• ". .' RAKIIMIEL PELTZ and MARK W. KIEL
from Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Soviet Nation~l Di Yiddish-Imperye: The Dashed Hopes for a Languages: Their Past, Present and Future, Yiddbh Cultural Empire in the Soviet Union cd. Isabelle T. Kreindler, Amsterdam: Mouton, 1985, pp. 277-309.
1 1. Introduction: Yiddish Language and Culture Until the Revolution
Yiddish speaking Jews came from West and Central Europe and settled in Poland, Lithuania and the western Ukraine starting in the thirteenth century. The acquisition of these territories by Russia after the partitions of Poland and the Napoleonic wars put the largest Jewish community in the world at that time, under Tsarist rule. Official policy towards the Jews in the Russian empire was bipolar, directed towards isolating them on the one hand and assimil' r RlissTf'Yirig'Ulem on the other. Jewish domicile was restricted to a Pale of Settlement a ong Ie 0 the frontier of the Old Polish Kingdom. Jews were prohibited from Jiving in the cities unless they received special privileges, granted only to a few wealthy and Russified Jews. Internal religious and communal administration as well as official relations with the central governing authorities were carried out by the Kclli/e, the local Jewish self-governing body. Most Jews lived in small towns, alongside Poles, and to a lesser degree Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians and lithuanians.1 Yiddish, the language of Ashkenazic Jewry, has been spoken for about a thousand years; it is thought to have arisen when speakers of Romance vernaculars moved into the area near the Rhine and Moselle. AsllkellQz is the traditional Jewish term for the Jewish community which developed on Germanic territory. The language evolved as a fusion of elements modified from many stock. languages. The major components of Yiddish are Germanic, Semitic (mainly derived from Hebrew and Aramaic, but herein referred to as Hebrew), and Slavic (chiefly derived from Czech, Polish, Ukrainian and Belorussian). The Yiddish vernacular exhibited a digfossic relationshjp with Hebrew, which was generally reserved for religious and communal functions. Although the Germanic component predominates, as a result of the eastward " .2 78 Rilkhmie/ Peltz and Mark W. Kie/ Di Yiddish-Jmpcrye 279
migration the Slavic component was integrated in the language in lexical and Influenced by stirrings on the East European ethnic front, supporters of a morphologi\.:al forms as weU as grammatical constructions. Gennanic in fonn Yiddish·based nationalism appeared during the years between the revolution but Illoddled after SI~vic usage. Jews were largely multilingual and usually of 1905 and World War I. Besides demanding political rights, intel1ectuals had a knowledge of one or several of the languages descended from the stock colIected folklore, delved into philological research, and attempted to codify languages lIf Yiddish. Therefore, despite the integrated nature of the com· grammar and orthography. All Ihese factors added to the rising prestige of ponents, speakers of YidOish--orten developed a sensitivit to aspects oT com· Yiddish.4 pOII~ I erences. le comp Icated interrelationship between Yiddish During the first World War and its aftermath the subject of national and its source Iangu'ages, which sometimes continue to serve as coterritorial minority rights ranked high on the political agenda of the Allies and the vernaculars, have influenced standardization processes both in toward· emerging mltions. The strongest claims Jews made to parity status in Eastern German (or Hebrew o~ Slavic) developments and away·from·German (or Europe were tied to the role of language in defining the national character of Hebrew or Slavic) developments.2 a people. In the platforms of the various Jewish nationalist parties, emphasis Both from within and without the Jewish community, Yiddish was sub· was placed on propagating national culture in Yiddish: in literary expression, jected to denigration, scorn and criticism, with attacks on its lack of authenti in governmental affairs where Jews were concerned, and in slate recognized city, beauty and autonomy. However, it was the major language for Jewish and supported Jewish school systems:s cOlllmunication as indicated by the declaration by 97% of the Russian Jews in 13y the time the 130lsheviks took power, a host of Yiddish political and the 1897 census, that Yiddish was their mother tongue. Slowly the language cultural institutions were in full operation in the former territories of the gained public defenders, especially starting in the nineteenth century. It -(Tsar. However, unlike the other revolutionary parties in Russia, the Bol was then that the societal functions of Yiddish expanded in Congress Po sheviks had virtually neglected work in Yiddish_ Consequently, they were I.md and other parts of the Russian empire. Despite problems with official unprepared to administer Jewish society. Furthermore, many of the Yiddish censorship and permission to publish, a full range of modern belles lettres cultural leaders had spent their formative years in Jewish socialist parties, developed, aided by a stable weekly press starting in 18'.2. A Russian·Yiddish and even after some of them joined the Bolsheviks after the Revolution, they dil:tionary was published in 1869 and a Yiddish-Russian dictionary in 1876. were never forgiven for their former competing socialist achievement. The By the end of the century the functions of Yddish embraced such social Bolsheviks.l.0llowed an ambivalent poli~both granting Jew national niches as popular theater and revolutionary propagal.da. Although Yiddish statUs, and, at the same ti&+le, fevsling.lheir aSSImilation into the new Soviet had betn the centuries-old mediator language for religious education, it was society. ---r}(ll~\t Q..m411Jij~t ~11l~ /4J-r,1 1f first applied as the sole language of instruction in schools with a secular curriculum at the tum of the century. In addition, at the end of the nine teenth century, the first Yiddish dailies appeared in America, and by 1903 2. The Short-Lived Cultural Construction After the Revolution there was one in Petersburg. At the outbreak of World War I, thirteen Yiddish Language Status Planning and Institutional Development and two Hebrew dailies were appearing in Russia.' The new secular functions of Yiddish were opposed both by the religious In the years following the Revolution there was a flowering of newly formed establishment and by the emerging political and cultural Zionist movement. Yiddish-language institutions, including newspapers, schools, courts, sovitts, Hebrew was also being developed at that time as a modern literary language, and industrial .and agricultural collectives. The construction of a Yiddish and Zionists generally advanced it as the Jewish national language. On the based culture in many social sectors in geographic areas with sizeable Ash other hand, many Jewish labor and revolutionary organizers turned from kenazic Jewish populations, namely the Ukraine, Belorussia and to a lesser their base in Russian culture to the formation of Jewish parties and the extent the Russian republic, paralleled cultural construction for other nation support of Yiddish. The Jewish socialist movements coupled tqeir fight alities in the 1920's. Later in the 1930's Yiddish institutions were also deve against capitalism with the advocacy of expanded functions for Yiddish, loped in Birobidzhan, the Jewish autonomous region. This deliberate status in. order to broaden the cultura and intellectual horizons of the masses. planning for the Yiddish language had overwhelming consequences for the
l • 21:10 Rakhllliel Peltz and Mark W. Kiel Di Yiddish-Imperye 21S I
. j future development of Jewish culture in the Soviet Union. Synagogues and leaders had delcared that they werl) not "fanatices of the Yiddish language" ) \' religious sdlOols were closed, and secular Hebrew literature and thealer were and as Communists would not bemoan total language assimilation in the 6 0' .t \(i Jhaltcd. Left with no ~vert competition on the Jewish scene, t}le new Yiddish future. 9 Although the Yevsektsye acquired a negative reputation in many i h institutions dominated Jewish culture. ~ Jewish circles because of assimilationist tendencies and their role in uprooting 't-{\,,\-Jr: ~ion, the only society offering considerable governmental traditional Jewish Institutions, recent stu lies have also demonstrated their \~v\'\ finilllcial support of Yiddish cultural work, attracted many Yiddish intel· variegated nature and positive accomplishm~nts. \ ICl!tu:lls who envisioned a highly developed Jewish secular culture as an It was in a hierarchy permeated with ambivalence that the Yevsektsye integral part of the new Soviet society. Leading Yiddish writers and critics, confronted the central Party and had to justify their custodianship of Yiddi~h including Bergelson, Der nister, Erik Markish, Shtif and Viner, migrated to cultural activty and indeed their own ~xistence. t1,le Soviet Union by 1930's. Some were more committed to communism than Most Yiddish institutions housed affiliated local party Kemerlekh. "ow others, but it is extremely difficult from the evidence available to us to ever, many of the cultural leaders, including teachers, writers and reseaH:hcrs, describe the complexity of both overlapping and conflicting loyalties of the were not party members. These veteran architects of Yiddish ism hild to Soviet Jewish cultural leaders. A segment of the Jewish intelligentsia bOlh constantly fight for their constructive recommendations.! 