10 Kirill Shishigin (Kemerovo State University) The Theory of Language Hybridity and Prefix Derivation in Yiddish Verbs 1 This paper presents some key propositions from the author's theory of language hybridity, identifying sociolinguistic characteristics of hybrid languages and their diagnostic features compared to traditional, mixed, creole languages and pidgins. Such living languages as Yiddish, Judeo- Spanish, Afrikaans and Äynu are considered hybrid due to their common extralinguistic, sociolinguistic and linguistic features. Also, the paper demonstrates some derivational characteristics of a hybrid language based on the system of Yiddish prefixed verbs, namely the verbs with homonymous prefixes and hybrid polysemous prefixes. Since Yiddish verb prefixes hybridized at different levels and to a different degree, they can be divided into hybrid (homonymous prefixes, hybrid polysemous prefixes and low-hybrid homonymous prefixes) and non-hybrid. The novelty of the approach lies in the fact that the paper offers a new scientific explanation for the concepts of ‘hybridization’ and ‘hybrid language’ and distinguishes between homonymy and polysemy based on a genetically determined archeseme of derivational elements in Yiddish as a hybrid language. Keywords: hybridization, hybrid language, mixed language, creole language, pidgin, Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish, Afrikaans, Äynu, prefixed verb system, prefixed, homonymy, polysemy. *** Various forms of language contacts and their results are still in the focus of modern linguistics. Of special interest today are languages that, to some extent, ‘deviate from the norm’, such as hybrid languages. This article focuses on the theory of linguistic hybridity and the derivation of prefixed verbs in Yiddish and is based on my doctoral thesis “The derivation system of a hybrid language: formation, development and functioning (on the basis of Yiddish prefixed verbs)” ( Шишигин , 2015).
1 The paper is based on a talk given at the 2nd International Conference “Hebrew and Yiddish in the Context of Contemporary Education and Culture”. The talk came about thanks to the Sefer Centre’s support of Jewish Studies (a travel grant of Genesis Philanthropy Group).
11 The hypothesis of language hybridity was first proposed by Lucien Adam in 1883 in his work ‘Les idiomes négro-aryen et maléo-aryen: essai d'hybridologie linguistique’ (Adam, 1883). There he postulated that different races have different language models. And as a result of language contacts these models get ‘cross-pollinated’, or hybridized. Although the first linguistic attempts to define the concepts of hybridization, hybridity and hybrid language were made as early as over a hundred years ago, these terms remain quite tentative and polysemantic. For example, they are sometimes quite ambiguously applied to such diverse phenomena as Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish and Afrikaans, on the one hand, pidgins and Creoles, on the other hand, and also to languages with a significant share of borrowings. I propose a typology of contact idioms that includes: 1) hybrid languages, 2) traditional languages with mixed elements, 3) mixed languages, 4) creole languages, and 5) pidgins. In 1882, Hugo Schuchardt introduced a concept of language mixing and mixed language, exemplifying this phenomenon by African language mixing (Schuchardt, 1882). This term has been widely used since then, often in different meanings. Opinions here are of a wide range, such as: a) all languages have a mixed nature, as postulated by Jan Baudouin de Courtenay ( Бодуэн де Куртенэ ), and according to Hugo Schuchardt, “<...> even a language perceived as absolutely homogeneous has some mixed features” (Schuchardt, 1884: 7), b) “mixed languages do not exist”, according to Max Müller (quoted in: Schuchardt 1884: 5), c) “language mixing is one of the most obscure and dubious concepts, according to Lev Shtsherba ( Щерба ). In the 1970s, Alexandru Rosetti distinguished between two categories of facts: Langue mixte and Langue mélangée (Росетти ). I am going to prove that hybrid languages have a special status, using Yiddish prefixed verbs as the most hybridized subsystem of this language.
