Jewish & New York Dialect

8/13/2019 Jewish & New York Dialect

1/7

The American Dialect Society

Jewish Dialect and New York DialectAuthor(s): C. K. ThomasReviewed work(s):Source: American Speech, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Jun., 1932), pp. 321-326Published by: Duke University PressStable 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 [email protected].

.

The American Dialect SocietyandDuke University Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toAmerican 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/452953?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/452953?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/7

VOLUME VII NUMBER 5

domeric n peechJUNE - 1932

JEWISH DIALECT AND NEW YORK DIALECTC. K. THOMAS

Cornell UniversityURINGthe past four years I have worked with some hundreds ofuniversity students in an attempt to improve the quality oftheir speech. A fair proportion of these students have beenJews from New York City and its suburbs. Their social and scholasticlevels are about the same as those of other New Yorkers, but theirspeech is distinctly inferior, and this inferiority raised the questionwhether there might be a clearly defined dialect which was character-istic of New York Jews. The students with whom I have worked donot, of course, constitute a true cross-section of either New York orJewish speech; such a cross-section would have to be obtained in NewYork itself. Those who can afford to travel 250 miles for their educa-tion represent, on the average, a higher social and economic level thanthose who stay at home and who are able, in many cases, to earn alarger part of their expenses than is possible in a small town. Becauseof this higher level, and because few of the New York Jews at Cornellspeak any language but English, their dialect is by no means as extremeas that of the peripatetic Mr. Klein so carefully studied by MissBenardete,1 or even as extreme as that of the general run of Jewishundergraduates in the New York City colleges. Many of them, how-ever, have complicated their speech problem with tricks acquired in theelocution schools that are at present so popular among the higherclass Jewish families of New York. Traditional Jewish and traditionalNew York pronunciations alike are in some cases conspicuously absent.Moreover, most of the students with whom I am familiar are to someextent conscious of their speech, for the greater number of them are sent

1Dolores Benardete, Immigrant Speech-Austrian-Jewish Style, AMERICANSPEECH, October, 1929. 321

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

322 American Speechto me from courses in public speaking and dramatics. All of thesefactors complicate the problem of analysis, and make the results lessconclusive.For purposes of comparison I divided my students into three groups:(1) Jews from New York City and its suburbs, (2) Gentiles from thesame area, (3) Jews who had lived all their lives at a distance from NewYork City. After discarding all doubtful cases, namely, those ofuncertain racial origin, those who had lived both in New York City andelsewhere, and those who lived in the typically Jewish summer resortsof the Catskills, I was left with the records of 112 students, of whom 75were New York Jews, 19 were New York Gentiles, and 18 were Jewsfrom other parts of the country. Thus approximately 67 percent ofthe total was in group 1, 17 percent in group 2, and 16 percent in group3. A normal distribution of dialectal peculiarities, or errors, wouldtherefore result in the same percentages, but when the errors had beenclassified it was found that, out of a total of 673, the New York Jewshad made 522, the New York Gentiles 71, and the Jews from otherparts of the country 80. In other words, group 1 made 78 percent ofthe errors, group 2 made 10 percent, and group 3 made 12 percent.Thus, in comparison with an average distribution, the speech of group 1was distinctly inferior to that of the other two groups, as the followingsummary shows:

Group1 2 3 Total

A Number of cases in each group......... 75 19 18 112B Percentage of cases................... 67 17 16 100C Number of errorsin each group ....... 522 71 80 673D Percentageof errors.................. 78 10 12 100E Percentage above or below average dis-

tribution2............. ....... +16 -38 -26In considering the distribution of particular errors among the three

groups, one must refer to line D in the above table as a basis for com-parison. If the percentages for the particular error do not vary greatlyfrom those of line D it is obvious that they give no information regard-2 These figures represent the variation from 100 of the quotients obtained bydividing the figuresin line D by the correspondingfiguresin line B; in all calcula-ions the percentageswere carriedto two extra decimals.



4/7

Jewish Dialect 323ing the source of the error; but if the percentage for group 1, consistingof New York Jews, is higher than 78, that of group 2, consisting of NewYork Gentiles, higher than 10, and that of group 3, consisting of Jewsfrom other localities, lower than 12, the distribution creates a strongpresumption that the error in question is local rather than racial, foronly the groups which include New Yorkers show a higher percentagethan the average distribution. Similarly, if the percentages for anothererror 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 showhigher percentages than the average. In many cases, of course, thereare neither sufficiently large numbers of instances of the error norsufficiently great variations from the average to warrant any definiteconclusion; in other cases, which are listed below, definite conclusionsare inescapable.The most frequent error among these students was the dentalizingof the alveolar consonants [t, d, n, 1,s, z]; the error consists in makingthe characteristic consonantal obstruction between the tongue and teethinstead of between the tongue and gum ridge. The acoustic effect ofthis misplacement is least noticeable for [n, 1]; for [s, z] it suggests aslight lisp; [t, d] sound overexplosive and slightly higher in pitch. It ismost noticeable when several alveolar consonants appear in the sameword, as in dental and slant. The distribution of this error clearlyindicates that it is Jewish in origin: group 1 is 10 percent above, andgroup 3 is 5 percent below, the average distribution of line D; but group2, the Gentile group, is 66 percent below the average. In short, theGentile group is remarkably free from this error, including only 8instances out of a total of 224. The most frequently dentalized ofthese consonants is [1],and here the distribution is even more clearlyJewish: 10 percent above the average for group 1, 5 percent above forgroup 3, and 80 percent below for group 2. The cause of this error,whether a survival from Yiddish, German, or Slavic linguistic habit orotherwise, 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 syllableor at the end of a word, as in winter, wilted, went, and wilt. Here thepercentages are inconclusive, but it seems likely that this error is alsoJewish.