0 inside and outside the Soviet Union were advocates of YiddishisllI, the Let us brieny examine some of the diverse institutional settings in which espousal of Yiddish language and culture, as the major factor for Jewish Yiddish developed after the Revolution. Yiddish nourished as a lal1guage of national identity.7 Yiddish language was regarded as the self-conscious literature and the arts. The greatest contribution of Soviet Jewish culture has 1 medium of secular Jewish culture as law and custom had been the medium been in the area of Yiddish belles lettres. I But creativity was not limited ~~ 1\1.1 (IV? of traditional, religious Jewish culture. Within the SOvie.t Union the Yiddish to the written word. Yiddish theater was very popular and it developed on '-", JvJ language came to be defined as the organic expression of the Jewish people, a high artistic level; in addition, the film medium was experimented with.! 2 (\I\\-J/\\ embodying and insuring an authentic balance struck between Jewish national Looking at the record of Soviet publications in Yiddish, we see an abun tradition and the new culture of Soviet society, which itself was a composite J \J,r\~.J- dant variety of periodicals, ranging from daily newspapers, to journals in of many nationalities. Yiddish culture could thus develop within the constel '1- I~ ~ specialized fields of agriculture and industry, from magazines for children, lation of Soviet nationality cultures. Of course, the increasing competition ~IJV to academic serials: J With regard to books, 849 Yidd.sh books amI bro· with Russian, a language already known by a large portion of the growing un I\J.I).. chures appeared just in the first five years following the Revolution.!4 Jewish urban population, caused the Jewish cultural leaders to constantly Altogether, some 7,237 Yiddish books and pamphlets appeared in the Soviet ~(ll ~ ~ look over their shoulder as they strove to raise the status of Yiddish in its Union from 1917 through 1948. Of these, about half were transla tions, main 'IV \ ,assigned social roles. ly from Russian belles lettres, children's literature and government writings, ~\l\\\~ TIle Jewish sections of~unist party. the Yevst;..ktsye (formed which included party matters and propaga'lda. Less than ten per cent of the in 191 gana disbanded in 1930), assumed general responsibility for Jewish works originally written in Yiddish were of a general party nature. 111US, cultural and economic reconstruction after the Revolution. It is hard to about forty per cent of the publications were of a more Jewish nature, in disentangle the contradictory attitudes of the Communist Party to Yiddish the sense that they were directed towards a specifically Je\vish audience. cultural activity, even for the period of widespread construction in the TIley spanned ,diverse subjects, but editions of the Yiddish classics (Mendele. 1920's. Jewish members of the general Party resented the existence of the Sholem Aleykhem and Perets) predominated. Of course, the works of Sovi.!t }'evsekrsye and their cultural work in Yiddish.8 Of 45,000 Jewish Party Yiddish writers were highly represented, reflecting in their thematics new members in 1927, 18,000 declared Yiddish as their mother tongue, but developments in Soviet society.J 5 TIle Soviet writers consisted of those who of these only 2,000 belonged to Yiddish kemerlekh ("ceUs") where business had established reputations before the Revolution, others who first developed was conducted in Yiddish. For most Jewish Communists, Russian had higher their skills in the flurry of activity after the Revolution, and a younger group status; even some Yevsektsye leaders spoke Russian at home and sent their who were products of the Soviet Yiddish educational system. children to Russian schools. At the inception of the Yevsektsye some of its After they came to power, the Comn' 'mists appropriated the existing ~ ~(~Vl\\ht cMM~~\\ ~ I- \ CJ"M 'I \'v, 1A1 1- Yfl'(dlf\I.H\' \ ( 11\ _ 2112 H.aklullid Peltz alld Mark 11'. Kiel Di Yiddish·!mperye 2k3
secular Jewish schools and Sovietized them. Over the next ten years there national soviets and five national regions utilized Yiddish for adminst rative was tremendous growth of new Yiddish schools. These encompassed a host of purposes. These institutions were manipulated at different times by thc ,t Jd pre·schools, four and seven year schools, and by 1930, ten year schools begin conflicting interests of the central Russian authority and the ruling nation· . 'U • ning at age eight. Better than fifty per cent of all Jewish children attended ality leaders of the republics. Moreover, Jews did not always support these ,Itj Yiddish schools at the height of Yiddish educational' development in 1932·33. institutions or turn to them for help. Nevertheless, they did function for CDIi While this figure may have lagged behind those of some other ethnic groups, almost twenty years, requiring such affilates as legal codes in Yiddish, as it far outstripped the number of students attending Yiddish schools in well as police, investigators, lawyers and judges who could perform functions America and Poland, the two other major centers of Yiddish speaking in the language. As late as 1937, there were 20·25 Yiddish courts, amI in 20 Jewry.J6 Only 3.7% of Jewish students attended middle and professional 1936, the Kiev court handled 1174 cases. . schools in Yiddish and an even smaller figure went to the Yiddish sections We will now foclls on Yiddish language planning concerns which grew out of the universities. The few Yiddish institutions of advanced training did not of the status planning decisions that assigned societal functions to Yiddish leel the varied needs of the Jews. Parents kept their children from attending in the Soviet Union. Most of the new Yiddish institutions were closed by 'iddish schools in general because they feared that the inadequate training the beginning of World War II. Consequently, evaluation of the results of in tlrese schools in Russian, the regional language, or German, would prevent implemellted recommendations, an integral part of language planning ill . ,I admission to schools of higher education.1 7 The Yiddish school curriculum general, was rarely achieved by the Soviet Yiddish regulators. Moreover. 11 du f,~did in fact include these languages, although it was dirficult to teach them in studying the issue today, we have little basis for exploring the more com· 1\\"\111"'" all successfully. Besides the general subject matter of all Soviet schools, such plex relationships, such as to what extent language shift in one soci el Unguists played the leading role in the language planning process, particu agricultural colonization had become everyday topics for the masses, and larly after the institutes of advanced Yiddish study were wen organized in it was for such needs that ade(luate terminologies were required. TIle journal, Mil1~k, starting in I92S ,and in Kiev a year later. Throughout the years, how however, saw itself in an advisory capacity, claiming that it "docs not decree, ever, a diverse group of non.linguist planners were also active in deliberations. it ollly suggests." The editor addressed the journal to worker correspondents, For example, it was the teachers in the Yiddish schools opened for children cultural le:lders, jurists, administrators, translators, teachers, and jourllalists. of displaced faillilies in Russia during World War I who initiated the naturali (~~ ,L\\\M lie invited as contributors nut only language researchers but also "COil l.alioll of the spelling of the Hebrew component of Yiddish. They argued that tI sumers" of the lan{,'1wge.3o orthography based 011 phonetics would make it easier to teach children who ~~\ \'i ~,\t did not know lIebrew how to read and write Yiddish correctly. Implell1enta· ~ J'1'. SrQlldards tiun was effected by the Yiddish press immediately after the Revolution.11 I fAr\~\t TIle standards operating in language planning can be studied from three III 'the early 1920's, the press was also tile arena for the first public discussion ,'U'/l1'ol'\ kinds of sources published descriptions of theoretical standards; the producls of which language standard to follow. A range of language levels was support· ~(1)... of corpus planning including terminologies, dictionaries, gr:Jmmars, and the ed in letters to the editor and in meetings with readers.l J Another example . \- ."" gUidelines described therein; and reports of language use. Of course, the gulf of the involvement of the press in I:!nguage planning were the meetings , "'1"\.,\,,,,, .between theoretical standard and actual language use can be quiet called by editors and journalists in Kharkov in 1930 because of their concern \~ \C).,~,\~N In Di yidishc sllprakll, the chief concern was the ideal kll/llIrsllpraklt, a about non-standardized usage in the nine Yiddish periodicals published rv}'tlj level of language that would apply to diverse situations, such as the press, there.14 Yiddish writers too dicsussed the nature of the literary language, teacher conrerences popular science books, translalions, and the business in articles and at conferences dedicated to language planning and literary ornce. Three lallguage styles were first offered as potential standards: I) matters.15 the "living /olksltprakh," defined as the language of buth the existing older Other non-linguist planners were active in establishing standards for using generation and or writers up to Sholclll Aleykhem, 2) the new literary lang· Yiddish in its new social niches. In working out terminologies for the Yiddish uage reprcscnted by l3ergelson, and 3) the "actual kll/llIrsllprakh" most courts, lawyers and judges played a key role in the committees, first in Minsk typically represented by the newspaper. Confusion over the difference and later in Kiev. 26 Courses were offered to familiarize party officials with between folk and literary languag! was reflected in the definition of the language of the Yiddish press, their chief politital tool.27 We do not /olksltprak/," as hoth spokcn v,!rnaclllar and literary creation. lllis normative have much evidence on the working relationship between linguist and non· journal had detlnite views. Rather than mechanically acccpt a foreign in{lu\!n linguist planners, but one of the