12 Hybridization is a process of language (L) development, in which: a) the language (L) (in our case — German) is the mother language for a secondary group of its speakers (Ashkenazim) who are ethnically different from its native speakers (Germans), b) the language (L), while being used by its secondary speakers, has contact with languages (C) (Semitic and Slavic) which are also used by these speakers in their multilingual environment, c) over time, the contact languages (C) begin to affect and then produce a systemic effect on the mother language (L), d) as a result, a hybrid language (H) (Yiddish) develops whose source language (L) (German basis language) crosses, through adstratum, with the systemic layers of different levels of contact languages (Semitic and Slavic donor languages). In my opinion, such living languages as Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish, Afrikaans and Äynu (a language spoken in western China) can be considered hybrid languages with common distinctive extralinguistic, sociolinguistic and linguistic features. Table 1 gives a brief comparison of sociolinguistic characteristics of hybrid languages and Table 2 shows some diagnostic features that distinguish hybrid languages from traditional languages with mixed elements, mixed languages, creole languages and pidgins.
Language hybridity manifests at different levels, including phonetics and graphics. According to Sergey Proskurin, “the possibility of writing vowels and consonants and, in fact, recording the whole linear flow of speech is unavailable to other than Indo-European cultures. For example, the consonant-syllabic Semitic writing serves the Hebrew tradition and has a specific matrix structure” ( Проскурин 2007: 66). The Hebrew writing system is also used by the Yiddish culture that has different systems for writing Semitic elements, on the one hand, and Indo-European elements, on the other. Judeo-Spanish originally used the Hebrew alphabet, and in 1928 it started using the Latin alphabet (especially in Turkey) for secular texts and the Hebrew alphabet for religious ones ( Еврейско -испанский язык ; Bunis 1999: 55–75). Afrikaans, along with the Latin alphabet, uses the Arabic graphic tradition, as in the literature of the Cape Muslims ( Сиим 2004: 3). So, in these cases, the European-Jewish and European-Muslim hybridity manifests itself at the level of language culture.
Table 1. Comparative sociolinguistic characteristics of hybrid languages Object of Yiddish Judeo-Spanish Afrikaans Äynu comparison 1. Mother language German Spanish Dutch Persian 2. Secondary Ashkenazim Sephardim South African white Äynu speakers (their (Hebrew) (Hebrew) colonists (unknown) original mother and coloured slaves language) (colonists’ languages and indigenous languages) 3. Contact donor Hebrew and Jewish- Hebrew and Jewish- Malaysian Creole Uyghur languages that Aramaic, Slavic languages Aramaic, Catalan, Portuguese, French,
created a Portuguese, Turkish, German, English, 1 3 multilingual Arabic, French, Arabic situation for Italian secondary speakers at the genesis stage 4. Their status in literary, non-official (the literary, literary, official language of 20th and 21st second official language in non-official in South Africa since ethnic centuries the Byelorussian SSR in (has never been 1925 (along with communication the 20th century; still the official) English) and self- second official language in identification the Jewish Autonomous Region, Russia), language of teaching
Table 2. Diagnostic characteristics of hybrid languages compared to traditional, mixed, creole languages and pidgins Traditional Object of Mixed Hybrid language language with Creole Pidgin comparison languages mixed elements 1. Type of basis Basis language preserved Protolanguage, As a rule, Pidgin: Lexificator: language (period in written records, living often two living at the 1st stage of living lexical of formation) in 21st century: at the 1st undocumented, languages genesis — not a donor language, stage of genesis, the only today dead intentionally mother language not a mother mother language for (until the 2nd combined for future speakers language for secondary speakers (10–19th millennium AD) (19–20th (20th century) speakers (19–20th centuries) centuries) centuries) 2. Pace of genesis Gradual: Language 1
over centuries or a century continuum: Fast: Very fast: 4 in a multilingual over several over a few decades over a few years environment millennia or centuries 3. Perception by The new language As a language speakers tradition perceived continuum, The new language tradition perceived as a daughter as a daughter language of the no distinction language of the source language; components of the source language; components between mixed source language possibly distinguished from those of of the source language components donor languages possibly distinguished from those of donor languages 4. Speakers' Always different Common, related Related to or Always different from that of the ethnicity from that of the source to or different different from source language speakers language speakers from that of contact that of source language speakers language speakers
