pomiędzy. Akulturacja Żydów Warszawy w drugiej połowie xix wieku. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Jagodzińska, Agnieszka (ed.). 2012. W poszukiwaniu religii doskonałej? Konwersja a Żydzi. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1964. The Term Canaan in Medieval Hebrew. In Lucy Dawidowicz, Alexander Erlich, Rachel Erlich & Joshua A. Fishman (eds.), For Max Weinreich on His Seventieth Birthday. Studies in Jewish Languages, Literature and Society, 147–172. The Hague: Mouton. Johanson, Lars. 1992. Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Johanson, Lars. 2013. Written language intertwining. In Contact languages A comprehensive guide, 273–332. Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter. Junosza, Klemens. 1891. Wybór pism w X tomach. Vol. 3. Warszawa: Printed by “Wiek.” https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Panowie_bracia (14 March, 2022). Karłowicz, Jan. 1900–1911. Słownik gwar polskich. Vol. 1–6. Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności. https://zbc.uz.zgora.pl/dlibra/publication/9018/edition/8866#structure. Karłowicz, Jan, A. Kryński & W. Niedźwiedzki (eds.). 1900–1927. Słownik języka polskiego. Warszawa. Katz, Dovid. 1985. Hebrew, Aramaic and the rise of Yiddish. In Joshua Fishman (ed.), Readings in the sociology of Jewish languages, 85–103. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Katz, Dovid. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish Language. London: Duckworth. Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable Subjects in Malagasy. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 247–301. New York: Academic Press. Keith, Allan & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kerler, Dov-Ber. 1999. The Origins of Modern Literary Yiddish. Oxford: Clarednon Press. Kijek, Kamil. 2011. Max Weinreich, Assimilation and the Social Politics of Jewish Nationbuilding. East European Jewish Affairs 41(1–2). 25–55. King, Robert D. 1992. Migration and linguistics as illustrated by Yiddish. In Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds.), Reconstructing languages and cultures, 419–439. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1976. Historia języka polskiego. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Kondrat, Agata. 2010a. Matki, żony i kochanki w języku jidysz. In Joanna Lisek (ed.), Nieme dusze? Kobiety w kulturze jidysz, 107–130. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

266

references

Kondrat, Agata. 2010b. Mówiąc o seksie (z perspektywy jeszybotnika). Cwiszn Żydowski kwartalnik o literaturze i sztuce (3). 40–41. Kondrat, Agata. 2012a. Język jidyszowych czasopism fachowych na przykładzie czasopism krawieckich. In Joanna Nalewajko-Kulikov, Agnieszka Cieślik & Grzegorz Paweł Bąbiak (eds.), Studia z dziejów trójjęzycznej prasy żydowskiej na ziemiach polskich (xix–xx w.), 425–444. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, Instytut Historii pan. Kondrat, Agata. 2012b. Der jidiszer sznajder: żydowsko-polski kontakt językowy na przykładzie pola semantycznego ‘krawiectwo’ w języku Jidysz. Univeresity of Warsaw. Kondrat, Agata. 2016. Nachmana Blumentala „Werter un wertlech fun der churbntkufe“—spojrzenie językoznawcze. Kwartalnik Historii Żydów 1(1). 169–183. Krasowska, Anna. 2019. Polsko-żydowskie pogranicze językowe—stan i perspektywy badań. Rozprawy Komisji Językowej Łtn 67. 149–171. https://doi.org/10.26485/RKJ/​ 2019/67/11. Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Basic Notions of Information Structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Working Papers of the sfb 632. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (isis) 6, 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Krogh, Steffen. 2001. Das Ostjiddische im Sprachkontakt: Deutsch im Spannungsfeld zwischen Semitisch und Slavisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Krogh, Steffen. 2007. Zur Syntax in der jiddischen Version der “Schivche ha-Bescht” (1815). Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 129(2). 187–219. Kulik, Alexander. 2012. The Jews of Slavia Graeca: the Northern Frontier of Byzantine empire? In Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa & Rina Talgam (eds.), Jews in Byzantium: dialectics of minority and majority cultures, 297–314. Leiden: Brill. Kunin, I. 1939. Mener-cušnajderaj. Praktišer hantbux lojt dem sistem „Adam”. Paris. Vilne. Kupfer, Franciszek & Tadeusz Lewicki. 1956. Źródła hebrajskie do dziejów Słowian i niektórych innych ludów środkowej i wschodniej Europy. Wrocław: Zakład im. Ossolińskich. Kurka, Antoni. 1889. Słownik mowy złodziejskiej. Lwów. Kuznitz, Cecile Esther. 2014. yivo and the making of modern Jewish culture Scholarship for the Yiddish nation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, William. 1966. Hypercorrection in the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In William Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics, 84–113. The Hague: Mouton. Landau-Czajka, Anna. 2006. Syn będzie Lech … Asymilacja Żydów w Polsce międzywojennej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, Instytut Historii pan. Landau, Alfred. 1928. Di slaviše elementn un hašpoes in jidiš. Di cunojfgezecte cvejverter. Filologiše šriftn 2. 199–214. Landmann, Salcia. 1992. Jiddisch: das Abenteuer einer Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein.

references

267

Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar The case of Haitian creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefebvre, Claire. 2001. Relexification in Creole genesis and its effects on the development of the Creole. In Norval Smith & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creolization and Contact, 9–42. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, London: mit Press. Levelt, Willem J.M., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A Theory of Lexical Access in Speech Production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/​ s0140525x99001776. Levitanus, Z.V. 1904. Metode cum zelbst lernen cu šnajden. Heren klejder, militer klejder, kinder klejder, ojch lange judiše malbušim. Piotrków. Linde, Samuel Bogumił. 1811. Słownik języka polskiego. Vol. 2. Warszawa: Drukarnia xx. Pijarów. Lowenstamm, Jean. 1977. Relative Clauses in Yiddish: a Case for Movement. Linguistic Analysis 3(3). 197–216. Lucas, Christopher. 2012. Contact-Induced Grammatical Change Towards an Explicit Account. Diachronica 29(3). 275–300. Małocha, Agnieszka. 1994. Żydowskie zapożyczenia leksykalne w socjolekcie przestępczym. Język a kultura 10. 135–170. Mark, Yudel. 1978. A Grammar of Standard Yiddish. New York: Congress for Jewish Culture. Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance Modifiers and Universals of Grammatical Borrowing. Linguistics 36. 281–331. Matras, Yaron. 2007. The Borrowability of Grammatical Categories. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 31–74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Yaron & Peter Bakker (eds.). 2003. The Mixed Language Debate Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007a. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. https://doi​ .org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel (eds.). 2007b. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. McConvell, Patrick & Felicity Meakins. 2005. Gurindji Kriol: A Mixed Language Emerges from Code-switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 9–30. https://doi​ .org/10.1080/07268600500110456. Meakins, Felicity. 2013. Mixed Languages. In Peter Bakker & Yaron Matras (eds.), Contact languages A comprehensive guide, 159–228. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

268

references

Meakins, Felicity & Jesse Stewart. 2019. Mixed languages. In Salikoko Mufwene & Anna Maria Escobar (eds.), Forthcoming: Cambridge handbook of language contact. Volume 2: Multilingualism in population and structure. Cambridge University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330263664_Forthcoming_Mixed_Langu ages. Mecner, Paweł. 2013. Konfiguracje niemiecko-polskie w składni języka jidysz. In Ewa Pajewska (ed.), Dyskursy trzeciego tysiąclecia, 101–115. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Mecner, Paweł. 2017. Zu satzfinaler Subjektposition, Unakkusativität und C-Domäne im Jiddischen. Linguistik Online 80(1). 71–94. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.80.3566. Melissaropoulou, Dimitra & Angela Ralli. 2020. Revisiting the Borrowability Scale(s) of Free Grammatical Elements: Evidence from Modern Greek Contact induced Varieties. Journal of Language Contact 12(3). 707–736. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629​ ‑01203005. Moskovich, Wolf. 2013. From Leshon Kna’an to Yiddish: Some Case Studies. In Ondřej Bláha, Robert Dittmann & Lenka Uličná (eds.), Knaanic Language: Structure and Historical Background Proceedings of a Conference Held in Prague on October 25–26, 2012, 191–199. Praha. Muysken, Pieter. 1981. Halfway between Quechua and Spanish The case for relexification. In Arnold Highfield & Albert Valdman (eds.), Historicity and variation in creole studies, 52–78. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual speech: a typology of code-mixing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact linguistics. Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2013. Multiple voices: an introduction to bilingualism. Malden: Blackwell. Nagano, Akiko & Masaharu Shimada. 2018. Affix Borrowing and Structural Borrowing in Japanese Word-Formation. skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 15(2). 60–84. Nagórko, Alicja. 2007. Lexikologie des Polnischen. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Nagórko, Alicja. 2016. Polish. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 4, 2831–2852. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Nahshon, Edna (ed.). 2008. Jews and Shoes. Oxford, New York: Berg. Nalewajko-Kulikov, Joanna (ed.). 2012. Studia z dziejów trójjęzycznej prasy żydowskiej na ziemiach polskich (xix–xx w.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, Instytut Historii pan. Neuberg, Simon. 1999. Pragmatische Aspekte Der Jiddischen Sprachgeschichte Am Beispiel Der ‘Zenerene’. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