only Soviet Yiddish linguists of that period ce, the defense of the /vlksr;p:akll was suugh!. In addlhon, tf1e"'l~of still living, reminisces that decisions on lexical differentiation of Yiddish the preSs was not a favontest ,ndard. hen tnough it represented a unique following the Revolution were made in a non-academic environment by style, the same linguistic norm:; were to hold for the press as for the literal)' "linguistic ignoramuses.,,18 language. Although Ilergclson's language loomed high as an acceptable sian The journals and conferences or anized b lin ists b ajor dard, reservations were expresseJ about the applicability of the individualistic sites for Ian e p anntng. Along with a variety of other linguistic research literary language to the more general kultllrshprakll. Even the /olksllprakh prgjecir,' a maJor concern of the linguists was' normative work. In their ~1~1\~ ~ standard, for which Shtif and his journal were later to be repeatedly derided first collective volume, a product of ac snort-lived philologIcal comni'ittee in f\~II"~"\,t was recognized 'for its limitations. Di )'wishe shprukll acknowledg\!d thDat Kharkov in 1923, the linguists discussed the principles oflanguage standardi q'(\l~ /olksllprakh waS relatively undifferentiated regarding contemporary ter· zation and called for the active collaboration of "teachers, school organizers, minology and was permeated with expressions of the worlds of religion and literati and journalists.,,19 The major Soviet journal on Yiddish lingUistics capitalism.3 I and language planning, Di yidishe shprakh, IGev, was envisioned as "a lang Another point of view was offered by lar ski, the leading Soviet Yiddish uage laboratory" with the aim of "breaking conservatism." Its editor, Shtif, grammarian, who in sited that the maio criterion for Iileralllrc and pn:ss claimed that subjects such as international politics, law, industrialization and should be the language which the Jewish worker spoke and understood ..ll f~hf ~ V~ Thus, hc ilgreed only partially with Shtirs dual standard which gave primary l1UJslltimlckhkayt ("the way of the masses") rather than yidishe !olkstimlekh impol tallce to thc ~pokcll language of the masscs and considercd the languagc kayt ("the way of the Jewish folk"), though both actually meant the sallle of literature secondarily.3 3 Pcrhaps the possiblility that the two standards thing: the specifically national·historical form of the language. The unique could approach one another was not unreasonable to the Yiddishists who saw ness of Yiddish Was;lot'to be O15lTte'rlned, accrudtng to Spi9ak, although he the Ianguagc "cffect ing a reconciliation betwcen the masses and thc ...intcl supported widespread use of internationalisms. Hc argued for lexical stan h~ctuals:'J4 Thc Sovict scHool of /illgvotekllllik as I'epresented by Zaretski dardization an~SCdOiraH ttr~onents of Yiddish, which .lcccpled ollly thnse critcria for language planning ttat ,supported the new he outlined as '. linly ~ecoffiiarily Slavk-.;notlicn-neuiiic. Alter social order. H lie adamantly decried traditional criteria ~tnonnative action, natively we car, trace his puristic tendency, advocating the elimination of sllch as purity, corr.:ctnes~,---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ beauty and past traditions. Such proclamations "unnecessary Germanisms, Hebtaisms that have become superfluous, and 36 gave Soviet langu:tgc plannmg a "radical". reputation. _ Indepcndent of .~~~. non.integrated Sllvisms.,,4 0 • wll'ether this attlihution is appropriate or not, recommendations did exclude While there was an orientation in Soviet Yiddish language planning away words tlla! "suppllrtcd chauvinism" and temlS that "supported religion." from Hebrew and toward Slavic elements, we will show latcr in this essay Such efforts par,lUded tl;e official exclusion of zhid (derogatory word for that sllch generalized criteria are greatly oversimplified. It should be r.: "Jew") frolll thc new Belorussian dictionary.37 These recommendations membered, nevertheless, that Yidtiish was developing in a society in which indicate~ grcat faith in the role that language education could play in trans- both secular and religious Hebrew language activity was drastically curtailed. milling socialvalues. -, At the same time there was an increasingly p~~e influence of Russian, If' we take -;:;Oe specific example of corpus planning, the work of the while Yiddish cultural institutions Nere formed side by "side>91th Ukrainian committee on legal terminology, we can see how mUltiple criteria may apply and Belorussian bodies. 10 one project. TIle committee stated several principles for word fonnation: WIlen we study the structure of Yiddish that was used during this period '!~f!r".,,,.;Ir j! :. I) understandibility, the word of the masses, 2)(no hazy, broad terms, 3) in the Soviet Union, we find it to have characteristics which are differcnt intcrnationalisllls preferred over newly created Yiddish tenns, 4) Ukrainian C·1 k,. It· from the earlier language as well as from Yiddish of the contemporary period or Russian terms only if used widely by Jews, 5) words of Hcbrew origin in other parts of the world. One published list contained 1500 new terms if they are not "archaic remanallts" of religious life whose meaning has not which dcalt with new social concepts, such as "one day a week of voluntury been neutralized, 6) avoidance of direct calques from Russian. 38 work" (shabcsllik or kOlmmistisher sllabes), "collective farm" (koll'irt) Ironically by the late 1930's when Yiddish expression and institutions "militant anti·religion campaigners" (krigerishe apikorsim), and "members were curtailed, the expressed standards for language planning were broadcr, of the Communist youth movement" (komyugistll). Analogous terms were more liberal, and more variegated than in earlier years. This tendency probab formed in most languages of the Soviet Union. One Soviet observer comment· ly rcHected the unwillingness of the planners to be charged with supporting l!!)l{tr ed that the common features of the new Yiddish tenninology were thcO a single standard which could at soml! point fall Ollt of favor. But much U~fhi-/J ,;., "emphasis on t .. e class aspect, exactness, expressiveness, and hightened evidence also shows that the linguists eventually operated in a freer frame politicization and militancy." Structurally, the terms consisted largely of , ,1'\ 4 work, which allowed them to acknowledge the complex structure and history fPj I)~j{ cmposites, contai~ ing contractions and abbreviations. I of Yiddish and to plan for the continuity of its integrity. Still, despite the '1(1/1)11'1 Along with IFxical innovation, morphology and grammar also changed. acknowledged greater diversification of gUiding principles,limitations remain ) , Accompanying the productive use of the suffIXes -ish and -ik, already COIl1· cd. Unlike th¢ir Western contemporaries, for example, none of the Soviet l.Ohil{ mon to Yiddish, -bar, common to Gcrman, appeared. In addition, adjectives planners.mtJ:roposed the language of the talmid-khokiiem, the "~eHgious ~N)!IWlJ- were elllployedWi -t 10- t'- . \ ll~ ~ ~t ~_ \, i ,N"', yJ'!wJ,11 'l ,j,. l~"'\\) \\ M#~\,,{l \l . ,¥ Ii II UI'trW \)./\ 'J\ ~A. II 1v4~~ \{\ \ \l...!llU; \ 1\ ..2HM RukJllllld Pdtz and Mark W. Kid Di Yiddil'h'/Illperye 21:llJ Confercnces organizing authorities of the conference, the phraseology used, the question In conferences dedicated to language questions, the [l1U scope of language or the association of Yiddish linguistics to broader Soviet society, and in the COllst ru :t ion was evid~nt: the changing publicly approved standards and realm of criticism in which the new vitriolic air rendered previous criticism 4 related dissensions were revealed. Foremost on the agenda of the 1928 of standards modest by comparison. 5 Sc~und AIl·Union Cultural Conference in Kharkov was standardized orlllO' The Ukrainian Yiddish Language Meeting in Kiev in 1934 Signified an graphy. The conference accepted the guidelines for Yiddish spelling in the important assertion by the lingUists and language planners of control over Soviet Union, which in~~fJhe~ecl;!Lw,:,rd.termillal their work. The report of the meeting confirms the participation of the fon~n the al.e..hab~.4 3 IJtvakov, editor of Der emes (Moscow), gave the proper political authorities, as in 1931, but their contributions were limited key ote address on anguage to the scientific session, immediately revealing to short speeches. The dominating enterprise was clearly lengthy scientific conflkting standards. According to him, the folkshprakh should be the object addresses. The list of participants provides a picture of the public setting for o( linguistic research, but only its secular and "productive" elements. For language planning at this time. Of the 166 voting delegates from 25 citil:s, Litvakov, however, the favored standard was the language of the Soviet press. 33'X, were researchers, 34% journalists, 30% teachers, and only 2.7% party It was the broad·based field of Yiddish linguistics that was acknowledged in leaders. 56% were not party members, 37% party members, and 7'70 COlli' the Conference resolutions. Principal attention was given to normative work munist YOllth. 59% possessed higher education and 41 % high school level on the language of schools, press and publishing, to be accompanied by education. the production of the gate·keeping tools of corpus planning - specialized The prevailing political standards for linguistic work in 1934 were succinct terminologies, popular dictionaries for translating Russian, Belomssian and ly posited by the Jewish party intellectuals, LJberberg and Levitan, and im· Ukrainian, and translations of laws into Yiddish. Tbe more descriptive work portantly corroborated in the speeches of the Ukrainian leaders, Zatonski and was not neglected, however, with research planned in fields such as dialecto~ Khvilya. TIle "lUltsdemishe" and purist tendency of "nurturingfolkslimlckll logy and language history. FinaUy, the idea of institutionalized standardi kayl", represented by the then deceased Shtif, was to be avoided. Rather the zation of language was accepted and norms were demanded for questions of masses were to he raised to a "higher level." At the same time the planners 4 gender, plurals, verbs inflection and the use of prepositions. 