5. Involvement of No Unprovable No Yes source language speakers in the genesis 6. Type of Adstratum Substratum and/or superstratum Superstratum interaction between basis language and donor languages 7. Functionality Full functionality (at least, at some stages) and/or Auxiliary, not a function of ethnic self-identification prestigious ersatz language 8. Influence of Systemic: Pidgin Lexificator source languages at all levels codification
9. Influence of Systemic: Non-systemic, or Intentional Radical 1 5 donor languages adstratum innovations at all systemic to some mixing of simplification of on basis language levels along with retained extent, mutual subsystems grammar and features of basis language influence: borrowings semantics 10. Influence on Non-systemic, and/or some common No donor languages mainly lexical: borrowings phenomena in from language (sub)systems 11. Influence of hybrid language Impossible source language Examples of Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish, Balkan sprachbund, Bokmål, Krio, Tok Chinese Pidgin idioms Afrikaans, Äynu Sorbian, Czech, Mednyj Pisin, English, English Aleut, Haitianisch, Fanagalo, Michif, Kriol Bichelamar Media Lengua
16 Hybrid languages develop through adstratum interaction between the basis language and donor languages because the reason for hybridization is that the speakers of these languages do not get assimilated — ethnically or linguistically — by the speakers of the source language. My hybridization theory centres primarily on Yiddish. Erika Timm proved that the hybridization of the German idiom with Semitic languages started through calquing Hebrew and Jewish-Aramaic elements in the translation of the Bible. And it was one of the reasons why German and Yiddish vocabulary developed differently. So the semitization made Yiddish more susceptible to its subsequent hybridization by Slavic languages (Timm, 2002; Timm, 2005). Dov-Ber Kerler writes: Yiddish is “<…> a German(ic) language linguistically, a Semitic-Hebrew and Jewish-Aramaic — culturally and since the 13th century move of some Ashkenazi Jews from German-speaking into Slavic-speaking lands — an increasingly and eventually overwhelmingly Slavicized language <…>” (Kerler). Hybridization can be most clearly seen in the derivation of Yiddish prefixed verbs. It is this particular system of Yiddish that was significantly Slavicized. Different prefixes were hybridized in a different degree and at different levels, which allows us to subdivide them into hybrid and non-hybrid: I. Hybrid prefixes 1. Hybrid homonymous prefixes 2. Hybrid polysemous prefixes 3. Low-hybrid prefixes, including: low-hybrid homonymous prefixes II. Non-hybrid components 4. Non-hybrid prefixes 5. First non-hybrid bound components of compound Daytshmerish verbs Homonymous prefixes are those that simultaneously meet two conditions, namely: the meanings of formally identical prefixes with German and Slavic semantics do not reduce to each other, but they can be easily derived from the meanings of the corresponding German and Slavic prefixes;
17 Slavic meanings are not derivative of the German meanings of prefixes with the same form. Hybrid polysemous prefixes — the term “hybrid polysemy” was coined by Leonard Talmy (Talmy, 1982: 239) — are those prefixes whose German and Slavic components are reducible to a single or similar archesemes. This means that the German form and meaning of prefixes had a close Slavic meaning attached to them. Low-hybrid prefixes have largely retained the semantics of the German basis language, and they only partly have the Semitic and Slavic adstratum in the form of non-systemic calqued prefixed verbs. Non-hybrid prefixes have not undergone any hybridization at the level of formal derivation, semantics or morphosyntax. The basic principle of studying the semantic aspect of the derivation of prefixed verbs is, first of all, in marking out the meaning of the prefix. As a result, “<…> the focus is not on the differences between the prefixed verbs and their motivating prefixless verb, but on the common (semantic, syntactic, and morphological) features shared by different <…> verbs” with the same prefix ( Кронгауз , 1994: 40). Here, I would like to mention a discussion I had with Prof. Cyril Aslanov, the workshop moderator, who expressed some doubts about the homonymy of der-, far-, on- and unter- which he considered hybrid polysemous prefixes. I would suggest that synchronically, they are certainly polysemous, but their different historical semantics — genetically German or Slavic — gives every reason to consider them homonymous. When studying the hybridity of Yiddish prefixed verbs, I analyzed the relation of a prefixed verb to the situation at the macrosemantic level. In particular, I looked at how verbs with different prefixes conceptualize the situation. My argument here is that the genetic primary — spatial — semantics of a prefix in the basis language or adstratum donor languages is the defining component of a generalized meaning of a prefixed verb referred to as archesemes. An archeseme is an etymologically determined semantic invariant that is the basis for conceptualizing the situation through a prefixed verb. Below is a list of Yiddish prefixes with their archesemes.
