The American Dialect Society

Jewish Dialect and New York Dialect Author(s): C. K. Thomas Reviewed work(s): Source: American Speech, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Jun., 1932), pp. 321-326 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/452953 . Accessed: 11/12/2012 12:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOLUME VII

NUMBER 5

domerican
JUNE - 1932

Speech

JEWISH DIALECT AND NEW YORK DIALECT

C. K. THOMAS Cornell University
D

URINGthe past four years I have worked with some hundreds of

university students in an attempt to improve the quality of their speech. A fair proportion of these students have been Jews from New York City and its suburbs. Their social and scholastic levels are about the same as those of other New Yorkers, but their speech is distinctly inferior, and this inferiority raised the question whether there might be a clearly defined dialect which was characteristic of New York Jews. The students with whom I have worked do not, of course, constitute a true cross-section of either New York or Jewish speech; such a cross-section would have to be obtained in New York itself. Those who can afford to travel 250 miles for their education represent, on the average, a higher social and economic level than those who stay at home and who are able, in many cases, to earn a larger part of their expenses than is possible in a small town. Because of this higher level, and because few of the New York Jews at Cornell speak any language but English, their dialect is by no means as extreme as that of the peripatetic Mr. Klein so carefully studied by Miss Benardete,1 or even as extreme as that of the general run of Jewish undergraduates in the New York City colleges. Many of them, however, have complicated their speech problem with tricks acquired in the elocution schools that are at present so popular among the higher class Jewish families of New York. Traditional Jewish and traditional New York pronunciations alike are in some cases conspicuously absent. Moreover, most of the students with whom I am familiar are to some extent conscious of their speech, for the greater number of them are sent
1 Dolores Benardete, "Immigrant Speech-Austrian-Jewish Style,"
SPEECH, AMERICAN

October, 1929. 321

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

American Speech

to me from courses in public speaking and dramatics. All of these factors complicate the problem of analysis, and make the results less conclusive. For purposes of comparison I divided my students into three groups: (1) Jews from New York City and its suburbs, (2) Gentiles from the same area, (3) Jews who had lived all their lives at a distance from New York City. After discarding all doubtful cases, namely, those of uncertain racial origin, those who had lived both in New York City and elsewhere, and those who lived in the typically Jewish summer resorts of the Catskills, I was left with the records of 112 students, of whom 75 were New York Jews, 19 were New York Gentiles, and 18 were Jews from other parts of the country. Thus approximately 67 percent of the total was in group 1, 17 percent in group 2, and 16 percent in group 3. A normal distribution of dialectal peculiarities, or errors, would therefore result in the same percentages, but when the errors had been classified it was found that, out of a total of 673, the New York Jews had made 522, the New York Gentiles 71, and the Jews from other parts of the country 80. In other words, group 1 made 78 percent of the errors, group 2 made 10 percent, and group 3 made 12 percent. Thus, in comparison with an average distribution, the speech of group 1 was distinctly inferior to that of the other two groups, as the following summary shows:

Group
1 A Number of cases in each group......... B Percentage of cases................... C Number of errors in each group........ D Percentage of errors.................. E Percentage above or below average dis....... tribution2............. 75 67 522 78 +16 2 19 17 71 10 -38 3 18 16 80 12 -26 Total 112 100 673 100

In considering the distribution of particular errors among the three groups, one must refer to line D in the above table as a basis for comparison. If the percentages for the particular error do not vary greatly from those of line D it is obvious that they give no information regard2 These figures represent the variation from 100 of the quotients obtained by dividing the figures in line D by the correspondingfigures in line B; in all calculaions the percentages were carried to two extra decimals.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jewish Dialect

323

ing the source of the error; but if the percentage for group 1, consisting of New York Jews, is higher than 78, that of group 2, consisting of New York Gentiles, higher than 10, and that of group 3, consisting of Jews from other localities, lower than 12, the distribution creates a strong presumption that the error in question is local rather than racial, for only the groups which include New Yorkers show a higher percentage than the average distribution. Similarly, if the percentages for another error are above the average for groups 1 and 3, and below for group 2, the distribution creates a strong presumption that this is a racial, rather than a local, error, for only the groups which include Jews show higher percentages than the average. In many cases, of course, there are neither sufficiently large numbers of instances of the error nor sufficiently great variations from the average to warrant any definite conclusion; in other cases, which are listed below, definite conclusions are inescapable. The most frequent error among these students was the dentalizing of the alveolar consonants [t, d, n, 1, s, z];"the error consists in making the characteristic consonantal obstruction between the tongue and teeth instead of between the tongue and gum ridge. The acoustic effect of this misplacement is least noticeable for [n, 1]; for [s, z] it suggests a slight lisp; [t, d] sound overexplosive and slightly higher in pitch. It is most noticeable when several alveolar consonants appear in the same word, as in dental and slant. The distribution of this error clearly indicates that it is Jewish in origin: group 1 is 10 percent above, and group 3 is 5 percent below, the average distribution of line D; but group 2, the Gentile group, is 66 percent below the average. In short, the Gentile group is remarkably free from this error, including only 8 instances out of a total of 224. The most frequently dentalized of these consonants is [1], and here the distribution is even more clearly Jewish: 10 percent above the average for group 1, 5 percent above for group 3, and 80 percent below for group 2. The cause of this error, whether a survival from Yiddish, German, or Slavic linguistic habit or otherwise, is not within the scope of this paper. Closely associated with dentalization is the overaspiration of [t] after [n] or [1], particularly at the beginning of an unstressed syllable or at the end of a word, as in winter, wilted, went, and wilt. Here the percentages are inconclusive, but it seems likely that this error is also Jewish.
Letters in square brackets are phonetic characters, which refer to sounds; those in quotation marks refer to spellings.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324