4 /'_ had to refrain • om "leftist imperialist chauvinism," mainly the arlilical In 1931, the First All-Union Yiddish Language Conference was convened introduction of Russian as a standard. The chief political idea was, thus the in Kiev under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish Culture of the Ukrain "struggle on two fronts." The 1934 meeting distinguished itself. however, ian Academy of Sciences and the AlI·Union Conununist Academy. The parti bY. the strong critique of the "leftist" stance, a critique only weakly expressed cipation of the latter political group was repeatedly mentioned, seemingly in 1931. Surprisingly, the Ukrainian officials backed this position for Yiddish, to indicate the proper attention to political responsibility that was then even thollgh the analogous advocacy for Ukrainian vis a vis Russian was required of academic and cultural endeavors. The Yiddish work was presented considered treason in both 1931 and 1934. By 1934 the linguists' strong with reference to Marxist goals in general linguistics, yet no commitment message was that Yiddish linguistics would continue on an autonomous and was made to anyone existing approach. Forced to look inward at its faulty purist path. They criticized those who "ignore the specifics of Yiddish" as record, Yiddish language planning was accused of transgressions. Despite the well as "every bureaucratic inteference" in language planning, in effect, highly charged and critical tone, the conference of 1931 left room for some rejecting the politicization of 1931.46 diversity and independence. Although folksJzprakh was discouraged as a Using publislled guidelines and conference reports from 1928 through standard, a gate was constructed to impede anjn.flux of Russian elements 1924, we have followed diversification in both the sources and goals of into Yiddish~standardiZaTIOnwas maintained, but the new Soviet Yiddish language planning. Even in 1931, the time of electrified mltitall[ 'fid'dtsh shprakJzfront openly decried any individualistic standards. faultfinding and political intrusion, the initiation of criticism of the "leftist" A battle against Yiddish linguistics outside the Soviet Union was declared, position enabled the linguists to later bounce back in 1934 and defend a whereas domestically Shtif received the bmnt of criticism, especially because stance which protected the historical evolution of Yiddish. Although the of his interest in older language sources. In short, we see changes in the record is full of repeated contradictions, Soviet Yiddish linguists remained dedicated to language planning. --.. ---... \ Ul~\ Polcmics noted the presence of innovative, words, new kinds of substantivization lJuring the time of Jewish cultural construction, controversy accompanied and adjeclivizat, JIl. and use of suri1xes which connote great emotion, such experirllent:Jtion on language. 47 The polemics which enveloped the appli-, as ,-a),. -ray. -ev('ll, ·yada for terms describing revolutionary goals. Regarding calion of Yiddish to an array of social functions covered a multitude of the influence of Russian, the newspapers were found to avoid borrowing old questions relating to the nature of linguistic r~search, the language of the Russian words, but often to adopt new Soviet Russian words. For example, ncwsp:Jper, the use of traditional phraseology, the influence of Russian, the in the same p.ier, ispolkom competed with the Yiddish version oJ'sfir· relationship to neighboring Belorussian and Ukrainian, the role of the Hebrew kOlllitct ("executive committee"). However, the main influence of Russian component, and the nature of language in education. was identified in sentence structure. As we hav~ct;-thiswas Shtif's The field of Yiddish linguistics was ridiculed for its involvement in theo majo.. bUneof contenIT6rf: Heilllied himself with the newSpaper etlitms rec,tical rathcr than practical work, even though the linguists maintaincd a Utvakoy-and ')JiP'rakh in defending the traditional phraseology of Yiddish,S 3 consistent and sincere dedication to language planning. TIle Minsk institute, But Utvakov refused to accept this alliance, claiming that Shtif and his whkh camc under more political control tlian Kiev after the death of its jnumal resisld everything new while nurturing that which is ancient. S 4 ICOlJcr Vcyngcr in Ihe beginlling of 1929, was chided for its two hwjor pro 011 the pa.;' s of Di yidislte ~/Jprakh and the daily press, attacks and jccts, a linguistic atlas and an academic Yiddish dictionary. Dialectology was counterattacks cn~ued during 19:8·1929, with the journal ad vocating purism takcn to t:lsk for its geographic basis, which neglected the study of social and folkshflraldl, and the newsmen defending their revolutionary iallguOlge, S dialccts.'The orthodox Marxists were searching for support or the new social . open to new words and foreign 10ans. 5 Of course, the language of the press order through linguistic research. Zaretski and Shtif resisted this pressure by was far from monolithic, as we have discussed. Not only did politicians and maintaining that linguistics possessed neither the methods nor the experience jOllfllalists attack linguists, but splits developed within the linguist camp, to depict the social differentiation of contemporary speech.48 Both men, with Zaretski and the orthodox party linguist Gitlits disavowing purism as however, suggested programs for recording local speech. the best approach to planning.56 The common address for blame was Sh,if, TIle m:ljor sparring, however, took place over the language of the press. the linguist holding most responsibility. His old interest in medieval Yiddish The Soviet newspapers in the 1920's represented a range of language levels, literature and in collecting folksayings was ridiculed by those who denigrated from a Yiddish full of Russian words ("proste Yiddish") in Der veker (Minsk) his planning considerations based on folkshprakh. He was the major figure to the purist Yiddish of the editor Utvakov in 'Der emes (Moscow). In during the public recantation of linguistic work in 1932. After his death between stood Di komunistishe fon (Kiev), which declared that "we do in 1933, as had earlier been the case for Veynger, he became yet a more not write, nor do we seek to, write, either for the inteligent or in a vulgar convenicnt scapegoaLS 7 fashion ... 49 Journalists and political leaders we~e interested in matters of .During the confusing time of vacillating standards, caustic attacks and style and actively took part in evaluating and regulating'the journalistic political pressure (1929·1932), the linguists sometimes took short·Jivcd language. For example, Der shtern (Kharkov), surveying the reactions of flex-rrCillepoSlTloils. Thus, the encouragement of a new influence of Russian their readers, found that nine hundred out of 1153 respondentswere satisfied on the developing Yiddish language of culture, a position held by only a 5 with the newspaper's language, but 138 (mostly older than 30) complained few political leaders and journalists, was transiently espoused by Zaretski. 8 of too many Hebrew words; others protested against foreign words and His proposal o,f a new Yiddish· Russian language was accompanied by a abstruse ("tifyidishc") literary terms that were not understandable.5o renunciation of Ihis stance by his editor Shtif, in a prologue to the work, The response to claims of unintelligibility came from Utvakov: "Because and elsewhere by more lengthy criticism. S 9 As we have seen, Zaretski was our Soviet life is becoming Yiddishized, new words must be created which forced to disavow the pOSition, which became the disapproved leftist side are not understandable in the beginning." But he also argued to the contrary, of the double·edg,ed plank in the 1934 conference. that the young readers forced the editors to use "incorrect, non·Yiddhh Although the attitudes of both Yiddish speakers and linguists toward the expressions."s I stock Iallb'uages and different linguistic components have always varied, th.: TIle lingUists monitored the press and analyzed its language. 52 They Soviet Yiddish language planners in gelleral accepted !lIe old integrated Slavic A2I '\ \.,,1\ 1\ \)'U~' ~ j~~' ~ ~n C(yI J f:/,,( fP W. ,\1' L(j~\ I\}.,. r,tJ~ . 1 L' \' '\ ' ~,I ~ -0', \. ~'iv\"T1 t, \ U..uk{\l~ 'I· -\'1\11" '~ ~ "~,, \ .2S12 J forms (the Slavic component) as a property of the language, but stood firmly required in the d:lily news, while journalists who were more influenced by against the introduction of new Russian forms. Soviet linguists paid increased the Russian of the day avoided such' borrowings,6 8 An examination of some attention to deter/llinh~g the historical influence of Slavic languages on tlte of Ihe specialized terminologies shows many recommended terms from the 6 development of Yiddish, but rarely went beyond using Russian for calques in lIebrew component without evidence of dehebraization of the lexicon. Y the new lexicon.6o They were generaUy proud of the new Yiddish innvoations In addition, the treatises of the hlllgl'age planners themselves made fuliuse of which were accepted instea'd of Russian forms (kemerl vs.yatsiteyke, "party the lIebrew component.70 Yet, evidence emerging from comparing different cell"; kO/l'irl vs. kolkhoz, "collective faml"; shlogler vs. udal'llik, "shock editions of the sallie text shows that some terms from the Hebrew component worker"). were displaced in belles lettres in the 1930's.1I A study of language use in In the discussion oflanguage standards, there was hardly mention of a new various social sectors would be required to determine the extent to whkh inlhu:nce of neighboring Belorussian and Ukrainian on the development of conscious dehebraization of Yiddish was practiced. Certainly, hy the late the Slav~c component of Yiddish. During the official campaigns against the 1930's Ilebrew was part of the heterogeneous pantheon of souriS in Yiddish.;- ~ 7 cultur~1 mdependcnce of these nationalities and the purges of their lingUists, lallguage planning. 