18 I. Hybrid prefixes 1. Hybrid homonymous prefixes der-2:
19 ba-:
20 II. Non-hybrid components 4. Non-hybrid prefixes anider-:
The above shows that the low-hybrid prefixes der-1, far-1 and on-1 have retained the archeseme and other features of the German basis language, whereas the hybrid prefixes der-2, far-2 and on-2 have adapted the semantic, derivative and morphosyntactic features of Slavic verbs with do-/да -, za-/за - and na-/на -, respectively. For example, verbs with the prefix far-2 can be of three adstratum-Slavic semantic types, namely describing: 1) an action from behind the reference point, 2) the beginning of an action or a process, 3) the subject’s total immersion in the action or process. In Middle Polish (1540–1st half of the 18 th century) “the prefix za- used with verbs of movement, as well as the preposition za , meant a movement directed behind an object <...>” ( Стрекалова , 1968: 99). In
21 modern Slavic languages, this meaning of being or going 'behind an object' can be more specifically defined as: a) “a remote place the observer is totally unaware of” ( Волохина , Попова , 1993: 56) and b) “the inside of a spatial reference point where the subject temporarily deviates from the main route” ( Волохина , Попова , 1993: 56–57), or behind which the subject is hiding. Despite the apparent difference between the two meanings, they are reducible to a single archeseme
Fig. 1. Conceptualization of a situation by the verbs with far-2
The German-Slavic hybridity of Yiddish manifests in the following facts (cf.: Шишигин , Лебедева , 2015): a. The German form acquires Slavic semantic characteristics: for instance, the verbs with far-2 such as fargeyn 'go far', farreykern 'light (a cigarette)', and farfirn 'start (conversation)'. Their forms fully correspond to the German vergehen 'pass away', verrauchen 'blacken with smoke' and verführen 'seduce', but have totally different — adstratum-Slavic — meanings and they conceptualize the situation according to the Slavic model. However, formally identical verbs with the prefix far-1 have the same meanings as their German equivalents. b. Yiddish — again like in Slavic languages — extensively uses the reflexive zikh after verbs with far-2, for example: farglustn zikh 'get a desire', or farhustn zikh 'have a fit of coughing'. Originally a pronoun, zikh has lost its lexical character and turned into a detached reflexive verb postfix (like the Polish si ę). c. Verbs with far-2 acquired Slavic morphosyntactic characteristics, for example:
22 • They take direct and indirect dative objects: (1) farglustn zikh 'want, feel like doing something' (cf. Pol.: 'zachcie ć si ę'): deriber koym iz khantse fun di kindershe shikhlekh aroys <…> hot shoyn yentlen (Object dative ) zikh shtark farglust a khosn (Object direct ) far ir <…> (Mendele). This example shows that the main clause of this complex sentence does not have a subject, only a predicate expressed by the impersonal verb, which is typical of Slavic impersonal sentences and NOT of German two-member sentences.