references

269

Neuberg, Simon. 2016. Yiddish. In Peter O. Müller (ed.), Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 4, 2465–2486. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Niborski, Icchok & Bernnard Vaisbrot. 2011. Yidiš-francejziš verterbuch. Paris: Bibliothèke Medem. Noonan, Michael. 2013. Genetic Classification and Language Contact. In The Handbook of Language Contact, 48–65. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Ohnheiser, Ingeborg. 2015. Compounds and Mutli-Word Expressions in Slavic. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 1, 757–779. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246254. Olsen, Susan. 2015. Composition. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 1, 364–386. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Paul, Hermann. 1891. Principles of the History of Language. London, New York: Longmans, Green and Co. Pensalfini, Robert. 1995. Malagasy Phrase Structure and the lca. In Robert Pensalfini & Hiroyuki Ura (eds.), Papers on Minimalist Syntax, 209–221. Cambridge, London: mit Press. Perlmutter, David. 1988. The split-morphology hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 79–99. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Pilarski, Anna. 2002. Die Operation Merge im Verbalkomplex des Polnischen und des Deutschen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Pilarski, Anna. 2017. Partnerbezogen reden. In Ulrich Engel & Danuta Frączyk (eds.), Über Sachverhalte reden, 139–184. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Pilarski, Anna. 2018. Die pf-Varianten des Expletivs in jiddischen Sätzen und ihren deutschen und polnischen Entsprechungen. Colloquia Germanica Stetinensia 27. 97–113. https://doi.org/10.18276/cgS.2018.27‑06. Polonsky, Anthony. 2010. The Jews in Poland and Russia. Vol. 1–2. Oxford, Portland (Oregon): The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Poplack, Shana. 2018. Borrowing. Loanwords in the Speech Community and in the Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Prince, Ellen. 1981. Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 14–16 February 1981, 249–264. Alford, Da. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. Prince, Ellen. 1989. Yiddish wh-Clauses, Subject-Postponing, and Topicalization. In Joyce Powers & Kenneth de Jong (eds.), escol ’88: Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 30-October 2, 1988, 403–415. Columbus: Ohio State University.

270

references

Prince, Ellen. 1998a. The Borrowing of Meaning as a Cause of Internal Syntactic Change. In Monika S. Schmid, Jennifer R. Austin & Dieter Stein (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997: Selected papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Düsseldorf, 10–17 August 1997, 339–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/​ 10.1075/cilt.164.22pri. Prince, Ellen. 1998b. Subject-Prodrop in Yiddish. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 82–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prince, Ellen. 2001. Yiddish as a contact language. In Norval Smith & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Creolization and Contact, 263–290. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Reershemius, Gertrud. 2001. Word Order in Yiddish Narrative Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 33(9). 1467–1484. Reershemius, Gertrud. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Yiddish. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Rejx, X. 1936. Hantbux far mener-cušnajderaj. Varše. Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion. In Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax, 63–90. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rizzi, Luigi (ed.). 2004. The Structure of cp and ip: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism Second Edition. Oxford, Cambridge: WileyBlackwell. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. Ross, Malcolm. 1996. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: cases from Papua New Guinea. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, 180–217. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ross, Malcolm. 1999. Exploring metatypy: how does contact-induced typological change come about? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251662587_Explori ng_metatypy_how_does_contact‑induced_typological_change_come_about (14 March, 2022). Ross, Malcolm. 2007. Calquing and Metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1(1). 116–143. Sabel, Joachim. 2000. Partial Wh-Movement and the Typology of Wh-Questions. In

references

271

Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking, 409–446. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sabel, Joachim. 2006. Typologie des W-Fragesatzes. Linguistische Berichte 206. 147–195. Sadock, Jerrold M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loan: matter and pattern. In Yaron Matras & Janet Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 15–30. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199192. Santorini, Beatrice. 1992. Variation and Change in Yiddish Subordinate Clause Word Order. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(4). 595–640. Sapir, Edward. 1915. Notes on Judeo-German Phonology. The Jewish Quarterly Review 6(2). 231–266. Šapiro, M.A., A.G. Spivak & M.J. Šulman (eds.). 1984. Russko-evrejskij (idiš) slovar’. Moskva: Russkij Jazik. Scalise, Sergio & Antonietta Bisetto. 2009. The Classification of Compounds. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 34– 52. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Schaechter, Mordkhe. 1969. The Hidden Standard. A Study of Competing Influences in Standardization. In The Field of Yiddish 3, 284–304. Berlin: De Gruyter Verlag. Schaechter, Mordkhe. 1986. Laytish mame-loshn. New York: League for Yiddish. Schäfer, Lea. 2017. Sprachliche Imitation: Jiddisch in der deutschsprachigen Literatur (18.–20. Jahrhundert). Berlin: Language Science Press. Schäfer, Lea. 2020. Modus und Tempus im Jiddischen. Analysen zum Konjunktiv in den jiddischen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 87(3). 328–374. Schallert, Oliver. 2007. Wortstellungstypologie des Jiddischen im Spannungsfeld zwischen den germanischen und den slawischen Sprachen. Philipps-Universität Marburg. Schlücker, Barbara. 2012. Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung. In Livio Gaeta & Barbara Schlücker (eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache: Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte, 1–26. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. Schönherr, Monika. 2018. Satzkonstruktionen ohne Verbum Finitum: Diachrone, synchrone und panchrone Zugriffe auf ein vergessenes Phänomen der deutschen Syntax. Kwartalnik neofilologiczny 65(4). 565–579. https://doi.org/10.24425/kn.2018.1250 04. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1884. Dem Herrn Franz von Miklosich zum 20. November 1883. Slawodeutsches und Slawo-italienisches. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.

272

references

Seifart, Frank. 2015. Direct and Indirect Affix Borrowing. Language 91(3). 511–532. https: //doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0044. Seifart, Frank. 2017. Patterns of Affix Borrowing in a Sample of 100 Languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(3). 389–431. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.16002.sei. Seifart, Frank. 2019. Contact-induced change. In Jeroen Darquennes, Joe Salmons & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.), Language Contact An International Handbook, vol. 2, 13–23. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110435351‑002. Šexter, Sore-Roxl (ed.). 2020. Teglexer forverts The Yiddish Daily Forward. https://​ yiddish.forward.com/channels/index.html (14 March, 2022). Spolsky, Bernard. 2014. The Languages of the Jews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1990. Maria Brzezina, Polszczyzna Żydów, Warszawa—Kraków 1986, s. 616. Język polski 70(3–4). 138–143. Starostin, George. 2010. Preliminary Lexicostatistics as a Basis for Language Classification: A New Approach. Journal of Language Relationship 3. 79–116. Steffen, Katrin. 2004. Jüdische Polonität. Ethnizität und Nation im Spiegel der polnischsprachigen jüdischen Presse 1918–1939. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Straten, Jits van. 2011. The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry The Controversy Unraveled. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. Stuchkoff, Nahum. 1950. Der ojcer fun der jidišer šprax. New York: yivo. Swadesh, Morris. 1950. Salish Internal Relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 16(4). 155–167. Szymanek, Bogdan. 2009. Indoeuropean, Slavonic: Polish. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 464–477. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Szymanek, Bogdan. 2017. Compounding in Polish and the Absence of Phrasal Compounding. In Carola Trips & Jaklin Kornfilt (eds.), Further Investigations into the Nature of Phrasal Compounding, 49–79. Berlin: Language Science Press. Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the World’s Languages: Findings and Results. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the World’s Languages. A Comparative Handbook, 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mounton. Tadmor, Uri, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor. 2010. Borrowability and the Notion of Basic Vocabulary. Diachronica 27. 226–246. Talmy, Leonard. 1982. Borrowing Semantic Space: Yiddish Verb Prefixes Between Germanic and Slavic. In Monica Macaulay (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13–15 February, 1982, 231–250. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v8i0.2026. Tazbir, Janusz. 2007. Język polski a świadomość narodowa. https://www.rjp.pan.pl/​ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1351&Itemid=50 (14 March, 2022).