2 \ '*\)(", JVU) I.lJY- S' ilV,'-u. ~..e,,' "\" \ ,v\.,~ •..f\~, M, the Yiddish planners avoided extensive involvement in the issue. After the Virtually every aspect of the controversies relating to langu ge in general first purge, the newly appointed head of the Ukrainian Unguistics Institute was reflected in the dialogues on the nature of language instruction in the published, in Yiddish, a veiled warning aimed at the Yiddish plallllers.6 I schools, On one issue, the relative attention givCntograii.fiffilrrri--tIH! curTi· 11lc few brief references in Yiddish to the deposed lingUists consistently culliiil;'"shtif was pitted against grammarians, such as Zaretski. Shtif thought excoriated the "language destroyers" ("shprakhlekhe shediker"). Moreover, that grammar as taught in the Yiddish schools since the publication of 7 one of the resolutions of the 1934 Yiddish conference clearly stated the in de· Zaretski's grammar text in 1926, 3 presented lingUistic models from an pcndence of the Yiddish planners, who therein claimed for Yiddish a common artistic literary language that were impossible for most students to emulate. lexical base with German, not Russian. Not mincing words, the conference lie prerered language study through field observation and practical use in declared, "Do not apply to Yiddish in a superficial vulgarized fashion the writing and speaking, rather than the formal study of rules which apply to scheme of the struggle on the Ukrainian and Belorussian linguistic f£OlIt."62 an esoteric lallguage. Hecognition, according to ShHf, was to be given to The attempt to dehebraize, to remove the lIebrew component from the ingrained knowledge that the children brought with them to the primary Yiddish, is one of the most widely discussed issues relating to Yiddish in grades. 74 Shtif wanted more stress placed on stylistics, on the mastering the Soviet Union. Careful study of the issue shows it, however, to have been of the langm'ge which is spoken and written, rather than on rules which are 6 limited to three presentations in the linguistic Iiterature. 3 TIle position was formulated hy grammarians. lie did recognize a place for grammar in the soon rejected by the linguistic establish.ment.!sWng_ahistorICal and against curriculum, but his critics misinterpreted him as denying the legitimacy of 7 the illtegrity---of nddlslf~ess, more than any other issue, Ihe 'h I I (he field per se. S suggested dehebraization en~d Yiddish -iIitenectu:iISoilTSrae-Ui-e-S6viet 'Jl e~ l1Vi JI{/i~ One of the most debated problems dealt with the role of the schools in ~.~n./ S The tiini~~ 1>f this recom~endat-~on c~n be interpreted ~s-coirlcid- C\fI'\ ~ i'} implem.enting stan~ardized pronunciat~, orthoepia, for Yiddish. To this IIlg with great political pressure to cut ties With non-communist planners day, Yiddish cultural leaaers throughout tne w01'ld have never expressed outside the Soviet Union. In addition, the discussion of dinlinishing the consensus on whether standardized pronunciation is necessary. But Yiddish lIebrew component, the component of Yiddish which could be identified teachers both in' and outside the Soviet Union in the 1920's were faced with as most specifically Jewish, occurred at the heigh! of the campaign against the practical prohlem of determining which dialect to teach their students. the Belorussians and Ukrainians for nurturing their natural specificity.66 The Soviet language planners helc various positions. Veynger supported the This period, 1929-1931, also coincided with the iconoclastic cultural revolu Uthuanian dialect as the spoken standard, whereas Tsvayg argued that not lioll occurring in the Soviet Union in genera1.67 even the Minsk State Theater exhibited a uniform spoken language,7I> Spivak. As with other lanbruage questions, the attitude toward the Hebrew com· as did Bimboym outside the Soviet Union, argued against orthoepia as a ponent was varied. Litvakov often drew from Hebrew for new Yiddish words destructive force in language development. 77 It presented the danger of · 2~4 Rakhmiel Peltz alld Mark IV. Kiel Vi Yiddish·/mperye 295 unsettling the child's linguistic ties to his home, where the local dialect example, possess many more shared principles than divergent points. was sl ill spoken. Teachers pointed to the confusion Jewish children in the Compared with the unfoldment of language and culture for other Soviet Ukraine would face when they would be trained in a standard Yiddish based nationalities, the Yiddish scene presents both similarities and discrepancies.so 011 the Lithuanian dialect and then would have to make sense of the Ukrain In general, CI,Uural construction proceeded through the 1920's but faced ian Yiddish dialect of Sholem Aleykhem's characters.?S . more restrictio~cel1fiarconlrotaneLl928. It was then that lolkshprakh Zarctski demonstrated' an understanding of the problem's complexity as a standard wasatiacked;that some orthe more academic language research and a~ldlilglydistinguished between a maximal and minimal approach projects were curtailed, and that dehebraization was suggested. For the to slandardiled pronuncia!l0n: thel'Oimer, a thoroughgoing procesntlitable constructive cultural work, Yiddish could follow a tradition started before for theater performances and formal occasions; the latter, appropriate for the the Revolution that did not require a cadre of newly trained nationalist schools, and tolerant of al1 but the most extreme provincialisms, using it for leaders, as in the korellizatsiia process for other nationalities. Many Jewish dklation and reading, but not speaking. Zaretski made clear the difficulty political and cultural activists, previously affiliated with other revolutionary of the undertaking and stressed the need for greater research into the parties, joined lilt: Bolsheviks s.:JOn after the Revolution. Later, Yiddish que~tioll, for general conceptual analysis, the gathering of statistics 011 word lallgu~JML[lJJlli!.liJlg did not undergo the same convulsive purges asdld the usage, and the determination of standardized pronunciation of new inter Bclorussia n a lid-Uki-ainian- endeavornUn[jnglinhe-rateI920~ One reason national and Russinn borrowing into Yiddish.79 was that the twoleadirs;-Veyriger anaShtif died, conven-ieiltly allowing for reorganization. The Yiddish effort in Minsk was then greatly diminished and Continuities alld Discontilluities subjected to supervision by Jewish politicians. On the Ukrainian nationality (t would be unfair, in the light of contradictory standards and shifts in language front, the work of the newly appointed linguists after the purges positions of idividual language planners, to establish a regular scheme of has been characterized as "polemics of little scholarly substance,',82..Jhe_ development for Yiddish in the Soviet Union between the two World Wars. Yiddish work in Kiev, on the other hand, retained a rather high level. The Despite the uneven course of Soviet Yiddish language planning, which to new UkfaTfiianllOnnative work sho\ved a blatant gravitation toward Russian a certain extent reflects properties of both the general discipline and the and to decry this standard was treasonous. At the same time, the rejection of specific case of the field in the Soviet Union, we must search for explanations a direct Russian inllllence on Yiddish language planning ")as an approvep of problems related to Yiddish language in both its broadest social perspective gllideline.vy,'dciJr4 ""'t(~N S~'\-~ 4'/-kJ IIItl/vtC""f dMJ,.,.-,a"tll.~ and most specific level of the individual speaker and planner. The history of The Yiddish alphabet, shared with -Hebrew and other Jewish languages: .-t. £/, (' fU Yiddish provides a background for the problem, and the greater picture of was also a sign of the relative independence of Jewish cultural work. While Soviet society provides a timetable for the observed changes. Although we most other languages with non-Cyrillic alphabets were subject to Latinization noted divergences from Yiddish developments outside the Soviet Union and and Cyrillization, Yiddish retained its alphabet with relatively minor changes from happenings on the internal Soviet nationality front, the parallels must being introduced by the new standards for orthography, Latinization was also be drawn. brielly discussed, but not any more so than in the non-Soviet Jewish cultural s Despite the fact that Yiddish was applied to diverse societal settings also world. :! Cyrillization was hardly mentioned. Not only was the alphabet in Poland and the Baltic states, and to a lesser degree in the communities of conserved, but the language as a whole, which the planners called Soviet Jewish immigration in the western hemisphere, nowhere else did the diversity Yiddish starting in 1934, was also largely the same as Yiddish outside the of application and the level of productivity reach that of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union. A1though we lack evidence for the spoken language of the TIle major rival language planning effort was that of the Yivo in Vilna, which period, such was the case for the extensive literature produced. was able to effect a wide range of research and normative projects without Language was embedded in Soviet society and subject to all the disrup government supportJ!oth the Yivo and Soviet efforts stressed standardization, tions which iudividuals and institutions experienced. A Soviet Yiddish linguist development of a kulturshprakh. and the Y!dd~~-&~lha mediator of the period, reminiscing in 1967, commented that the factors which dictat and an oDJect of research. The two plans for standardized orthog!apny,for ed language issues were not "the struggles on the pages of newspapers and of l/lm j.lYr"1-f1(p {tht'&" f r~'Wt-r /l#1 ~ ~\ V VI 0 ;,I ,i f f u ' J ·'rt-f,l("t J}(I {I V"" {IN. uJ ho~ ,.21.J() H.ukllllliel Peltz ami Mark W. Kiel I;jj.fn rtJ <.vJi ~LrvtI1 !J(/~,!