• Verbs with far-2 take indirect objects (the instrumental case in Ukrainian and Russian and its formal Yiddish equivalent “preposition mit 'with'; by means of' + object”), for example: (2) farinteresirn zikh 'become interested in' (cf. Ukr.: 'зацікавитися '): mir kenen nor hofn az andere — i yidn i nisht-yidn (Subject) — veln zikh vayter farinteresirn mit yidish (Object prepositional ) <…> (Mendele-forum). Verbs with hybrid polysemous prefixes retained the features of German verbs with the corresponding prefixes, modifying, however, their derivational, semantic and morphosyntactic potential through the Slavic adstratum and intralinguistic developments. For example, the separable prefix ariber-, related to the German adverbs and separable prefixes herüber 'from there [over something] here' and hinüber 'from here [over something] there', combines with a large number of deriving verbs (cf.: Weissberg, 1991: 193-195): (3) direct effect: aribertrogn 'carry (something somewhere)' (cf. Germ. herübertragen 'carry over here' and hinübertragen 'carry over there'), ariberganvenen 'smuggle' from ganvenen 'steal' ( сf. Germ. herüberschmuggeln 'smuggle over here' and hinüberschmuggeln 'smuggle over there' (from schmuggeln 'smuggle') (4) movement: aribergeyn 'walk over here/there' ( ср . Germ. herüberlaufen 'run over here' and hinüberlaufen 'run over there'), ariberforn 'drive over here/there ' ( ср . Germ. herüberfahren 'drive over here' and hinüberahren 'drive over there') (5) visual perception: ariberblikn 'look over here/there' ( сf. Germ. herüberblicken 'look over here' and hinüberblicken 'look over there').
23 Although Yiddish verbs with the prefix ariber- retain the German forms and, largely, the German meanings, they show features of hybrid polysemy at the semantic and morphosyntactic levels. German verbs with the prefixes herüber- and hinüber- fully retain their adverbial character, indicating the direction of an action expressed by the deriving stem. Therefore, there are only three possible semantic and syntactic combinations with such verbs in German, namely (examples are given with a literal translation into English): а) verb of direct effect + object (direct object) + limit/starting point (adverbial modifier of place and prefix): (6Germ.) herüberholen 'move, carry, transport': Er hat seine Eltern (Sem.Object/Synt.Object direct ) aus der DDR (Ab/Adverbial modifier place ) herüber geholt (Ad) (Duden 1989: 696). 'He brought his parents from the GDR over here' b) verb of movement + barrier (prepositional object) + limit (adverbial modifier of place and prefix): (7Germ.) hinüberfahren 'go over there': über die Grenze (Barrier/Object prepositional ) nach Frankreich (Ad/ Adverbial modifier place ) hinüber fahren (Ad) (Duden 1989: 719). 'go across the border over there to France' c) verb of perception + object (prepositional object) + direction (prefix): (8Germ.) hinüberblicken 'look in that direction': nach jemandem (Sem.Object/Synt.Object prepositional ) hinüber blicken (Dir) (Duden 1989: 719). 'look over there in somebody's direction'. Thus, the German prefixes herüber- and hinüber- have a clear adverbial meaning of 'here and there', so even the literal translation into English is quite adequate, as well as the literal translation of Yiddish ariber- verbs with genetically German meanings in examples (3)–(5). In Yiddish, however, due to its adstratum contacts with Slavic languages and the resulting hybridization, the adverbial semantics is not always evident. The phonetic and semantic similarity of the prefix ariber- to the Slavic prefixes prze-/пера -/пере - resulted in the following: а) Yiddish verbs with the prefix ariber- began to be used in syntactic combinations that would be impossible in German:
24