references

273

Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2009. How to Establish Substratum Influence. In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.), Issues in Tibeto-Burman Historical Linguistics, 319–328. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. https://doi.org/10.15021/00002571. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Timm, Erika. 1995. Zur Frühgeschichte der jiddischen Erzählprosa. Eine neuaufgefundene Maisé-Handschrift. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 117(2). 243–280. Timm, Erika. 2005. Historische jiddische Semantik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Travis, Lisa. 1991. Parameters of Phrase Structure and Verb Second Phenomena. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 339–364. Cambridge, London. Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1(2). 179–195. Tuszewicki, Marek. 2015. Żaba pod językiem. Kraków: Austeria. Ułaszyn, Henryk. 1951. Jȩzyk złodziejski. Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe. Vater, Heinz. 2002. Einführung in die Sprachwissenschaft. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Verschik, Anna. 2021. Yiddish-Slavic language contact in multilingual songs: Describing deliberate code-switching. International journal of bilingualism OnlineFirs. https://​ doi.org/10.1177/13670069211036931. Wallenberg, Joel C. 2013. Scrambling, lf, and Phrase Structure Change in Yiddish. Lingua 133. 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.05.002. Weinreich, Max. 1938. Dajčmeriš tojg nit. Jidiš far ale 3. 97–106. Weinreich, Max. 1956. Yiddish, Knaanic, Slavic: The Basic Relationships. In Morris Halle (ed.), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, 11 October 1956, 622–633. The Hague: Mouton. Weinreich, Max. 1973. Gešixte fun der jidišer šprach: Bagrifn, faktn, metodn. Vol. 1–4. New York: yivo Institute for Jewish Research. Weinreich, Max. 1980. History of the Yiddish language. (Ed.) Shlomo Noble & Joshua A. Fishman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weinreich, Max. 2008. History of the Yiddish Language. (Ed.) Paul Glasser & Shlomo Noble. New Haven: Yale University Press. Weinreich, Uriel. 1955. Yiddish Blends with Slavic Elements. word 11(4). 603–610. Weinreich, Uriel. 1958. Yiddish and Colonial German in Eastern Europe: The Differential Impact of Slavic. In American contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, Moscow, September 1958. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton. Weinreich, Uriel. 1964. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.

274

references

Weinreich, Uriel. 1979. Languages in contact: findings and problems. 9th edn. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfird P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press. Weissberg, Josef. 1988. Jiddisch Eine Einführung. Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Paris: Peter Lang. Wex, Michael. 2005. Born to kvetch. Yiddish language and culture in all of its moods. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Wexler, Paul. 1981. Jewish Interlinguistics: Facts and Conceptual Framework. Language 57(1). 99–149. Wexler, Paul. 1987. Explorations in Judeo-Slavic linguistics. Leiden: Brill. Wexler, Paul. 1991. Yiddish, the Fifteenth Slavic Language a Study of Partial Language Shift from Judeo-Sorbian to German. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 91. 9–150. Wexler, Paul. 1993. The Ashkenazic Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Jewish identity. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers. Wexler, Paul. 2002. Two-tiered relexification in Yiddish Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the KievPolessian dialect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wieczorkiewicz, Bronisław. 1966. Słownik gwary warszawskiej xix wieku. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Wiener, Leo. 1898. Das jüdische Element im Polnischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 20. 620–624. Wijaczka, Jacek. 2010. Długi ‘złoty wiek’ dziejów Żydów w Rzeczypospolitej (od początku xvi do połowy xvii w.). In Witold Sienkiewicz (ed.), Atlas historii Żydów polskich, 59–101. Warszawa: Demart S.A. Winford, Donald. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden: Blackwell. Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 22(2). 373–427. Winford, Donald. 2007. Some Issues in the Study of Language Contact. Journal of Language Contact 1(1). 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000007792548288. Winford, Donald. 2013. Contact and Borrowing. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, 170–187. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Wojtyczek, Anna. 2012. Tradycja i religia Żydów w literaturze polskiej xix wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Cyklady. Woodworth, Cherie. 2010. Where Did the East European Jews Come From? An Explosive Debate Erupts from Old Footnotes. Kritika: Explorations in Russian & Eurasian History 11. 105–123. Żabowska, Magdalena. 2014. „Oby” vs „niech.” Od chcenia do działania. In Krystyna Kleszczowa & Anna Szczepanek (eds.), Wyrażenia funkcyjne w perspektywie dia-

references

275

chronicznej, synchronicznej i porównawczej, 1–11. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. Zamenhof, Ludwik. 2012. Zarys gramatyki języka nowożydowskiego (żargonu). In Agnieszka Jagodzińska (ed.), Ludwik Zamenhof wobec “kwestii żydowskiej”. Wybór źródeł, 45–114. Krakow, Budapeszt: Austeria. Zaremska, Hanna. 2010. Początki żydowskiej obecności i osadnictwa na ziemiach polskich (x–xv w.). In Witold Sienkiewicz (ed.), Atlas historii Żydów polskich, 23–57. Warszawa: Demart S.A. Zaremska, Hanna. 2011. Żydzi w średniowiecznej Polsce. Gmina krakowska. Warszawa: Instytut Historii pan. Zaretski, Ayzik. 1926. Praktiše jidiše gramatik far lerers un studentn. Moskve: Šul un Bux. Zeller, Jan Patrick. 2015. The Semantic Fields of German Loanwords in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics 10(3). 153–174. https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.15.007.4315. https://www.ejournals.eu/spl/2015/Issue-3/art/6441/. Zenner, Eline, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2014. Core vocabulary, borrowability and entrenchment: A usage-based onomasiological approach. Diachronica 31(1). 74– 105. Lehnwortportal Deutsch. http://lwp.ids‑mannheim.de/ (14 March, 2022). Yiddish Book Center’s Full-Text Search. https://ocr.yiddishbookcenter.org/accounts/​ login/ (14 March, 2022). The Online Dictionary of Polish Borrowings in Yiddish. http://polonjid‑dictionary.clari n‑pl.eu/ (5 August, 2020). eydes Evidence of Yiddish Documented in European Societies. http://www.eydes.de/ (5 August, 2020). The Corpus of Modern Yiddish. http://web‑corpora.net/YNC/search/index.php?interfa ce_language=en (14 March, 2022). Polish Borrowings in Yiddish. https://polonjid.wn.uw.edu.pl/?lang=en (5 August, 2020).

Index acculturation 33, 248, 249 adjective 15, 71, 73, 103, 105, 108, 115, 132–141, 153, 154, 157, 158, 173, 174, 247 inflection 15 predicate 65, 65n42, 138 adstrate 3, 5, 6, 27, 28, 30, 31, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 61, 63, 86, 87, 93–95, 95n9, 143, 144, 238 adverb 65n42, 89, 103, 110n25, 130–132, 132n45, 133–141, 247, 252–254 denominal 136, 139 primary 132, 133, 136 secondary 134–136 affixes 12, 64, 89, 90n3, 103, 103n17, 133, 134, 148, 245 infix 104–106, 108, 111, 112, 143, 149 prefixes 12n14, 22, 66, 69, 77, 86, 109, 109n24, 110, 110n25, 111, 112, 133, 133n47 suffixes 12, 14, 77, 83, 86n54, 103, 104, 104n19, 115, 117, 133–135, 139, 141, 158, 162, 186n12 agentivity 31, 32, 35, 36, 98, 234, 238 Aktionsart 12, 110 → see also aspect allomorphs 106, 112 Altbauer, Mosze 233, 238, 243 alternation 18, 74, 74n47, 104, 126, 135n49 America 2, 59, 222 appellatives 19n22, 73 argument structure 99, 118, 145n52, 205 Ashkenaz see also Ashkenazic Ashkenazic ix, 3–5, 6n6, 10, 21, 36–40, 40n22, 41, 42, 44, 45, 50, 63, 240, 241n10 aspect ix, 11, 14, 32, 77–79, 89, 104, 108, 109, 109n23, 110, 110n27, 111–113, 117, 120, 143, 176, 191, 192, 204 aspectoid forms 11, 12, 14, 78 imperfective 11, 105, 108–113, 119n34 perfective 12, 105, 108–113, 120 assimilation 21, 33, 38, 50, 52, 53, 57, 237, 244 attribute 138, 153, 154 attributive adjective 15, 16