},V Vi Yiddisli-Illlpcrye 21)7 Jf'JI 't -I/"~:' ~'V1f." .' (;Of 83 Iingnistics journals," but life itself. Vacillating short-lived positions should -" fV/. which they have experienced since World War II render futile any comparison not always be interpreted by rational arguments. One might expect that the with Ihe /irst decades following the Revolution. Firstly, the Soviet-German Yiddish wOlk wascloseJy controlled by the central party in Moscow. Ilow pact in 1939 put areas to the West with large Jewish populations under SO"iet ever, a former Yel'sektsye leader has clainled that such directives were rela nIle. Theil, after Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Jewish civilians were tively rare, but that the -Yiddish C!!.1tu!!!J~H _p_r~cticed much second brutally killed and many Jewish soldiers fell whlle serving in the Red army. guessing. i!!!..:.~ting and reinte[pre.t.irt&",_il_U_~c~l!!&._ and -c-ou-ri'i'erat!acking. In addition, segmellts of the popUlation were dislocated eastward during the The imOlediate response to their ihterpretation';"as ofie-n-base r ~ 111 lJUtiJ-1 ~ \i~A1~ (J J;i'" ~ . 21)8 Rakhlllicl Peltz and Mark W. Kid I t1f: .I . l' Yiddislt-Impcrye 2')() ~.ll 1 a '(wry ('u1J,di Gl)) i~.~j4>liwrJ wrap food. The leading Yiddish intellectuals were arrested, charged with Outside the realm of Sovetish heymland, Yiddish activity has only been ~.1i61,.;-alld executed in 1952, including' the linguist Spivak, the actor sporadic and oftill1es discouraged by the authorities. No Yhhlish schools Zuskin, and the write,rs Bl1rgelson, Fefer, H9fshteYl)1' ~yitko, Markish and have bccn reopened, neither was the ~11~uag_e~_~~..s~UirulY_olac.ialJ.l'lJii.tu 87 Pcrsov. rf\ V(~iJ·Jf... 01/ JIi, /....·ti I, IAJ;tr~J, tion, 1-n·~,-fiOwever, elementary -Yiddish language instruction was intro Yiddish culture in the Soviet Union never recov~red from that blow. The duced in three schools in Birobidzhan, and in 1982 a Yiddish primer for major public voice of Soviet Jews to appear since then Is the journal Sovetish schoolchildren appeared there.1I6 Requests by individuals to the authorities Iwymlaml (Moscow), founded in 1961 and appearing now as a monthly. It for perll1ission to start Yiddish classes (not publicized in the U.S.S.R.) have is thc largest (in pages per year) Yiddish language journal appearing in the been met with negative replies. II 7 Although the "underground" nationalistic wurld. Mostly consisting of belles leUres, it includes memoirs, notes on awakening of Soviet Jews have largely been associated with Zionism, Hehrew Prrformanccs, art work a'nd political commentary. After 1967 it developed culture and Hebrew language instruction, there have also been reports of 98 a 'vituperative stance towards Israel. Despite the emigration of many writers SOllie unofficial instruction in Yiddish. Despite the fact that Yiddish to brael, the journal has been able to maintain rather high literary stan has sometimes been associated by young activists as an "official" Jewish s dards. S Recently it announced the training of young Yiddish editors and culture which collaborates with the government, some other youth, especially s pllh1i~hed some of their writings. II Two studies of the language of the jour from the Western territories which became part of the Soviet Union more nal have shown some of the specificities of the past, including the influence recently, identify the language as a positive part of their personal heritage,9 9 of the Soviet normativists who were more open to recent German innuence The clements of Yiddish culture which have had the most popular appeal that other Yiddish standardizers.9o However, on the whole, Yiddish literature have been concerts of Yiddish song, which were permitted to start in the latc in the Soviet Union, as elsewhere, inherited the general standards established 1950's, and theater performances which started in the early I 960'S.1 00 III in the literary language of the late nineteenth century. Since 1958 only about addition, shortwave radio transmissions in Yiddish from Israel (one halfhouo', 1 eighty Yiddish books have been published, but 444 Yiddish works have been twice daily, in the mid-1970's) are popular among Soviet Jews. 01 translated into Russian and other Soviet languages. One observer calls these Throughout our study, we have neglected the spoken language because translations "the major phenomenon of Jewish cultural life in the USSR."91 of the abscnce of adequate data. We know that schools, press and literature The only ongoing research project in Sovetish lIeymlaf/d is a lexicon of will not guarantee maintenance of a language, in the absence of actors at Soviet Yiddish writers, which had been started in Minsk in the 1930's.92 home or in the greater society which add to the prestige or positive feeling Although linguistics and language planning have not been major topics towards the language. Except for the newly expressed dissident movement, in the journal, when Shapiro (the author of an announced, but yet to appear, which has given its support to Hebrew and not Yiddish, we know of no new Russian-Yiddish and Yiddish-Russian dictionary"') wrote that he recom group-instigated forces, other than the Yiddish language institutions which Illended eliminating "archaic" and "bookish" elements of the Hebrew com· could further Yiddish maintenance. On the other hand, since Yiddish was the ponen t, he was accused from across the ocean of creating an "elementary language of the home of almost all Ashkenazic Jews in the Russian empire, language.,,93 Another polemic in which the focus was reminiscent of the continuation of ethnic identity might be aided by warm feelings tu family \930's criticized the linguist contributors to the journal for neglecting the traditions, despite the dislocating forces. We must ask, has Yiddish been /olkshprakh standard.94 Dut the language planners no longer had institutions maintained as a spoken language of Jews in the Soviet Union? for which tu plan. On the positive sides, monthly Yiddish lessons in Russian The evidence is not easily interpreted, but shows a continual decline in were il1Stituted by the journal in 1969, and with the initiation of publication Yiddish as claimed "mother tonuge" or "second language." Mostly based of adjunct booklets to the journal each month, three collections of lessons on Soviet census data, it is subject to criticism. For example, a study based have appeared in this fonn. 95 These represent the first Yiddish textbooks to on emigrant ethnic Germans has shown that some individuals misdailll appear in the Soviet Union since before World War II. nationality, and that inexact listing of nationality results from ethnically mixed marriages. In addition, the assertion of "mother tongue" was noted -The Russian-Yiddish dictionary was published in 1984_ (Editor) as reflecting emotional overtones and not necessarily language knowledge oruse. 101 ..,. .,.... Di YidJish-Illlpcrye 3() I " . JOO Uakhlllid l'drz alld JIIark W. Kid Spedlk corrections to the data on Jews have to be made bacause uf the Ahhreviations calcgllfY "Jewish language" which includes the Jewish languages of oriental As Alii shprakltfrolll; IJYS Di yid/she shprakh; SU SOI'etisJ, Ileymlal/d; SJA SOl'jel Jews: 03 and because, comparison for different years should correct for Jewislt AI/airs. changes in border" 04 Corrected figures give a comparison for the per cent or Jews dedaring Yiddish as their "mother tongue" in the following decreas ing proportion: 96.9% (1897), 72.6% (1926), 41.0% (1939), beased on Notes incompletely published data), 17.9% (1959).10 S Noncorrected data from Snvict sources show further figures of 17.7% (1970) and 14.2% (1979V 06 I. Semen M. l)ubnov,J/istory ofthe Jews ill Russia alld PoliJlld, 3 vots. (Philadelrhia: MOIc()ver, the census as, an indicator of linguistic Russification of Jews Jewish Publications Society or America, 1916-1920). Louis Greenberg, TIle Jews ill slwws even more striking ligures than for the decrease of Yiddish as declared Uunia (New Y,)fk: Schock en Books, 1916); Isaac Levitats, 111e J('",ish ('Olll' "i\lOlher tongue." In the Slavic republics, for example, the percentage of I/Il11lil)' ill Uussia: 1772·184-1 (New York: Octagon Press, 1910); Isa~c Levit;",>, Jcws who declared Russian as their first language was betweell 85·90% ill 171t' Jc:lI'islt COII/II/III/ity i" Rllssia: 11144·1917 (Jerusalem: Posner anJ Son... 1981); Salo W. Baron, 171e Rllssiall kw II/Id/'r nars awl Sol'i<'ts, 2n,1 cd. (Nc'\\' 1979, and those who declared it as either their first or second language was York: Macmillan, 1916); Zev Katz, "The Jews in the Soviet Union," /ltIllt/buok higher than 98%.107 of Maior SOl'iel Nlltiul/afitit's, cds. Zev Katz, Rosemarie Rogers, and Frcderic Although it is clear that proficiency in s ~aking.and understanding. Yiddish Harned (New York: the Free Prcss, 1915), pp. 355-389. has ecreasc , WI resu ts or Russian having occurred, we can also 2. llriel Weinreich, "Yiddish languagc", t:llcydopcdia Judaica, vol. 16 (Jeru~alc Ill, be sure that we do not have any basis for quantitation of this prot1ciency. 1971). 1"1". 789·798; Max Weinreich, lIistory of the Yiddish Lal/!.