• verb of movement + barrier (direct object): (6) aribertren di shvel (Barrier/Object direct ) ' cross the threshold (Barrier/Object direct )' (literally: *'step the threshold over there'); (7) aribershvimen dem taykh (Barrier/Object direct ) ' cross the river (Barrier/Object direct )' (literally: *'swim the river over there'); • verb of movement in abstract meaning + abstract barrier: (8) aribertrogn dem khilel-hakoved (Barrier/Object direct ) 'overcome the insult (Barrier/Object direct )' (literally: *'carry the insult over there') (cf. example (3.98)); b) the prefix ariber- gave some verbs of occupation, direct effect and process the meaning of 'beyond measure': (9) ariberarbetn zikh 'overwork' ( сf. Pol. przepracowa ć si ę 'overwork'); aribergebn 'give too much' ( сf. Belar. перадаць 'give too much'); aribervaksn 'overgrow' ( сf. Ukr. перерости 'overgrow'). The importance of derivation in language hybridization is that it connects the lexical, semantic and grammatical levels, affecting grammatical and semantic categories. Moreover, prefixed verbs derivation involves affixes — units that have two sides, a form and a meaning. So we get an interrelated, but not a linear chain: lexis — morphemes — grammar — semantics. And this chain covers, in fact, the whole language. In other words, the systemic hybridization of derivation leads to the hybridization and isolation of the entire language. Hybridization takes place only when the adstratum produces a systemic influence on the basis language. Yiddish was influenced, both formally and semantically, by the Slavic system of prefixed verbs derivation. That influence, along with other linguistic and extralinguistic factors, led to the hybridization of Yiddish prefixed verbs by means of a systematic copying of the verbs’ forms and meanings. Interestingly, the German forms acquired mainly Slavic, rather than Semitic semantics. Comparing all hybrid languages in general, we can see that the difference between Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish, Afrikaans and Äynu, on the one hand, and the other — new — idioms (creoles and pidgins), on the other, is that the former developed gradually over centuries, resulting in the increased complexity of their systems under the adstratum influence, rather than their dramatic simplification.
25 References Бодуэн де Куртенэ , И. А. О смешанном характере всех языков . Ресурс : http://miresperanto.com/aliaj_lingvoj/boduen_de_kurtene.htm (дата обращения : 10.11.2016). Волохина , Г. А., Попова , З. Д. Русские глагольные приставки : семантическое устройство , системные отношения . Воронеж , 1993. 196 с. Еврейско -испанский язык . Электронная еврейская энциклопедия . Ресурс : http://www.eleven.co.il/article/11527 ( дата обращения : 10.11.2016). Кронгауз , М. А. Приставки и глаголы : грамматика сочетаемости . Семиотика и информатика . М., 1994. Вып . 34 . С. 32–57. Проскурин , С. Г. Семиотический метод : к вопросу об индоевропейской семиотике . Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета . Серия : Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация . Новосибирск , 2007. Т. 5, вып . 1. С. 66–73. Росетти , А. Смешанный язык и смешение языков . Ресурс : http://www. philology.ru/linguistics1/rosetti-72.htm ( дата обращения : 10.11.2016). Сиим , А. Ю. Арабографическая традиция Южной Африки ( литература капских мусульман ): автореф . дис . … канд . филол . наук . СПб ., 2004. 19 с. Стрекалова , З. Н. Из истории польского глагольного вида . М., 1968. 176 с. Шишигин , К. А. Словообразовательная система гибридного языка : формирование , развитие и функционирование ( на материале префиксальных глаголов идиша ): дис . …докт . филол . наук . Кемерово , 2015. 414 с. Шишигин , К. А., Лебедева Н. Б. Славянские языки как фактор гибридизации идиша . Русин . Международный исторический журнал . 2015. № 3 (41). С. 210–225. DOI 10.17223/18572685/41/15. Щерба , Л. В. О понятии смешения языков . Ресурс : www.ruthenia.ru/ apr/textes/sherba/sherba8.htm ( дата обращения : 10.11.2016). Adam, L. Les idiomes négro-aryen et maléo-aryen: essai d’hybridologie linguistique. Paris. 76 pp.