attributive constructions 73, 80, 173, 174 augmentation 22, 81, 82, 89 → see also augmentative augmentative ix, 22, 78, 81–83, 89, 91, 251 autosemantic 64, 131 auxiliary 14, 74–76, 80, 80n51, 118, 119, 121n37, 122–125, 127–129, 144, 162, 210, 214, 215n11, 221 Beider, Alexander 4, 5, 5n4, 6, 9n9, 25, 27, 37, 37n17, 38, 38n18, 39, 40, 42, 42n24, 43, 44, 44n26, 45, 45n29, 46, 46n32, 49 Belarussian 39, 41, 50, 85, 114 bilingualism 8, 13, 24, 29, 31, 34, 35, 39, 50, 55, 63–65, 86, 87, 91, 92, 92n6, 93, 96, 99, 179, 237, 238, 245, 252, 253 Bin-Nun, Jechiel 3, 4, 6, 37, 44, 44n28, 46, 49 body parts 44, 48, 177, 178, 181, 185, 187, 190– 192, 194 Bohemia 4, 5, 10, 20, 37, 37n17, 38, 40, 42, 43 borrowability 90, 103n16, 135n50, 176, 177, 180, 185, 190–192 borrowed score 177, 177n3, 179, 179n6, 180– 183, 185, 187–189, 192 borrowing hierarchies 77, 89, 103, 103n16, 118, 135, 135n50, 144, 252 borrowing scale 89, 135 → see also borrowing hierarchies borrowing → see also borrowings, matter-pattern → see also matter, borrowing → see also pattern, borrowing lexical x, xi, 11, 22, 24, 35, 36, 46, 61, 72, 88–90, 92, 93, 97–99, 102, 104, 107, 125, 135, 177, 256 structural x, xi, 90, 91, 91n4, 95n9, 106, 107 borrowings → see also borrowing core 248, 249, 254 cultural 248–250, 254 German xii, 62n40, 107, 111, 112, 112n28, 189, 236, 239, 241 Hebrew 193

index lexical xiii, 53, 89, 90, 92, 102, 114n30, 130, 131, 141, 180, 238, 248, 254 matter-pattern 93, 100, 122 Polish 10, 19n21, 46, 54, 55, 88, 102, 102n14, 103, 103n15, 104–107, 111, 112, 112n28, 126, 130, 135, 136, 146, 170, 234, 243 Slavic 10, 19, 44, 45n29, 47, 51, 54–56, 77, 89, 103, 103n17, 190, 191, 194, 239, 243, 255 Yiddish 232, 232n1, 233, 234, 234n3, 235–239, 239n7, 240, 240n8, 241– 256 Brzezina, Maria 233, 234, 236, 238 calque 12, 15, 22, 45, 75, 91n4, 108–110, 116, 134, 166, 170, 180, 199–201, 252n15 → see also loan translation → see also loanwords cartographic approach 204, 206n1 Chomsky, Noam 203–207, 224n21 clitics 11, 14, 97, 123, 124, 133n46, 144, 219n17 co-territorial 5, 24n5, 39, 39n21, 189, 232 code switching 8, 8n8, 21, 31, 35, 126, 127, 244 cognate 47, 48, 53, 107, 117, 129, 240n8, 248 combinatorial rules 60, 91, 92, 97, 145n52 complementizer phrase 202, 204–208, 208n5, 209, 216–231 component languages x, 25, 98, 100, 101, 114, 115, 133, 136, 137, 147, 148, 151, 162, 174, 181n9, 239 German 18, 19n22, 82 Hebrew 16, 25, 41, 62 Romance 5, 39n20, 41, 44, 44n26, 61 Slavic 1–5, 7, 9, 18, 20, 26, 28, 63, 82, 85, 101, 109, 115, 182, 204 compounding 15, 16, 148, 163 strategies 16, 146–149, 151, 153, 162, 165, 167, 168, 171–175 system 147, 148, 162 compounds analytic 146–148, 151, 155, 165–168, 173, 175 asyndetic 40n21, 73, 151, 159, 160, 162, 171, 174 attributive 150, 168, 173–175 German-type 73, 146, 147, 149, 151, 154, 155, 160, 168, 174, 175 hyphenated 152–154, 168, 174

277 left-headed 149–151, 159–162, 165–175 nominal 73, 146, 163 possessive 150, 151, 161, 162, 167, 171–175 right-headed 149, 151, 152, 154, 160, 164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 174, 175 Slavic-type 151, 155 synthetic 146–148, 150–155, 163, 165–168, 171, 172, 174 congruence xiii, 12, 12n14, 22, 24n5, 49 grammatical 65, 154 conjunctions 11, 15n19, 120n36, 127, 208, 211n9, 228, 228n23, 252 connectivity 60, 96, 97, 144 connector 66, 67 consonants ix, 18, 19, 19n21, 19n22, 98, 104, 123, 242, 244, 245 construct states (smixut) 16, 159, 164, 165 contact-induced change ix, xii, 5, 11, 24, 26, 28, 29n10, 31, 35, 43, 58, 62, 68n44, 78– 80, 85, 87, 90, 91n4, 92, 95, 100, 102, 103, 110, 125, 131, 142, 144, 145, 176, 237, 248 contact language x, 26, 27, 29, 57, 60, 98, 151, 178, 179, 189, 191–193 contact linguistics ix–xi, 7, 11, 21, 22, 24–30, 32, 34, 36, 56, 57, 61, 62, 67, 85, 87, 88n1, 91, 103, 110n27, 124n41, 142, 145, 232, 234, 256 contact phenomena x, 9, 11, 22, 24, 24n4, 26, 27, 65, 78, 82, 87 contact situation x, 20, 29, 32, 60, 63, 86, 89, 93, 94, 100, 117, 232, 234, 238, 244 continuum ix, 31, 32, 32n13, 35, 58, 89 convergence x, 16, 17, 23–25, 25n7, 27, 31, 33, 43, 47, 85, 86, 98, 107, 178, 202, 221 copying 122, 124 creole languages 32n13, 34, 56, 57, 64 cross-linguistic mapping 47, 95n9 Czech xi, 4, 37n17, 41, 49, 74 Old 10, 37, 37n17, 39, 40, 55, 100, 241 declarative 205, 210, 220, 226 deconstruction 147, 148, 152–154, 168, 172, 174 deixis 91, 111, 112, 141 derivation 73, 103–105, 108, 111, 131, 133–135, 137, 139, 206n1, 247, 250, 251, 254 derivational system 102, 117, 148 derivatives 47, 48, 53, 108, 132, 135, 247, 250, 254

278 determinans 73, 147, 149 determinatum 149, 154 diachronic x, xi, 10, 24, 29, 36, 60, 99, 102, 104, 144, 147, 168, 192, 215n11, 242 diagnostic test 48, 53, 95n9 diffusion x, 12, 26, 31, 85, 88, 91, 92, 101, 103, 104, 154, 160, 171, 172, 236, 244 backward 98, 114n30, 115, 117, 133n47, 137, 157, 160, 175 forward 98, 114, 114n30, 115, 133n47, 153 diglossia 30, 31 diminutive 13, 71, 78, 82–84, 86, 89, 243 discourse markers 11n12, 61, 62, 89, 118, 125, 252 divergence x, 23, 25, 25n7, 27 donor language 32, 35, 59, 153, 162, 175, 176, 178, 191–193, 232, 234, 254 ethnolect 4, 62, 63, 233, 238 etymological origin 168, 185, 194 → see also etymology etymology 9, 10, 44n26, 45n30, 75, 98, 106, 106n20, 107, 115, 123, 133n46, 168, 175, 185, 194, 233, 239–243, 256 euphemisms 55, 193, 251, 255 exponents xiii, 7, 35, 64, 78, 79, 95n9, 99, 100, 118, 119, 120n36, 121, 125, 128– 132, 136, 139, 141, 161–163, 165, 168, 213n10 inflectional 60, 66, 134n48 morphological 90, 118, 132, 134, 135, 138, 142, 162, 207, 213, 225n21 expressions 120n36, 154n7 expressive function 8, 46, 83, 246–248, 250, 251, 254, 255, 255n17 external change 78 → see also contact-induced change extralinguistic 2, 20, 27n9, 29–31, 94, 95, 243, 244, 246 finiteness 206, 221 first language 32, 39 focalization 217, 218, 220–223, 223n18, 224, 230, 231 focus 67, 68, 141, 202, 205, 205n1, 206, 206n1, 207, 208, 217–219, 219n17, 220–223, 223n20, 224–226, 230, 231 phrase 206, 217n14, 218–222, 224, 229, 231

index formatives 81, 89, 92, 98, 98n12, 103, 104, 104n18, 105, 106, 108, 110, 114, 115, 133, 134, 137, 139, 141, 155–158 adverbial 133 derivational 72, 104, 156 inflectional 65, 72 France 2–4, 41n23 French 3, 30n11, 57, 59, 61, 174, 208n5, 233, 235, 254, 255 function words 60, 64, 118, 119, 132, 135n50 functional categories 204–208, 227 functional units 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 127 fusion language ix, 3, 12n13, 25, 25n6, 39, 41, 61, 85, 87, 100, 147, 149 Gajek, Michał xiv, 1, 10, 21, 23, 27, 39, 47, 53, 94, 95, 95n9, 192, 232, 234, 242, 243n11, 248 Geller, Ewa xiii, xiv, 7, 9n9, 11, 13, 14, 14n17, 21, 23, 26, 27, 38n18, 39, 45n30, 47, 48, 53, 54, 60, 61, 64, 68, 70, 73, 77, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 94, 95, 95n9, 102n14, 103, 109n24, 112n28, 123, 124, 129, 148, 148n4, 189, 191, 192, 211n8, 213n10, 215n11, 233, 237, 248, 249 genealogy (linguistic) ix, x, 16, 25, 26, 78, 87 German borrowings see borrowings, German component see component languages, German dialects 4–6, 24n5, 27, 41, 42, 67, 81n52, 83, 100, 149, 202, 241, 242 Middle High 15, 202 origin 16, 18, 19n22, 65, 85, 89, 101, 110, 111, 112n28, 113, 115, 116, 133, 134, 136, 140, 141, 144, 151, 152, 155–158, 168, 171, 175, 179, 181, 182, 187, 188, 190, 192, 194, 229, 241 patterns see patterns, German Germanic ix, 6, 7, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30n11, 37, 48n33, 50, 54, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 78, 79, 81, 87, 94, 100, 101, 106, 106n21, 107, 125, 133, 134, 147, 149, 152–156, 158, 163, 164, 166, 168, 171, 172, 174, 188, 191, 204, 241 Germany ix, 2–5, 24n5, 42, 43, 61 gloss xiii, 56 government (grammar) 66, 124, 227n23

index Graetz, Heinrich 37 grammar-lexicon split 46, 59, 86 grammatical agreement 15, 65, 66, 71, 72, 125, 127n43, 138, 139, 144, 165–167, 171, 205, 206, 217, 227 → see also congruence, grammatical grammatical case accusative 72, 73, 122, 124 dative 72, 75, 75n48, 122 genitive 160, 163 instrumental 135, 136 nominative 72, 122, 124, 206, 245 oblique 72, 122 grammatical categories x, xiii, 11, 35, 56, 59, 64, 77, 81, 88, 90, 94, 95n9, 99, 102, 110, 111, 129, 145n52, 149 grammatical features ix, 11, 100, 101, 176, 204, 238 grammatical function 34, 35, 88, 90, 100, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 117–119, 127, 142, 144 grammatical gender 7, 66, 71, 96, 98, 134n48, 135n49, 136, 165, 246 grammatical structures 57, 59, 64, 95n9, 142, 203, 208 grammaticalization 34, 35, 76, 77, 84, 88, 92, 100, 102, 104, 110n25, 113, 114n29, 115–119, 122, 123, 124n40, 125, 129, 130, 135, 136, 140–143 Grand Duchy of Lithuania 39, 39n21, 40 Halle, Morris 37 Harkavy, Abraham 37 Haspelmath, Martin 45, 89, 176, 176n1, 176n2, 177, 177n3, 177n4, 178, 179, 179n6, 180, 182, 189, 190n13, 192, 194 head 54, 134, 146, 147, 149–155, 159, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168–170, 170n16, 171, 173–175, 190, 196, 204–207, 217, 218, 224, 226, 230, 246, 249 Hebrew xiii, 5, 8, 16, 17, 25n6, 36, 38, 43, 47, 52, 61, 62, 62n40, 63, 71, 116, 133, 147, 148, 151, 153, 156, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 172, 174, 175, 180, 181, 191, 194, 233, 234n3, 240, 241n10, 242 borrowings see borrowings, Hebrew component see component languages, Hebrew

279 Hebrew-Aramaic 3, 133n47, 137, 159, 185 merged 240 origin 3, 39, 66, 71, 100, 106n20, 115, 133, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 162, 170, 172, 174, 179, 194, 240 patterns see patterns, Hebrew script 61, 62 whole 240 high variety 30, 31, 61, 232, 235, 236 holistic perspective ix, 14n18, 21, 56, 57 hybrid x, 11, 14, 14n17, 25n6, 27, 59, 63, 66, 79, 82, 85, 86, 98, 133n46, 137, 151, 156, 162, 166, 180, 246, 252, 252n15 hypercorrectness 20, 245 hyphenation 153, 164, 169 hypocoristics ix, 9, 51, 55, 82–84, 91, 185n11, 251 identity 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 41–43, 46, 50, 52, 57, 58, 62, 63, 87, 234–236, 239, 254 idiolect 29, 33, 181 imposition 31, 234n4 infinitive 17, 106, 122, 125, 129, 139, 247 infix see affixes inflection 69, 71–73, 78, 97, 120, 134, 144, 206 inflectional ending 74, 98n12, 104, 119, 135, 135n49, 136, 156, 245 inflectional language 137, 161, 245 inflectional phrase 204–207, 208n5, 217, 218, 222, 223, 223n19, 225–228, 230, 231 inflectional system 64, 72, 73, 77, 101, 156, 175 inherited features 32, 80, 87, 88, 110, 125n41, 141, 174 innovation 18, 19, 24, 88, 91, 94–96, 102, 139, 143, 248 integration xi, 19, 58, 59, 92, 105, 243–249 interference 24, 94, 99, 240 interjections 252 interlanguage 29, 32–34, 65n41, 70 internal change 1, 6, 12, 24, 27, 41, 68, 74, 78, 87, 95, 100, 131 internationalisms 54, 181, 182, 240, 248 interrogative 202, 205, 207, 208, 212, 216, 224, 229, 230 interrogative sentences 202, 203, 206, 208, 208n5, 209, 211–217, 219–222, 225, 225n22, 226–231

280 intertranslatability ix, 12n14, 79, 80, 87 intertwined languages 29, 34, 57, 57n39 → see also mixed language intonation 210, 213, 214, 226, 229 intralinguistic 20, 35, 58, 78, 95 Jacobs, Neil 10, 25, 27, 65n42, 85, 110n25, 131, 133, 133n47, 147, 159, 160, 162, 210, 212–214, 216, 229, 240 Jakobson, Roman 37 jargon 1, 23, 27n9, 188, 234n3, 236, 247, 249, 254 Jewish languages 39, 42n24, 61–63, 188, 234, 235, 243 Judeo-French 3, 41, 162n10 Judeo-German 4n3 Judeo-Italian 3, 41 Judeo-Slavic 5, 27, 36–38 Knaan 38 Knaanic Jews (Knaanim) 5, 5n5, 6, 21, 36– 38, 38n19, 40–43, 45 Knaanic East 39, 39n21, 40n21, 43, 45n31, 55 West 6, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 49 Kondrat, Agata 27, 54, 55, 107n22, 243 → see also Reibach, Agata Kupfer, Franciszek 36, 38, 191 labels 34, 60, 97, 177, 178, 187, 188, 190–192 language barriers 29, 33, 35, 87, 143, 178, 234 language change x, 24, 25, 27, 29, 60, 78, 90, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102 language contact xiii, xiv, 9, 23, 24, 26–30, 35, 36, 45, 46, 78, 80, 81, 84, 87, 89–91, 93–99, 101, 102, 117, 142, 178, 181, 189n13, 232, 234, 256 Yiddish-Polish xi → see also language contact: YiddishSlavic Yiddish-Slavic xi, xiv, 1–3, 20, 21, 36, 52, 53, 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 145, 176, 234, 238, 242, 256 language development 23, 163 language economy 46, 65n41, 140, 171 language family ix, 6, 30, 71, 78, 149 language shift 4, 7, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30–32, 32n12, 33, 35, 37n17, 38–44, 46, 47, 61– 63, 85–87, 94, 149, 235, 237, 238

index incomplete 32, 33, 42, 43, 63, 65 partial 22, 32, 87 Language Tree Model ix, 23, 25, 101 Leipzig-Jakarta list 177, 181, 185, 188–190 lemma 34n15, 92n5, 96, 97, 97n11 leveling 31, 33, 43n25, 49, 59, 71, 74, 75n47, 85, 86, 143 Levelt, Willem 91, 96 Lewicki, Tadeusz 36, 38, 191 lexemes xiii, 34–36, 46–48, 53, 64, 73, 80, 84, 88, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 101, 103, 107, 111, 116, 133n47, 136, 137, 141, 142, 144, 147, 149, 151, 153, 157, 158, 163–165, 167, 169, 170n16, 171n17, 172, 175, 178, 179, 179n6, 180–182, 187, 190, 193, 194, 233, 243, 247, 249, 252n14 lexical doublets 39, 55, 56, 107, 111, 112, 137 lexical function 105, 114 lexical system 97–99, 147, 151, 194, 249 lexical units 33, 36, 46, 69, 88, 91, 94, 95n9, 97, 100, 101, 114n30, 120n36, 125, 137, 142, 149, 153, 162, 163, 165, 167, 177, 182, 206, 207, 239 lexicon 4, 6, 10, 30, 34, 57n39, 59, 90, 91, 131, 146, 176, 177, 190, 192, 206, 233, 238–240, 247, 248, 250, 254, 256 lexis 90, 91, 131, 146 → see also lexicon linguistic accommodation 34, 87 linguistic structures 36, 56, 70, 147, 229 linguistic system ix, x, 59, 61, 78, 86, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 124, 131, 151, 204, 229 linguistic variants ix, 4n3, 5, 9n10, 12n14, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 32n12, 32n13, 33, 35, 36, 39–41, 43, 43n25, 44n26, 46, 57, 58, 61– 63, 67, 77, 78, 83, 86, 87, 101, 104, 106n21, 153, 181, 187, 192, 240n8, 241, 241n10, 242 loan translation 34, 36, 54, 62n40, 64, 76, 91, 127n43 loanwords 35, 42, 49n35, 53, 94, 103n17, 105, 142, 176, 177, 182, 185, 192, 194, 234, 239, 247, 248, 250, 254, 255, 255n17 → see also calque Loez 3, 25n6, 41 Loter 3–5 low variety 30, 31, 232, 235, 236, 253–255 loyalty (linguistic) 41, 42, 46, 235

281

index majority language 202, 232, 256 markedness 66, 74, 78, 82, 83, 91, 102, 130– 132, 137–139, 141, 154, 164, 165, 175, 213n10, 226, 251 Matras, Yaron xiv, 11n12, 29, 33n14, 57, 89–92, 92n6, 103, 114n30, 117, 118, 131, 135, 142, 145, 190, 247, 251, 252, 254 matrix language 34n15, 65, 92n5, 245 frame (mlf) 33, 34, 36, 60, 65, 69, 89, 96, 97, 245 matter 7, 11, 22, 28, 46, 53, 59, 76, 90, 93, 94, 100, 131 borrowing 26, 28, 36, 55n37, 56, 88–94, 98, 99, 102–104, 106, 107, 110, 113–115, 117, 118, 122, 124–131, 133–137, 142–146, 175, 234 mazuration 20, 20n23 mental lexicon 34n15, 92n5, 96 metaphor 101, 143n51, 192, 249 metatypy x, 26, 60, 63–66, 68–70, 85 metonymy 192, 243, 249 Minimalist Program 203, 205, 206 minority language 39n21, 234, 256 mixed language ix–xi, xii, 3, 21, 23, 23n1, 25, 25n6, 26, 27, 27n9, 28, 29, 33, 33n14, 34, 36, 46, 56, 57, 57n39, 58–61, 63, 64, 66, 70, 77, 85–87, 100, 124, 141, 144, 147, 148, 155, 175, 176, 179, 180, 190n13, 192 → see also intertwined languages → see also split languages modality 90, 103, 119, 121, 125, 127, 132n45, 133, 141–143, 204 model language xi, 32, 60, 65n42, 80, 86, 88, 88n1, 90–93, 99, 100, 102, 104, 104n18, 106, 107, 109–111, 112n28, 114, 114n31, 115, 117–119, 124, 130, 131, 134, 136, 138, 140, 143, 143n51, 144, 162, 163, 173 modifier 71, 73, 132n45, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152–163, 165–169, 173, 174 mood ix, 76, 89, 102, 118–122, 124, 125, 127– 130, 130n44, 142–144, 204, 206 conditional ix, 14n17, 127–129, 130n44 imperative 14, 76, 118–121, 121n37, 122– 125, 130n44, 142–144 irrealis 121, 127–129, 130n44 optative 118, 119, 120n36, 121, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130n44, 142, 144 subjunctive 118, 121, 130n44

morpheme bound 64, 89, 103, 107, 114, 117 derivational 72, 98, 107, 108, 156–158 inflectional 64, 89, 137, 156–158, 163, 245 word-formational 12, 36, 114, 139, 140, 168, 246 morpho-syntactic frame 7, 59, 65, 85, 88, 96, 97, 118, 126, 245 → see also matrix language, frame (mlf) morphology 6, 7, 11, 13, 22, 26n8, 55, 55n37, 60, 70–72, 82, 83, 97, 104, 113, 127, 133, 136, 139–143, 146, 162, 175, 206n1, 219, 221, 243, 245, 246, 253 inflectional 137, 245 morphosyntax 60, 73, 80, 85, 86, 110n25, 118, 123, 124, 124n40, 130, 131, 139, 141, 144, 206n1 Moskovich, Wolf 38, 47 multilingualism 24, 43, 99, 178, 179, 189n13, 232 Myers-Scotton, Carol 33, 34, 34n15, 90, 91, 92n5, 96, 97n11, 103, 145, 244, 245, 247, 248, 253 names personal 9, 38, 39, 45, 55, 72 place 19, 19n22 proper 72, 73, 78, 83, 117, 154 national language 23, 53, 57, 58, 236, 242 negation 17, 76–78, 250 negator 69, 76 neologisms 153, 197 Neuberg, Simon 6, 26, 124, 148, 151, 153, 162 nominal phrase 59, 204, 205, 217, 217n14, 217n15, 218, 218n16, 229, 230 nominal system 56, 59, 63, 70–72, 74, 77 noun 16, 45, 71, 73, 77, 103, 105, 108, 115, 116, 126, 132–136, 138, 146, 147, 149, 154, 160, 161, 166, 168, 173, 174, 176, 245–247, 250, 253 inflection 72, 253 adjectival 65n42, 135, 139, 146, 147, 154–159, 166, 167, 167n15, 168, 169, 173, 174 number 7, 66, 118, 120, 124, 135n49, 144 object 72, 202, 204, 211, 223n18

282 palatalization 18, 19, 244 paradigm 14, 19n21, 36, 65, 72, 73, 75, 76, 94, 118, 120, 122, 124, 124n41, 125, 139, 140, 143, 246, 253 inflectional 65, 75, 75n47, 76, 91, 99, 101, 103, 119, 120, 122, 123, 142, 144, 245 paradigmatic relations 60, 77 paradigmatic replacements 7, 56 parameters 131, 179n6, 204 parametric features 209, 216, 231 parametrization 203, 206, 207, 220, 231 part of speech 11, 59, 60, 89, 96, 102, 103, 110n25, 115, 130–134, 137–142, 158, 247 participle 133, 139, 140, 215n11, 221 past 74, 77, 80n51, 110n25, 128, 129, 132, 215, 221, 230 present 121n37, 132, 139, 141 particle 11, 118–120, 120n36, 121, 123–127, 130–132, 133n46, 144, 208n5, 215, 216, 219, 219n17, 220, 230, 252 interrogative 69, 209, 210, 210n7, 214, 230 question 220 pattern 12, 13, 34, 40n21, 56, 59, 66, 86, 88, 92–94, 95n9, 98, 102, 111, 117, 123, 125, 125n41, 130, 131, 137, 142, 143, 154, 168, 169, 171, 174 borrowing xi, 12n14, 22, 28, 36, 90, 91, 92n6, 93, 94, 98, 99, 107–109, 109n23, 111, 113–115, 122, 124, 125, 130, 131, 137, 142, 143, 145, 149, 162, 175, 234 replication 26, 28, 65, 90, 99, 108, 109, 111, 124, 130, 154, 162, 174 patterns derivational 12, 47, 103, 104, 108, 117, 134, 146, 148n4, 176 German 22, 100, 112, 153, 162, 168, 174 grammatical ix, 36, 88, 94, 129, 137 Hebrew 17, 100, 162, 165, 170, 172 inflectional 60 Polish 13, 14n17, 76, 80, 112, 117, 138, 159, 162, 173, 175 Slavic 14, 17, 22, 28, 65, 70, 86, 100, 109, 110, 120, 160, 162, 169, 170, 172 structural 86, 92 systemic 13, 93, 131

index word-formational x, xii, 12n14, 13n15, 91, 147, 153, 159, 160, 162, 168, 172 Yiddish 56, 86 periphery (grammar) 205–207, 216, 226, 230, 231 periphrastic 110n25, 161, 171, 193 person 7, 106, 118–120, 121n37, 122–124, 127, 128, 144, 213n10 phonemes 10, 18, 19, 61, 99, 245 phonetic strings 34, 64 phonetics xiii, 18, 18n20, 19, 22, 34, 38, 64, 97, 101, 112, 125, 133n46, 136, 181n9, 240n8, 241, 242, 244, 253 phonology xiii, 6, 10, 18, 18n20, 19, 19n22, 20, 22, 30, 39, 44, 64, 97, 98, 105, 123, 127n43, 136, 206, 213n10, 240–245 phonotactics 18, 19, 97, 244 pidgin languages 56, 57 Pilarski, Anna xiv, 202, 203, 220, 227, 228n23 Poland x, xiv, 5, 8, 10, 19n22, 20, 20n23, 37, 37n17, 40, 42, 43, 49–51, 53, 54, 106n21, 232–237, 256 Polish borrowings see borrowings, Polish dialects 13, 20, 56, 242 Old 37, 37n17, 40, 45, 48, 53, 55, 100, 115, 119 origin 9, 55, 75, 81, 100, 116, 133, 136, 139, 140, 143, 172, 229 patterns see patterns, Polish Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 7, 8, 40, 50, 51 polyfunctionality 75, 104, 107, 127, 137–139 polysemy 107, 111 possessiveness 151, 161, 162, 167, 168, 171 postposition 123n38, 141, 167, 173 postverbal 217, 217n15, 220, 222n18 pragmatics ix, 11n12, 22, 27, 29, 33, 43, 47, 49, 51, 52, 62, 67, 68, 77, 78, 84, 87, 89, 90, 96, 97n11, 211n8, 235, 246, 252–254 Pre-Ashkenazic 36, 37, 40, 44 → see also Ashkenazic predicate 7, 65n42, 127n43, 131, 138, 139, 141, 210, 214 predication 14, 59 prefixation 64, 106, 108–110, 110n25, 111, 113, 250 prefixes see affixes

index preposition 11, 17, 64, 66, 69, 72, 132, 133n46, 161, 162, 171 prepositional constructions 72, 134, 167n15, 171, 175 prepositional phrases 132, 151, 161, 171, 172 prestige 2, 22, 29–31, 33, 39n21, 41, 43, 43n25, 49, 51, 52, 55, 58, 62, 92, 188, 234, 235, 254, 255 preverbal 96, 211, 213, 216, 218n16, 230 Prince, Ellen 24n4, 26, 67, 74, 81, 162n10, 203, 206n1, 213n10 principles 204, 207n2, 227n23 pro-drop 66, 74, 80n51, 124, 213n10, 228n24 pronoun 11, 14, 64, 66–68, 74, 76, 80n51, 122, 123, 154n7, 213n10, 223n19 interrogative 203, 225, 225n22, 227 personal 11, 14, 16, 66, 74, 75, 122, 122n38, 124, 144, 213n10 reflexive 13, 64, 75, 81 prototypical equivalent 179, 180, 185, 187 psycho-linguistic factors 28, 29, 46, 55, 89, 93, 145 reanalysis x, 34, 35, 75, 90, 100, 103, 109n24, 118, 125, 127, 130, 135, 136, 139, 142 recipient language 12n14, 32, 35, 47, 88, 88n1, 89, 90n3, 92–94, 95n9, 96–99, 102, 104, 107, 113, 114, 118, 127, 131, 142, 143n51, 145, 176, 232, 234, 237, 238, 246, 248, 250 Reibach, Agata xiv, 16, 27, 54, 55, 107n22, 146, 176, 243 → see also Kondrat, Agata relabeling 34, 85 relexification x, 4, 4n3, 15n19, 22, 25, 26, 33– 35, 46, 46n32, 47, 59, 62n40, 63, 64, 70, 75, 76, 85, 90, 123, 125 relics 10, 32, 39, 44–48, 53, 55, 56, 94, 95n9, 192, 194, 237 religious terms 10, 13n15, 39, 44, 45, 45n29, 240, 241n9, 248, 249 replica language 32, 60, 65, 77, 88, 88n1, 90– 93, 99, 100, 102, 104, 107, 109, 117, 123, 124n40, 125, 130, 142, 143, 143n51, 149 replication x, 12, 15n19, 21, 22, 31, 34, 36, 55, 61, 68, 70, 73, 75, 77, 78n49, 81, 83–85, 91n4, 98, 99, 101, 104, 105, 106n21, 107, 109n24, 110, 113, 114, 114n31, 115, 116, 118–

283 121, 124, 124n40, 125, 127, 128, 130, 134, 137–143, 143n51, 144, 147, 172, 174, 244 resemantization 26, 66, 85, 100, 110, 192, 241 restructuring 58, 60, 65, 85, 98, 125, 130, 175 Rhineland 4, 5, 41, 42 Romani 189, 189n13, 254 Ross, Malcolm 26, 60, 65–68, 86 Russian xi, 10, 13, 39, 41, 50–52, 54, 57, 241 šabesdiker lošn 20 Sapir, Edward 37 Schuchardt, Hugo 23, 23n1, 25, 25n7 second language 32, 51, 143 acquisition 28–30, 32n13 segmentation 97, 104, 106 semantic categories x, xii, 59, 89 semantic field 54, 89, 97, 146, 146n2, 176–179, 179n6, 181, 182, 185, 188–192, 194 semantic function 167, 172, 173 semantics ix, xii, 13, 45n29, 47, 48, 60, 65, 77–79, 89–91, 108, 110, 111, 114, 119, 144, 173, 178, 242, 247 Semitic influence 20, 100, 178 origin 106, 187 Slavic 6, 27, 37, 38n18, 42–45, 45n31, 49, 192 borrowings see borrowings, Slavic component see component languages, Slavic compounds see compounds, Slavictype elements 5, 9, 22, 42, 48n34, 137, 180–182 glosses 36, 38, 45, 47 influence xi, xii, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11–14, 14n18, 15, 16, 22, 43, 44, 49, 52, 61, 66, 75, 77, 79, 115, 146, 232 languages ix–xi, 3–5, 9, 9n10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 39, 41, 43, 45n29, 46, 48n34, 49, 50, 52–56, 62–64, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85–87, 101, 103, 104n18, 105, 106, 110, 126, 144, 148, 149, 153, 154, 154n7, 162, 163, 165, 172, 174, 175, 178, 189–191, 193, 202, 203, 213n10, 231–233, 241 origin xi, 10, 17, 45, 48n33, 71, 81, 89, 103, 106, 115, 124, 132, 133n46, 135, 153, 155– 157, 179, 187, 190, 194