~Iage (Chical!n: Studies on recent immigrants to the United States give confusing results with Thc University of Chicago Press, 1980); Solomon Birnbaum, Yiddish: A SUtl'('Y alld a Gramlllar (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979); Marvin L lIcrzo~. which to view the Soviet census data. One study of a group with 70% deriving "Origins and Evolution of the Yiddish Language," Gel/nic Diseases all/()/Ig from the Ukraine and only 8% from Moscow and Leningrad showed 13% Ashkl'l/Qzi Jews, eds, R,M. Goodman and A.G, Motliisky (New York: R;I\Cn declaring Yiddish as native language and 30% speaking it fluently; another I'ress, 1979), PI". 47·57; Joshua A. Fishman, "The Phenomcnolo!!ical and Linguh group with only 24% from the Ukraine and 45% from Moscow and Leningrad ti..: Pilgrimage of Yiddish: Some Examples of Functional and Struclionall'idgini zal inn and Pcridginization," At/I'allCC's ;'1 the Creatio/l all(1 R('I'isiml of lI'riliH~ reponed that 56% spoke or understood some Yiddish: 08 The latter group Systell/S, cd. Joshua A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1977), pp. 293·306; would be expected to be the more lingUistically Russit1ed, yet it indicated Joshua A Fishman, "The Sociology of Yiddish: A Forward," 1\'el'er Say Die': a high percentage of "passive knowledge" of Yiddish; supposedly the percent A Thousalld Y('ars of Yiddisll ill Jewish Life alid Letters, cd. Joshua A. Fhhman age for the first group if measured would have been much higher than for (The Hague: Mouton, 1981), rp. 1·97. the second. Therefore, the "mother tongue" and "second language" census 3. Fishl!l;ln, 1981; Emanuel S. Goldsmith, Arcltitects of Yiddisl!isll/ at Ille Beginning oj' the Twc/lticlh Ce/ltury (Rutherford: Farleigh Dickinson University Pr~ss. categories should not be considered to be laden with enough information to 1976); Dan Miron, A Traveler Disguised (New York: Scho.:kcn Books, 1973); allow us to discount varying degrees of knowledge and language proficiency. Yankey Shat ski, "Ocr Kamf arum gcplante tsaybhriftn far yidn in Kongrcl-r"yln The only study known to us about linguistic characteristics of the Yiddish of (1840-1860)," Yivo·bleter, 6(1934). 61·83; A. KUlshnils. Di yidisl/e prcsc ;/1 recent immigrants showed that for older Ukrainian Jews, who were often da geveulwr Rllsish('r ill!flcryc (1823-1916) (Moscow: Tsentr:lier Fclkcr-farbg displaced from their birthplace at an early age and claimed to have spoken fun F.S.S,R\, 1930); Katz, 1975. 4. Although advocacy of Hebrew achieved rrimacy among various Zionist groups, mostly Russian during their adult lives, all phonological markers studied in a wide array of Zionist organizations carried out their work and even lo\tcrct! their Yiddish, showed retention of the geographic specificity for the birth Yiddish cultural activity in the diaspora, in contrast to their plans for IJehre\\' place" 09 Obviously many more studies have to be made before we can in i'alestine. The socialist workdc/S' Poalcy·tsiyoll rarty was one of the SIIonf~s, supporters of Yiddish on the Jewish scene in general; Fishn1.ln, 1981; Goldsrnilh, declare that Soviet Jews have not retained their Yiddish language. I ..6 ;..."rufo"" It , ~t'\'l\ w"; ~ 1976; Lucy I)awidowicz, cd., 11le ('TOldell Traditio/l (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967); Ychoshua A. Gilboa, A Langl/age Silenced: 11le Suppressio/! of /I.-br"h' ~l""$.fi~ rf'. i{JJJ ~C"1~a l.iterawre und Clliture ill tlte Soviet Ullioll (Ruthtrford: Farlcigh Dickimon .AlM1f~ University I'ress and Nerzl Press. 1982). ~i rw,J ~~ .302 1<11"111111<"1 }'c/r= alld Mark 1\1. Kiel Di Yiddislt-bnperye 303 5. O~"ar Janowsky. 17le Jews and Millority RiglllS (New York: Macmilli:m, 1933), 12. Nahma Sandrow, Vagabond Stars:. A World History of Yiddish 17,rater (New PI'. 210-223; Yllysef Tenenboym, "Di yidishe shprakh af der tog-urd~t\Ung fun York: Barper and Row, 1977), pp. 222-250; Nakhman Mayzil, Dos yidil/w d~r sho\clll-knnfcrcnts in Paril., 1919." Yil'o·bletcr, 41 (1957/1958),217-229; shaft' 1111 dcr yidisher shrayber ill Sovetll/arband (New York: Ikuf-farlag, 1959). Mark "i~l, "The Id~ology of the folks-Partey." SJA, 5 (1975).75-89; FishmJII. pp. 161-167; Lois Adler. "Alexis Granovsky and the lewish State Theater of I'.Ill I. 1'. 26; Ary~ Tartakover, "Di yidishe shu I in Poyln tsvisltn tsvey milkhmnl.'s," Moscow." 1111! Dralllo Review, 24 (1980). 2742; Faina Durko, "The Soviet S'·"·r IIIJlltalllJ/Yorbllkll, 2 (1967). 210·265. Yiddish Thcather in the Twenties" (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois Univer 6. The A/'hik was dissolwd ill 1918 by act of ye~'kolll,the Jewish COlllmissariat, :l!Id sity. 1978), Beatrice Picon-Vallin. Le 17leatre Jllif SO~'it!tiqlte pel/dam less Altla:es Ihe .1·('l's<,ktsYf, the Jewish sections of the Comnlunist party, and formally approv Villgt (Lausanne: La Cile-L'Age d'lIornme, 1973); Eric Goldman, "The Soviet ed hy $Ialin. COlllmissar for Nationality Affairs, in 1919. The hcillht of the Yiddish Film. 1925-1933," SJA, 10 (1980),13-28. campaign allainst the klleyder, or religious primary school, took place in 1922 13. Kh. Shmeruk, "Ilapirsumim biyidish bevrit-hamoatsot bashanim 1917-1960." 1923. The n~ar total ex~lnction of Hebrew culture. instigated by the YCl'uktsye. I'irslllllim yilllllJiim bcvrir·'lamoatsut 1917·J960. cd. Kh. Shmeruk (jerusalcm: was a~hieved by the cariy 1920's. Secular lIebrew culture, including schools and The llistorical Society of Isracl, 1961), pp. LV-CXXXI. literary prnduction, developed in Poland and the llaltic States between the World 14. Mayti!, pp. 154, 159·160. Wars. In Ihe Soviet Union. some religious institutions remained, and SOllie writcrs IS. Shmcruk, i'irSlimilll, pp, LXIV-LXIX, CXU't continued 10 wrile in lIebrew, but their works were not published. Zvi Gitclman, 16. Elias Sdl\tlman, A llistory 0/ Jewish EducatiOIl in the Soviet Vnjoll (New York: k .....ish NlJtiullulily all/1 SOI'iet Politics (Princcton: Princeton University I'rcss, Ktav, 1971); Zvi Halevy, Jewish Schools under Czarism alld COII//IIIII/ism (New 1972), pp_ 271-272, 277-281. 305; Gilboa, "lIebrcw Literature in the U.S.S.R.," York: Springer, 1976); Y. MinlSin, "Shul bildung ba yidn in Rusland un Poyln." 11/{: Jews ill SUI'iet Russia sillce J9 J7, 3rd cd., ed., Lionel Kochan (Oxford: , Slid/tIl /ar ekollomik un statistik. vol. I, cd. Y. Lestshinski (Berlin: Yivo. 1928). Oxford Univcrsity Press, 1978). pp. 226-241; Gilba, 1982, loc. cit.; Joshua p. 243; N. Gergel, Di lage filii yidn ill Rlisialld (Warsaw: llrzoza. 1929), p. 22rJ. Ruthenberg, rile Jewish Religioll/II the Soviet Ullioll (New York: Ktav PlIblishing \'ercentages of students in lewish sl:hools were hillhest in the Baltic (;(lunlrks; lIouse, Inc., 1971); Roth~nberg. "Jcwish Religion in the Soviet Union," 111£' Jcws Eli Ledcrhcndlcr, "Jewish Nationality in the Baltic Soviet Republics" (Ma~ler's ill SOI'ict RlIssiaSillce 1917,pp.168-196. thesis, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1977), p. 12. 7. In the mouth of Soviet Yiddish writers in the thirties,yidishizm became a tcrm of 17. Zvi lIalcvy. Jewish Ulliversity Studcllls and Professionals ill Tsarisr alld SUI'jet opprobrium. Actually it stood mme narrowly for the activities of the Yiddish Russia (Tel-Aviv: Diaspora Research Center, 1976), p. 132. rc\c:tr~h institute in the West, the Yivo in Vilna. Vaysrusishe visnshaft·akadcllIye: 18. Git.:!tIlan, 1972, pp. 339-343; St.:hultnan, pp. 97·122; Altshuler, 1980, pp. 316 yidbher sl'ktur, Fa/lizirler yidisllizlII UII zayn Visl/shaft (Minsk: Vaysrusishe 329. vislisliaftakadcmye, 1930). 19. Alfred Abraham Greenbaum, Jewisll Scllolarship and Schowrly II1S(illlliolls ill 8. Gildltlan. 1972; Murdekhay Alt.huler, Haye~sektsye be~rit·hamoatsot (1918 SOI'iet Russia 1918-195] (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of JcTl\s;tlcIII Cenll'r 1930); bt'}'l1/eumiyot likomunizm ITel·Aviv: Sifriat Poa.im., 1980). Cor Rc~\!arch and Documentation of East European Jewry, 1978); Y. Ubcrbcrg, 9. Gitelman, 1972, pp. 110,322-323,366-367; Altshuler, 1980, pp. 133·155, 158. "lJj yididlc visnshaftlekhe arhet in Ratnfarband," Yidll ill F.S.S.R .. cd. Sh. 10. One of the major problems in the historiography of Soviet Jewish culture is Dilllanshtcyn (Moscow: Farlag Emcs, 1935), pp. 123-130;Gitclll1an,1972.p. J48; ddcrmining the extent of Partyc(lntrol of cultural activity, Recent memoirs by Y. Reznik. "\)j aspirantur ftln Institut far yidisher pruletarishcr kultur," ViSllshaji former Party cultural leaders of tIlls period who are presently residing in Israel WI revlutsye, 1-2 (1934). 133-140; E. Shulman, Yidishe kultur-tetikeyt in Min~k stress that certain institutions attracted grass·roots popular support, and that 1917-1941," A vrOIll Golomb VO)'I·I-bllkll. cd. Moyshe Shtarkman (Los A IIgd.:s. some ye~st'ktsye leaders were more dedicated to Yiddish culture than others, 1969·1970" pp. 779-798; Mordecai Altshuler. "Jewish Studies in the Ukraine H~rsh Smolyar, Frill ine~'eYllik: zikhroynes vegn der ye~sekuye (Tel-Aviv: Perets in the Early Soviet Peiod," S.lA, 7 (\ 977),22-30. farlJll, 1978); Ester ROl.ental-Shnayderman, Oyfvegn un IImveg1/, vol. 2 (Tel· 20. Benjamin Pinkus, "Yiddish-Language Courts and Nationalities Policy in the SUl'ict Aviv, 1978); ROl.ental-Shnayderman. "Oyf der partey-reynikung," Yerusllt,:!L'ymcr Union," SI..!, I, (1971),40-60. a/mal/akh, 11 (1980). 144-155. 21. M. GUlits. l'rozal'iS'I·geslle/tlekh sllprakh (Moscow: Farlag Emes, 1932). II. Ch. Shmcruk, "Yiddish Literature In the U.S.S.R .... The Jews in Soviet Russia 22_ The traditional spelling for this component was based on the Ilcbrew model, since 1917, pp. 242·280; Kh. Shmeruk, ed., A shpigl oyf a shleyl/: antologye but witholll vowel markings. The orthographic reform was based on phoncti<'s puczye WI proze fun tsvelf farshnitene yiddishe shraybers in Ratn-farbal/d (Tel· and morphology, using the literary language as a standard for general considera· Aviv: Farlag Di goldene keyt-Farlag Y.L. Perets, 1964); Irving Howe and Eliezcr tion of pronunciation. TIlc press did encounter opposition in instituting the Greenberg, cds., Ashes out of Hope: Fiction' by Soviet· Yiddish Writers (New new rules in 1917-1919. l"el'kO/I\ decided to naturalize or /aryiJish the spelling York: Schucken Dooks, 1977); Chimen Abramsky, "The Rise and Fall oC Soviet in November 1918. c.;tlvernmcnt decree in 1920 required naturalization to be Yiddhh Lilerature." SJA, 12 (1982), 3544. observed in all Soviet schools and puhlishing facilities. B. Slulski, "Tsu der oyslcyg frage," DYS, 8-9 (1928),27·32; Elye Falkovitsh. "A vort tsu der zakh: " 30·1 Rakhmiell'eltz omi Mark W. Kiel Vi Yiddish·/mperye 305 polcmik," SII, 2(1978),180·190; MikW Yankivskl, "Fuftsik yor sovetishcr Yidish· 41. II. Shklyar, .om sovetishe naybildung in Yidish," Lingvislishe zamillng, 2 (1934), oyslc},g," SII. 11 (1978), 173·175; Rachel Erlich. "Politics and Linguistics in the 46.90; Shklyar, "Di antviklung flln dcm revolutsyonern Icksikon in YiLlish," Standardization of Soviet Yiddish." SJA, 3 (1973). 