26 Bunis, D. M. Leshon dzhudezmo. Jerusalem, 1999. 580 pp. Duden. Deutsches Universalwörterbuch. Mannheim u.a., 1989. 1816 S. Duden. Herkunftswörterbuch. Etymologie der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim u.a., 2001. 960 S. Kerler D.-B. On the role of Yiddish as the language of Jewish national identity. Ресурс : https://www.academia.edu/14573391/ ( дата обращения : 10.11.2016). Mendele Moykher-Sforim . Dos vintsh-fingerl. Ресурс : http://www.uni- trier.de/index.php?id=31287 ( дата обращения : 10.11.2016). Mendele-forum . Ресурс : http://mendele.commons.yale.edu/1996/12/01/ yidish-un-yidishkayt-2/ ( дата обращения : 10.06.2015). Neuberg, S. Pragmatische Aspekte der jiddischen Sprachgeschichte am Beispiel der „Zenerene“. Hamburg, 1999. 217 S. Schuchardt, H. Zur afrikanischen Sprachmischung. Das Ausland. Wochenschrift für Länder- und Völkerkunde . 1882. Nr. 55. S. 867–869. Schuchardt, H. Dem Herrn Franz von Miklosich zum 20. November 1883. Slawo-Deutsches und Slawo-Italienisches Graz, 1884. 140 S. Talmy, L. Borrowing semantic space: Yiddish verb prefixes between Germanic and Slavic. In: M. Macaulay et. al. (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society . Berkeley, 1982. Pp. 231–250. Timm, E. An den Quellen des Jiddischen. Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojekts. Von Enoch bis Kafka. Festschrift für Karl Grözinger zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden, 2002. S. 105–115. Timm, E. Historische jiddische Semantik: Die Bibelübersetzungssprache als Faktor der Auseinanderentwicklung des jiddischen und des deutschen Wortschatzes / u. Mitarbeit v. G. A. Beckmann. Tübingen, 2005. VIII S., 736 S. Weissberg, J. D. Der Aspekt in abgeleiteten jiddischen Verben. Dargestellt anhand der korrelierenden Konverben iber- und ariber-. Eine kontrastive jiddisch-deutsch-slawische Darstellung. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik . Jg. 58. Stuttgart, 1991. S. 175–195.
27
Теория языковой гибридности и глагольно -префиксальное словообразование идиша К. А. Шишигин Профессор , д. филол . н. , Кемеровский государственный университет Аннотация : В статье представлены некоторые основные поло - жения авторской теории языковой гибридности : социолингвисти - ческие характеристики гибридных языков и их диагностические ха - рактеристики в сравнении с языками традиционными , смешанными , креольскими и пиджинами . В качестве гибридных , обладающих общими признаками экстралингвистического , социолингвистичес - кого и собственно лингвистического плана рассматриваются такие живые языки , как идиш , еврейско -испанский , африкаанс и эйну . На материале глагольно -префиксальной системы идиша , в частности глаголов с префиксами -омонимами и префиксами с гибридной полисемией , демонстрируются словообразовательные характеристи - ки гибридного языка . В сфере глагольно -префиксального словооб - разования гибридизация прошла у разных идишских префиксов с разной степенью и на разных уровнях , что позволяет подразделить их на гибридные ( префиксы -омонимы , префиксы с гибридной поли - семией и слабогибридные ) и негибридные . Новизна подхода состоит в том , что в статье дается новое научное обоснование понятий «гибридизация » и «гибридный язык » и проводится разграничение явлений омонимии и полисемии исходя из генетически обуслов - ленной архесемы словообразовательных элементов идиша как гиб - ридного языка . Ключевые слова : гибридизация , гибридный язык , смешанный язык , креольский язык , пиджин , идиш , еврейско -испанский язык , африкаанс , эйну , глагольно -префиксальная система , префикс , омонимия , полисемия .