On Yiddish Dialects

[Introduction]

The following descriptions of Yiddish dialects have the same goal as the work published in Volume I of the Tsaytshrift [ journal]. For the most part, the material has been collected the same way, namely from individual representatives of each dialect whom I was able to find in Minsk. As secretary of the Language Commission this year I was finally given the opportunity to travel to the shtetls themselves and collect the necessary material there, from among the masses of inhabitants. I had the opportunity to spend three days in Slutsk County—in Kapulye—half a day in Lenine (formerly Domanove), and one day in Slutsk itself. [ . . . ]

Lithuanian–Belorussian Dialects

Slutsk County

Kapulye—Kopyl

About The Concept of Dialect

If the saying “as many heads, so many opinions” is true only under certain circumstances, the parallel to this saying, “as many mouths, so many dialects,” is true theoretically, at least with regard to the pronunciation in a given settlement.

In reality, the population of every larger settlement develops over a long period of time as a result of immigration. It may be that the basic constitution of the population came to the given place as a more or less unified group. But even if we disregard the fact that Jewish settlements have not emerged this way very frequently, we still have new immigrants from various places continuously joining the original population group.

In Kapulye, for instance, there are people who migrated from several surrounding settlements. [ . . . ] And even if a family that came to Kapulye did assimilate to the local population and adopted its pronunciation, the researcher will always find in the pronunciation of such families smaller or larger traces of their home-pronunciation.

It can also not be ruled out that new immigrants had a linguistic influence on the already settled population.

Not only the entire population as an entity, but even individual families, very often include people born in different areas.

Eighty-year-old M. Lotvin—the first subject of my research—was born in Kapulye; his wife is from Kletsk (thirty verst from Kapulye on the other side of the [Polish] border), but even after many years of living together their dialects did not merge. In Kletsk “s” is pronounced much more often as the “sh” sound of literary Yiddish than in Kapulye. As the old man points out, where Jews in Kapulye say “s” instead of “sh,” his wife points out that “in Kletsk we speak differently.”

In addition to immigration, the changing of generations needs to be considered.

There is a view in linguistics according to which if newly born children grew up isolated from the educational influence of adults, they would develop their own language that would possibly be completely different from the language of their parents. We do know that children create their own words, their own sounds, because a child’s speech is not yet able to produce many of the sounds that an adult’s speech apparatus can produce freely. Young generations are an important factor in the changes that occur in languages.

That is why the language of children and the young generation is different from the language of adults everywhere.

School plays a great role in differentiating the language of the young and the old. Children in the sixth and seventh grade of the Kapulye Soviet Yiddish school usually no longer change the “sh” sound to “s” and the “tsh” sound to “ts.”

Analogous changes occur in the children’s vocabulary, morphology, etc. Depending on their age, children are either more exposed to the influence of their mothers and other female members of the family and the community, or to their fathers and the broader society of the settlement.

Until the age of 7–8 the child’s pronunciation is closer to the mother’s dialect; after that, they are more influenced by broader social circles that are mostly male.

Seven-year-old Kopl in the family of my subject no. 3 speaks a dialect closer to his mother’s. The sixteen-year-old communist “Yitzl” (Hirshl) speaks like his father and surpasses him in speaking a dialect closer to the literary language.

The mother’s and father’s influence in the development of the child’s dialect is important also because the two genders do not speak the same way, not even if they are of the same origin and the same age. This has social and physiological reasons. The physical organization, the gender functions, and the economic role of the woman created a difference between men and women in the home and in public life. This is why a woman’s speech produces sounds that are completely different from what we hear from men.

The extent to which they are involved in social life increases the difference in the language of men and women. Today’s intensive social life—conventions, lectures, press, and literature—evens out the men’s dialects faster than those of the women, who are, generally speaking, still stuck in the kitchen and tied to the cradle.

That is why we see that women are more inclined to preserve their pronunciation of “s” (fisl [rather than] fishl), “ts” (ments [rather than mentsh]), “z” (vize), etc.

The Nisenzons, husband and wife, were both born in Kapulye. Nevertheless, the husband says shnayder, shuster, shikn, while the wife says snayder, suster, sikn.

Travel related to work, spending shorter or longer periods of time outside of one’s birthplace, also lead to changes in a person’s dialect. Many of Kapulye’s residents spent time in America, Minsk, Slutsk, or other places.

All these reasons validate our saying, “so many mouths, so many dialects.” And only typification, as disregarding individual details, creating a general formula for the particular dialect, makes it possible for us to talk about “a pronunciation” as a unique unit.

My Subjects

[ . . . ] One cannot research a dialect just by listening to how people talk in the street, at the market place, at meetings, etc., because this way one will also hear things that have nothing to do with the given. Research must be based on the speech of individual residents. For this, one must select representatives whose dialect is least exposed to the negative influence of the above-mentioned factors, and who will reflect those factors necessary for the comprehensive and accurate understanding of the given dialect.

The subjects from whom we draw our information must illustrate the following dimensions: 1) generation; 2) gender; 3) possible isolation from the linguistic influence of other dialects; 4) the presence of secondary linguistic influences. That is why we selected these subjects.

1. M. Lotvin, 80 years old. His speech apparatus, especially his teeth, are preserved to the extent that they don’t disturb proper articulation. He and his parents were born in Kapulye.
2. M. Peker, 70 years old. Horse merchant, still active in his profession. He as well as his parents were born in Kapulye.
3. Y. Shkliar, 60 years old. Bricklayer by profession. He and his parents were born in Kapulye. Nearly illiterate. Never left Kapulye.
4. Grozak, 56 years old. Shoemaker by profession. He can read and write, and reads the press. He participates in social life.
5. E. Nisenzon, 42 years old. He is a tinsmith, a kustar [craftsman]. He and his parents were born in Kapulye. He lived in Oriol for three and a half years. His wife Henye, 38 years old, is also from Kapulye, as are her parents. Both of them can barely read and write Yiddish.
6. B. Bliakher, 30 years old. Hairdresser by profession. Barely literate. He and his parents were born in Kapulye. Lived in Minsk for three years (1914–1917).

In addition to these representatives of the adult population I also include two female pupils from the seventh grade of the Kapulye Soviet school.

In the following description [not included] we will point out those basic characteristics of the Kapulye pronunciation that usually show the special features of the Belorussian dialect, at the same time pointing out deviations according to our subjects.