71·79; Gilchnan, 1972, p. AJil l'iSllsllaj'tlekllll/rullt, 7-g (1935), 159-160. 129; "O),sll'}'g ntllllcr." DYS. 8·9 (1928). 42. N. Shtif, Yidislll! stilistik (Kiev: Tsenterfarlag, 1930). 23. A. Zaretski. Far a pro/t!farisher sllprakll (Kharkov: Tsenterfarlag, 1931), pp. 43. The detailed plan was worked out largely by Veynger (Minsk) and Zaretski 11-20; Kh. lIollllshtok, "Furtsn yor oktyaber-revolutsye lin der yidisher shprakh· (MoscoW). Most of the points wcre similar to the later schemc of the Yivo (Vilna· front (cynike ~akhaklcnJ." Tsl/III /1i/tSlltll yonog okt)'aber-rel'o/lIts)'e: lit('f,lfisil. New York), except for the Soviet naturalization. For evidence of the suppression /illggillishl'f talll/bllkll (Min!k: Jewish Section, Belorussian Academy of Sciences. of overwhehning support for natumlilation at the Yivo orthographic confcrcntc, 1932), PI". 45·75; Kh. Faynzilber, "Fuftsn yor leksik :ubet," 7'sum /II/tmtll sec Yudl Mark, "Vi halt men mitn eynheyt\ckhn oysle~'g'! ," Yidishe sllWak" , yorlUg. PI". 113·140. 19 (1959), 83·96. The main Soviet innovation of 1928 involved the finallcllcrs, 24. Thc kadillg figure in ti)ese discussions was Kamenshteyn, administrator of the As with other ...... ',306 Raklul/id Peltz and Mark W. Kid Vi Yiddisll-fIliIJerye 307 58. Zaret~ki, "Problemen fun yidisher lingvotekhnik," 1930, loe. cit. un grallHltik," DYS, 23·24 (1930),59; Sh. Dobln. "Gramatik un stilistik," DrS. 59. A, R. Tsv;ln~, "LinlNotekhnisher 'ekizm"" D YS. 21·22 (1930),49·52. 23·24 (1930),29-42. . 60. Shklyar. "I>i antviklung fun der revolutsyonern leksikon." op. cit.. 129·161. 76. M. Veynger, "Vcgn yidishc dialektn." Tsayhll,i{t. 2·3 (\ 921!). 615; A.R. Tsvayg, 61. N, Kaganovitsh, "Folks-shprakh un literarishe shprakti." DYS. 21·22 (1930). "Materyaln fun a sistem yidishe ortoepye," DYS. 15 (1929).24. 39·48; 23·34 (1930),67·74. 77. A. Zaretski, "Vegn yidisher ortoepye," DYS, 15 (1929), 29·26; on Spiv~k, sec 62. "Ukrarnhhe yi\!ishe shprakh·baratung," 1935,261. Ester ROl.~ntal·Shnayderman, O)'{ vegl/ 1/11 IlIIIV£'gll. vol. 3 (Tel·Aviv: Percts· 63. Nokhm Shtif. "Di sotsyale diferentsyatsye in Yldish," DYS. t 7·18 (1929). farlag. 1982), pp. 165·179; l1irnboym, now in his nineties, still maintains this 1·22; Shtll". "Revolutsye un reakuye In der shprakh." AS, 26·27 (1931). 33·54; position in his recent, Yiddislt: A SIIrI'ey and Gramlllar. op. !:iL, pp. 100·10 I. 211 (\ 9 32), 11·22; Zaretski. Far a pro/etarishersllprak". 1931.21·78. 78. Zaretski, "Vegn yidisher ortoepye," 26. 64. I::. Spivak, "Vegn dehebrerizatsye un vegn dem hebreyishn 'element' in Yidish 79. /bid., 27. 31-33. (Isum Kh. Shtil's shleln di frage)," AS. 2(1934), 3·22. 80. U. Weinreich, "The Russification." loc. cit.;' Paul Wexler,Purism al/dl..aIl!.'li(1,':'· 65, Maks V Jynra)'kh, "Vos volt Yidish geven on Ilcbreyish," Di ,Tsukllll{t, 36 (1931), (Illoolllington: Indiana University. 1974). 194·205. 81. Wexler. p. lSI!. 66. I{akhlllki Peltz, "Ochebraization as an Issue In the Language Planning l:fforts of 82. N. Shtif and E. Spivak. "Vegn latinizatsye," AS. 29·30 (1932), 93·IOU; David the SlIvi~1 Yi\!dish LinllUisls" (Master's essay, Linguistics Dept.. Colul1Ihi3 Univcr· 1.. Gold. "Successes and Failures in the Stand ...... r:·, ;. jill) I\uf..lllllici and Vi Yiddi.lh-Jlllpcrye 30 ) I'd,.:. Mark IV. Kid ,- .. ' .. /1/1. JI\~cph Ilrumbcrl: and Abraham Brumberg, "Sovetish Heymland - an Analysis." lIlann. Stlldkll 111111 MI/lti!illgllalis/lll/S ascl/kellasischer IIIld orienralisclrer 111(/£'11 I,'t/llli£' .\lilltlritit's ill Iltc SOI'iel Ullioll. cd. Erich Goldhagen (New York; I'racgcr, illl usiutisc/u'll 1i.~i/ der StlwjetllltiOIl (l1:II11burg: llelmut Bukse Verlag. 1980); 1%/1), I'p. 214·315; Ch. Shmcruk, Yiddish Literature in the U.S.S,R.," loc. cit.; LlikaSl llirswwicz, "Further Data on the Jewish Population from the 1979 LlIk"s/. IIirsl.owicl.,·"The Soviet Jewish Problem: Internal and [nternationill Sovict Census," SJA. II (1981). 53·61; Y. Kantor, "Some Notes and Conclusions Del'clopments 1912·1976," 17le JelliS ill SOI'icl Rllssia sillce 1917,1978. op. cit., ahout the Published TOlals of thc Soviet Census of January 15.1959," Swdies pp. 366-409. i" J('1\I;S" Biography. History, alld Literature ill HOI/or of I. Edward Kiev (Nc\\ 1:19. "Vcrk fun studentn fun' der yidisher grupe af di hekhste Iiteraturkursn bam York. 1971), p. 150; Katz, loc. cit.; Thomas E. Sawyer, nil! Jewish Alilloril), ill Iil~rarbhn in)titut af Gorki's nomen," SII. 12 (1981), 140-157;SII, 10 (1982). rile Soviet lIlIioll (lJollhler, Colorado; Westview Press, 1979), pp. 62·64, 268·280. 97-138; HAf der p\cnarcr zitsung fun der redkolcgye fun 'Sovetish heylHland· ... 104. Harry Lipset, .. A Note on Yiddish as the Language of Soviet Jews ill the Censu\ SI/. {) t 1983). 127-134; Elye Shulman, "Naye penimer in der yklisher litcratur of 1939," Jewish Joumal ofSocioloKY, 12 (1970),55-57. in Rus\and," Fun'crlS, November 21,1982, pp. 12,18. 105. Ibid. M"rdkh\! Sh"khter, "nos loshn fun Sovelish Iwymland," Yidislte slt/1lakli, 29 106. John L Sl:herer, ed. USSR Facts .& FiJ,'1lfes Annllal, vol. 5 (Gulf Ilrccze. Florida: (! 9(}9), I (]·42; 30 (\ 971), 32·65; Solomon A. Birnbaum, "Sovict Yiddish." SJ,.I, Academic I nternalional Prcss, 1981), J)' 51. Alil'a act ivisls (those demand ing 9 (\ 9791.29·41. emigration to Israel) in the U.S.S.R. urged Jews to list Yiddbh as "mother tOil, 91. Lukas!. IlirslO\\'ia, "Translations from Yiddish Published in the U.S.S.R., 1958 gHC" in 1970; Altshuler, 1979, p. 2011, 1959," SJA. 12 (19M2), 34. 107. lIim:owiez, 1981,55, 92. d. K.D,. "Vcgn soyetishn yidishn Iiterarishn lek sik on," Afll l'islIshafllekllll frolll, 108. Jerolllc J. Gillson, "The Reseltlement of Soviet Jewish Emigres; Rcsults of a 5-6 (1934), 184·191; and Her! Kahn, "Materyaln far a leksikon fun d.:r yitlisher Survey in Baltimore," Sludies of Ihe ntird l1Iave: Ret'CIII MigraliOIl of SOI'/I't SHy'CI hlll:r literaturc," Di ISlIkllllfl, 88 (\ 982),252-254. 11'\\'s to tile United States, cds. DJn N. Jacobs and Ellen Frankel Paul I!llluldc·r. 93. Shapiro, 1967, 144; Yankev GlaUhteyn, /II der veil mit Yidisll (New Ynrk: Colorado: Westview I'ress, 1981), pp. 29-56; St.:phen C. Feinstein, "Smcit Congress for Jewish Culture, 1972), p, 377. Jewish Immigrants in Minne:lpolis and St. Paul: Altitudes and Reactions to Lir~ ..... 94. M"yshc Margolin, "Tsu di problemen fun hayntsaytikn Yidish," SII, I (1978), in America," Stlldies of tIll! ntird l1Ial'e, pp. 57·75, Altshuler mentioned a ql1C~ 154·161; I'alkovilsh, 1978, loe. cit. tionnatier of immigrants to Israel in 1975, in which only 4.5'it responded tliat 95. Shim.:n Sandler, Limlldim /1m Yidish, books 1, 2 and 3 (Moscow: SOlletski a Jewish language w~s spoken in the family, whereas 94.8% listed Russian; Phatd, 1980. 1982, 1983), supplements to the following issues of S1/: 110. 8. Altshulcr, 1979. p. 207. In Gitelm:m's study of Soviet immigrants to Israel, t\\o· I')/I(); lIo,M,1982;no. 7,1983. thirds or the Jews from the more rc.:cnlly acquired wcstern areas and one·third 96. "Yidi.lhe shl'rakh in di shuln fun Birobidzshan," SH, 3 (1981), 150·151; Mn of the respondents from the rest of the U.S.S.R. (overall average, one half) said Vl.'rgdis. "Del aktbeys un dos Icbn," SII, 5 (1983). 160·165; Leybl Jlotvinik, their parents spokc Yiddish at home. Only 15% of the immigrants thcmsdvcs "Yidhhe OYSYCS on a simin fun yidishkcyt," Forverls, August, 19, 1983, p. 9, callcd Yiddish their "native language." while two·thirds identified Russian; Zvi 97. Shimcn Teplitski, "Briv fun leyner: Yir hot a toyes tayerer fraynd," Morgll' Gi!clman, Bccomillg Israelis: Political Resociali1alioll oj' SOI'iet alld Americull frlJl'lIal'l, July 27, 1980, pp. 5, 11. Im/lligrallls (New York; Praeger, 1982), pp. 203·204. 98. l'f. William Korey, "International Law and the Right to Study Hebrew in the 109. Rakhmicl Peltz, "Yiddish in the Ukraine; A Project with Recent Soviet Immi· USSR," Shl, II (1981),3·18; and Yoysef Kerler, 12ler Oygllsl, 1951: 1il.:· grants." (unpublished paper. Linguistics Depts., Columbia Univcrsity, 1981). "rOYII/'s. artiklclI.lider (Jerusalem; farlag eygns, 1978). 99. I)ovid-Ilirsh Roskes, "Yidn in Sovetn·farband - an crsht·hantiker reportazsh," YlIgllll'!lf, 24 (1971), 5-7, 15-18; 25 (1972), 13-17; Dovid fishman, "Protret fun a yungn yidishn held," YIIglllruf, 51-52 (1981-1982), 5-7; Davoid Toker, "A nc}'der," Yllgl/lruf,51·52 (1981·1982), 8·9. 100. IlirsLQwicl, 1978, loc. cit.; Kerh:r, loc. cit.; Sh. L. Shnayderman, "Kreml shlogt propagandc k:tpital fun yidishn teater," Forverls, february 24, 1980, pp. 8, 20. 101. Jushua'\. Fishman and David E. Fishman, "Yiddish in Israel: A Case Study of UTorl to Revise a Monocentric Lanb'llage Policy," Advallces ill rhe StlIdy of So{'jelal Mullilingualism, ed. I.A. Fishman (The Hague, Mouton, 1978), p. 226. 102. Rasma Karklins, "A Note on 'Nationality' and 'Native Tonb"lle' as Cens'Us Cate· goriesin 1979." SUI'jet SlIIdies, 32 (1980), 2742. 103. Mnrdkhay Alts,hllkr, flakibuts lIevdllldi bevrit·llfl1noatsor biyamf!)ll/II: nitl/okll sUHyo·d(·/JIo,liraJ'i (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), pp. 206-234; Harold lIaar-