Letters in square brackets are phonetic characters, which refer to sounds;those in quotation marks refer to spellings.



5/7

324 American SpeechDifficulty with [s]seems to be characteristic of Jewish speech. Thisis in part owing to the habit of dentalizing, but in addition there areother errors: exaggerated hissing, substitution of voiceless [1]and th[6]as in thin, and occasionally sh [f] as in she. There are 35 instancesof these variations, of which only 3 are Gentile. Group 3, consisting ofJews who do not live in New York City, has the greatest difficulty withthis sound, being 68 percent above the average distribution.Another clearly Jewish error is the substitution of [rig] or [i], so as,for instance, to make singer a rhyme forfinger. There are 35 instancesof this error in the three groups, and only one of them is Gentile.

Furthermore, according to these figures, the Jews from New York donot make this error quite as persistently as do those from other locali-ties. The substitution of [ijk] for [rJ],o as, for instance, to make singand sink identical in sound, appears only 8 times. Though this is thetraditional form of the error, perhaps because it can be representedmore easily in the conventional alphabet, I do not believe it to benearly as common as [rig]. Once in a great while the glottic stop isadded 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, isquite common in both New York groups, but less common among theJews from other localities. The distribution is 4 percent above theaverage from group 1, 60 percent above for group 2, and 29 percentbelow for group 3. In other words, the Jews from outside of NewYork have least trouble with the voiceless [M],and this bears out thetraditional notion that, although this error is by no means confinedto 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 forthese three groups, a New York characteristic, for none of group 3added the [r],and group 2, the Gentile group, added it more consistentlythan group 1. The error is not, of course, limited to New York City,but is also encountered in New England.Errors in vowels and diphthongs are, with some doubtful excep-tions, New Yorkese rather than Jewish. The vowel [o(v)] is distortedinto 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 tothe extreme pronunciation of Oxford, though it is drawled to a greaterlength in New York. Group 1 is 2 percent above the average for thiserror, group 2 is 31 percent above, but group 3 is 42 percent below.



6/7

Jewish Dialect 325It should be noted that the Gentile group has the most trouble withthis sound.Another characteristic error is the substitution of the compromise[a] for the flat [m]in such words as land, man, and bad. This differsfrom the New England use of [a] and the Southern British use of [a] insuch words as path, dance, and laugh, and is more like certain Scotchand Irish dialects. A possible explanation may lie in the concertedefforts now being made in New York to teach the broad a [a] ofworld standard English. One who acquires this broad a, oreven the compromise [a], some years after learning to speak English islikely to use it in the wrong words, and at the same time to get theimpression that the flat a [oe] s a disreputable sound, to be avoidedwhenever possible. At any rate, group 3 is least susceptible to theerror, and group 1, which has had the greatest amount of elocutionarytraining, the most susceptible.Substitution of [yev]for [av] in such words as now, out, and powerappears 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 percentabove. This error is characteristic of the South and of rural NewEngland as well as of New York, and its significance in this study isdoubtful.The change of the diphthong in my, fine, and light from [ai] to [aI],orto an even more retracted form, appears to be a New York character-istic, though more data will be required for certainty. In its mostcharacteristic form the distortion resembles the German variety of thediphthong more closely than anything else. Group 1 is 12 percentabove 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 thequalities themselves are so variable. In general, however, indistinct-ness resulting from inactivity of the lips appears to be a New Yorkcharacteristic, drawl is more common among the Jews, and throat-iness exclusively Jewish. Nasality is common, and not limited toeither group.So far, then, as can be learned from the data of this study, the NewYork Jew dentalizes the alveolar consonants, overaspirates [t], hasvarious difficulties with [s] and [ra],and has a drawling, throaty vocalquality because he is Jewish; on the other hand, he uses the voiced[w] for the voiceless [&], substitutes [ev] for [o(v)], [a] for [em],mev]or[av],and [ai] for [ai] adds, the intrusive [r],and uses his lips insufficiently



7/7

326 American Speechbecause he is a New Yorker. Obviously these conclusions are tenta-tive, and much more data will be required before any conclusionsapproaching finality can be reached; but it seems evident, nevertheless,that a good bit of what passes popularly for Jewish dialect is really NewYork dialect, and that details which pass unnoticed in Gentile speechare more apt to be noticed in Jewish speech because of the lowerquality resulting from the mixture of errors from local and racialsources.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:59:23 PMAll bj t t JSTOR T d C diti

Documents

Jewish & New York Dialect