284 patterns see patterns, Slavic syntactic frame 69, 86 Slavs 5, 6, 8, 10, 19, 45, 52 socio-linguistic factors x–xii, 26, 28–30, 33, 36, 44, 52, 57, 57n39, 61, 63, 86, 87, 93, 145, 179, 234, 243 source language 3, 9, 10, 12n14, 31, 32, 34, 47, 49, 56n38, 58, 63, 81, 88, 88n1, 95, 95n9, 96, 98–100, 105, 113, 114, 119, 126, 129, 142, 153, 169 speech processing 89, 91, 98 speech production model 91, 96 split languages 57 → see also mixed language structural change xi, 24, 31, 90, 95, 96, 102, 145 features ix, 59, 60, 207, 212, 221, 256 framework 60, 67 influence xi, 12, 14, 49, 61, 65, 66, 68, 89, 95n9, 145, 202 similarity xiii, 24n5, 80, 82, 83, 98, 212 Stuchkoff, Nahum 102n14, 106n21, 112n28, 114, 118n33, 150, 181 subject 7, 14, 65, 66, 72, 74, 124, 127n43, 141, 202, 204, 208, 211, 213, 213n10, 216, 217, 217n14, 217n15, 218, 218n16, 221, 226– 228, 228n24, 229, 230 substrate 7, 10, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30–35, 39n20, 41–43, 45, 45n31, 46, 56, 61–63, 73, 87, 93–95, 95n9, 99, 143, 144, 192, 194, 237, 248 subsystems xii, 6, 9, 12, 16, 30, 97, 146, 163, 175, 250 suffixation 111, 134, 140, 141, 148 suffixes see affixes superstrate 28, 30–32, 34, 35, 39, 39n21, 50, 52, 56, 61, 63, 86 Swadesh list 177, 177n4 synchronic 24, 28, 118, 132, 141, 147, 163n11 synonyms 47, 48, 137, 147, 151, 155, 161, 171, 172, 175, 179, 180, 182–185, 185n10, 186, 187, 190, 194 synonymy 88n1, 111, 113, 140, 155, 179, 190n13 → see also synonyms syntactic categories xii, 89, 119, 130, 141, 202 syntactic constituents 59, 205n1 syntactic frame 67, 68 syntactic function 131, 138, 139

index syntagm 252 → see also syntagmatic syntagmatic 60, 66, 70, 150, 162 relations 60, 77, 149 syntax ix, xiv, 6, 14, 96, 134, 145n52, 146, 205, 209, 219, 230 systemic change x, 11, 13, 16, 88, 102, 125, 130, 131, 142, 143, 145, 172, 238 systemic features 6, 26, 30, 33, 51, 79, 81, 102, 142, 148, 238, 253 systemic mechanisms 58, 144, 145, 247 taboo 13n15, 55, 89, 178, 178n5, 194, 241n9, 248, 250, 251, 255 Tadmor, Uri 45, 89, 176, 176n1, 176n2, 177, 177n3, 177n4, 178, 179, 179n6, 180, 182, 189, 190n13, 192, 194 target language 7, 21, 30–35, 42, 43, 47, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 78, 81, 237, 253 tense future 14, 120, 124, 125 perfect 121, 129, 210, 215, 215n11, 221, 230 pluperfect 14, 14n17, 129 present 14, 74, 128 preterite 77, 127–129 simple past 14, 78, 121, 221 Tense-Aspect-Mood-system (tam) 13, 21, 77, 89–91, 110 thematic roles 60, 96, 204, 205, 207, 211 theta-roles 204, 211 → see also thematic roles Thomason & Kaufman 22, 26, 31, 93, 145, 237, 238 Timm, Erika 6, 124 topic 68, 205, 205n1, 206, 206n1, 207, 217– 220, 222–225, 230, 231 phrase 206, 207, 219, 221, 231 topicalization 216, 217, 222, 223, 223n19, 230 transformational-generative grammar 204 translatability 140 translation equivalents xiii, 15n19, 123, 126, 176, 179, 179n6, 180, 182, 187 main equivalent 179, 180, 182–185, 185n10, 186, 187, 194 Turkish 243 typological change 35, 78, 85, 87, 91, 99

index typological characteristics ix, 56, 63–65, 69, 77, 78, 81, 100, 101, 143, 174 typological similarity 40, 79, 245 typology ix–xi, 21, 25, 28, 35, 40, 46, 56, 58, 63–65, 69, 77–79, 81, 85, 87, 91, 93, 95n8, 99–101, 143, 150, 174, 176, 182, 185, 194, 245 Ukraine 4n3, 39 Ukrainian language ix, xi, 13, 17, 39, 41, 50, 81, 85, 100, 114, 231, 241 umlaut 71, 128 utterance modifiers 251–254 verb 7, 9, 13, 13n15, 14, 15, 17, 59, 64, 69, 73, 74, 74n47, 75, 77, 80, 80n51, 86, 103, 104, 104n18, 105, 106, 106n20, 106n21, 107, 107n22, 108–111, 113–119, 119n34, 121, 121n37, 122–125, 127–129, 141, 144, 204, 205, 207, 210, 212, 213, 215, 215n11, 215n12, 216, 217n15, 219–221, 223n18, 225, 227, 228n24, 231, 247, 250 auxiliary see auxiliary finite 80n51, 86, 202, 208–210, 212–214, 215n11, 217 inflection 104, 106, 118, 124 modal 78, 128 non-finite 210, 220, 221 prefixed 12, 22, 86, 106, 109, 110, 112 verbal-nominal split 59, 60, 63, 70, 77, 86 verbal phrase 59, 204, 205, 207, 225, 227, 228 verbal system 13, 21, 22, 56, 59, 63, 70, 73, 74, 77, 107, 205 verbalizer 108, 115 vocabulary ix, x, 5, 10, 18, 19n22, 28, 34, 41, 46, 53–55, 59–61, 65, 89, 93, 95, 100, 103, 105, 114, 114n30, 115–117, 146, 151, 163, 177n4, 178, 179, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188, 190–192, 194, 233, 236, 238, 238n6, 239, 240, 242, 243, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 256 core 47, 48, 53, 176–179, 181, 182, 185, 187– 190 cultural 39, 62, 238, 248 inherited 45n29, 45n31, 46, 114n30, 179, 181, 248 peripheral 53, 182, 190, 191, 194

285 vowel weakening 19n22, 105, 245 vowels ix, 9, 19, 19n22, 38, 55, 74n47, 105, 106, 123, 242, 245 unaccented 19n22, 244 wave theory 23, 58 Weinreich, Max ix, xi, xii, 1–5, 5n5, 6–12, 12n14, 13–19, 19n22, 20–22, 24, 24n5, 25, 25n6, 36–38, 38n18, 38n19, 39, 39n20, 40, 40n22, 41, 41n23, 42, 42n24, 43–45, 45n31, 46, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 61, 85, 90n4, 98, 108, 110n26, 148, 148n4, 159n8, 160, 162, 187, 189, 203 Weinreich, Uriel 20, 24, 24n4, 25n7, 26, 29 Wexler, Paul xi, 4, 4n3, 6, 25, 37, 45, 46, 46n32, 62n40, 64, 75, 85 wh-ex situ 208n5, 226, 230 wh-in-situ 208, 226 wh-movement 202, 207, 208, 212, 219, 221– 223, 223n20, 224, 227, 229, 231 wh-phrase 208, 208n4, 208n5, 211, 216, 217, 219, 222, 224, 226, 227, 228n23, 229– 231 wh-questions 202, 206n1, 208, 208n4, 209, 209n6, 211–213, 228 word family 12, 48, 172, 242, 250, 254 word formation ix, 6, 7, 11, 12, 70, 77, 97, 105, 114, 115, 134, 148, 165 base 98, 134, 156, 157, 163 models 36, 89, 142, 153, 175 rules 56, 170 system 90n3, 114, 147–149, 151, 174, 175 word order ix, 69, 75, 79, 99, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145n52, 153, 154, 162, 167, 168, 176, 206, 206n1, 209, 210, 213, 214, 216, 227, 227n23 sov 216, 227 svo 227, 227n23 vso 69, 75 yes-no questions 209, 209n6, 210, 212, 214, 220, 228, 230 Yiddish borrowings see borrowings, Yiddish Central Eastern (Polish) 122n38, 240n8, 242 patterns see patterns, Yiddish

286 influence xii, 232–234, 239, 243 Slavization of 21, 53, 77 Standard 123n38, 240n8 system xi, 4, 13, 21, 26, 27, 77, 78, 85, 86, 100, 101, 103, 109, 118, 136, 143, 147, 151, 172, 175, 204 syntax 15, 202, 203, 229

index Warsaw 11 Western ix, 3, 5, 20, 27, 39n20, 43, 61, 77, 85, 128 yivo transcription xii Zamenhof, Ludwik 122, 122n38, 123, 130, 130n44, 131, 189