American Speech

Difficulty with [s] seems to be characteristic of Jewish speech. This is in part owing to the habit of dentalizing, but in addition there are other errors: exaggerated hissing, substitution of voiceless [1]and "th" [6] as in thin, and occasionally "sh" [f] as in she. There are 35 instances of these variations, of which only 3 are Gentile. Group 3, consisting of Jews who do not live in New York City, has the greatest difficulty with this sound, being 68 percent above the average distribution. Another clearly Jewish error is the substitution of [rig]for [i], so as, for instance, to make singer a rhyme for finger. There are 35 instances of this error in the three groups, and only one of them is Gentile. Furthermore, according to these figures, the Jews from New York do not make this error quite as persistently as do those from other localiso as, for instance, to make sing ties. The substitution of [ijk] for [rJ], in sink identical and sound, appears only 8 times. Though this is the traditional form of the error, perhaps because it can be represented more easily in the conventional alphabet, I do not believe it to be nearly as common as [rig]. Once in a great while the glottic stop is added instead of either [k] or [g]. Loss of the distinction between the voiced [w] and the voiceless "wh" [Ml,so as, for instance, to make witch and which identical, is quite common in both New York groups, but less common among the Jews from other localities. The distribution is 4 percent above the average from group 1, 60 percent above for group 2, and 29 percent below for group 3. In other words, the Jews from outside of New York have least trouble with the voiceless [M],and this bears out the traditional notion that, although this error is by no means confined to New York, it is there most conspicuous and prevalent. Similarly, the addition of an [r] to such words as idea and law, especially when the following word begins with a vowel, is, at least for these three groups, a New York characteristic, for none of group 3 added the [r], and group 2, the Gentile group, added it more consistently than group 1. The error is not, of course, limited to New York City, but is also encountered in New England. Errors in vowels and diphthongs are, with some doubtful exceptions, New Yorkese rather than Jewish. The vowel [o(v)] is distorted into an exaggerated diphthong which can best be indicated as [ev] or [ev], as in the pronunciation [nevt] for note [no(v)t]. This is similar to the extreme pronunciation of Oxford, though it is drawled to a greater length in New York. Group 1 is 2 percent above the average for this error, group 2 is 31 percent above, but group 3 is 42 percent below.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jewish Dialect

325

It should be noted that the Gentile group has the most trouble with this sound. Another characteristic error is the substitution of the compromise [a] for the flat [m] in such words as land, man, and bad. This differs from the New England use of [a] and the Southern British use of [a] in such words as path, dance, and laugh, and is more like certain Scotch and Irish dialects. A possible explanation may lie in the concerted efforts now being made in New York to teach the "broad a" [a] of "world standard" English. One who acquires this "broad a," or even the compromise [a], some years after learning to speak English is likely to use it in the wrong words, and at the same time to get the impression that the "flat a" [oe]is a disreputable sound, to be avoided whenever possible. At any rate, group 3 is least susceptible to the error, and group 1, which has had the greatest amount of elocutionary training, the most susceptible. Substitution of [yev]for [av] in such words as now, out, and power appears not to be a Jewish error. Group 1 is 3 percent below average, group 3 is 5 percent below, and group 2, the Gentile group, is 29 percent above. This error is characteristic of the South and of rural New England as well as of New York, and its significance in this study is doubtful. The change of the diphthong in my, fine, and light from [ai] to [aI], or to an even more retracted form, appears to be a New York characteristic, though more data will be required for certainty. In its most characteristic form the distortion resembles the German variety of the diphthong more closely than anything else. Group 1 is 12 percent above the average; group 2 is 10 percent below; group 3, however, includes only one instance of the error. Statistical figures on vocal quality are much less reliable, as the qualities themselves are so variable. In general, however, indistinctness resulting from inactivity of the lips appears to be a New York characteristic, drawl is more common among the Jews, and "throatiness" exclusively Jewish. Nasality is common, and not limited to either group. So far, then, as can be learned from the data of this study, the New York Jew dentalizes the alveolar consonants, overaspirates [t], has and has a drawling, throaty vocal various difficulties with [s] and [ra], quality because he is Jewish; on the other hand, he uses the voiced for [mev] [w] for the voiceless [&], substitutes [ev] for [o(v)], [a] for [em], [av], and [ai] for [ai] adds, the intrusive [r], and uses his lips insufficiently

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326

American Speech

because he is a New Yorker. Obviously these conclusions are tentative, and much more data will be required before any conclusions approaching finality can be reached; but it seems evident, nevertheless, that a good bit of what passes popularly for Jewish dialect is really New York dialect, and that details which pass unnoticed in Gentile speech are more apt to be noticed in Jewish speech because of the lower quality resulting from the mixture of errors from local and racial sources.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions