_The Mendele Review_: Yiddish Literature and Language (A Companion to _MENDELE_) ______________________________________________________ Contents of Vol. 05.007 26 June 2001 1) About This Issue (ed.) 2) "A note on the language of this book" [from Ron Kuzar, _Hebrew and Zionism; A Discourse Analytic Critical Study_] 3) Journals Received (ed.) _Toplpunkt_; _Lebns-fragn_; _Jiddistik Mitteilungen_. 1)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 June 2001 From: Leonard Prager Subject: About This Issue Ron Kuzar's _Hebrew and Zionism_ is gripping collateral reading for the student of Yiddish -- despite the minimal attention accorded to Yiddish (for which there is not even an entry in the fairly extensive index). Focussing upon the role of Hebrew linguists and historiographers of Hebrew, Kuzar asks three main questions: "How did [Israeli (or Modern) Hebrew] emerge?" "Has it become a normal language?" and "What is the nature of the collective that speaks this language?" Yiddish is mentioned chiefly in regard to the first question, where Kuzar writes: "It is well known that Yiddish, Russian and other European languages shaped much of the syntax and semantics of Israeli Hebrew, but the description of how this happened has been mostly argumentative. An extensive data-rich exploration of these processes is still ahead of us."[pp. 129-130] Yiddish may thus have had a larger place in Kuzar's exposition had the requisite fundamental studies existed. Hebrew and Yiddish may have come into conflict at the beginning of the twentieth century, but for centuries earlier Yiddish preserved a significant Hebrew-Aramaic vocabulary and it was largely native Yiddish speakers who created Modern Hebrew. The fate of Hebrew, for a great variety of reasons, is not a matter of indifference to Yiddish speakers. The dilemma of the Israeli academic regarding choice of his professional language -- the subject of the selection from the Kuzar volume given here -- falls within the larger sphere of "language wars" such as Yiddish has experienced in Palestine/Israel and elsewhere. The first "language quarrel" in Palestine was directed against German and for Hebrew as a language of instruction. For several decades opposition to Yiddish in Palestine was often quite militant. Today's one-million large Russian-speaking community in Israel is felt by some Israelis to be a threat to Hebrew cultural hegemony. Anticipation of a "new Middle East" calls up an image of a huge Arabic-speaking region which could in time endanger Hebrew. However, the language which most challenges Hebrew today is the modern world's international language and the Jewish world's interlanguage -- English. Never before in history has a single language amassed the power and weight possessed by international English, a force which makes "reversing language shift" [the subject of the last issue of _TMR_] anywhere in the world that much more difficult. A former cabinet minister in Israel has expressed alarm at the growing number of monolinguistic Israelis, even voicing regret at the ebbing of Yiddish from the general Israeli scene. Kuzar's words show us clearly that the educated Hebrew-speaker like the educated Yiddish-speaker must be bilingual at the least. To achieve a degree of eloquence in a second language requires constant use. An educated Yiddish-speaker in Israel must be tri-lingual... 2)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 June 2001 From: Ron Kuzar Subject: "A note on the language of this book" [Ron Kuzar, _Hebrew and Zionism; A Discourse Analytic Critical Study_, Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001. Chapter 1. (Part) 5, pp. 34-39]. This book is published in English. This fact may be met with a raised eyebrow, since in the Israeli cultural milieu, a book that discusses issues of Hebrew language and culture, especially if committed to a critical mode, is expected to appear in Hebrew. What I am offering here in reply is not a personal apologia, but rather another small-scale application of the theoretical framework offered above. I am going to suggest that when confronted with the acute issues of globalization and its linguistic counterpart, the spread of English as an international language, the traditional Hebraist establishment, epitomized by the Academy of the Hebrew Language, is blind to the problematics of these issues, displays an express lack of interest in them, and responds to them in irrelevant revivalist terms, and that this behavior is detrimental to the well-being of the state and especially to its socioeconomically weak sectors. An analysis of their discursive strategy shows that instead of familiarizing themselves with the new situation, members of the Academy of the Hebrew Language frame the spread of English as an international language and its effects on Hebrew as yet another onslaught on the delicate awakening Hebrew language. The key terms used here come from the same arsenal used by revivalists against Yiddish, Russian, French, and German in the early days of the emergence of Hebrew a century ago. I am suggesting here that while a prudent and well-informed policy to protect Hebrew in certain cultural domains is a wise strategy of self-preservation, the recognition of English as the academic international language is just as advisable. This recognition would guide every country, Israel included, to prepare and educate itself toward this situation, and to come to terms with the idea that academic writing about its problems in English does not mean exposing the dirty laundry in public, but rather performing an academic intervention in a section of its politico-cultural discourse. In order to be fully relevant to mainstream national culture, not just in the academic sphere, one will have to resort to one's national language. It is between these options that a writer would take his or her legitimate decision. A more institutional solution would be to establish an appropriately funded publishing initiative which would monitor culturally relevant literature and undertake its translation. To appreciate the degree of mismatch between the way the issue of English as an international language is handled in the world and in Israel, a short introduction will suffice. In the world at large, academics and politicians have developed several types of discourse in response to this new phenomenon. It is indeed new, because its dimensions are unprecedented. Seen within the process of globalization, the whole concept of an international language has a very different status now, as compared to the status of French up until World War I. During the inter-war period French and English started to compete. After World War II English has come in first in the competition. But all this relates to a rather limited scope of communicative exchanges, diplomatic and commercial activities between official representatives of states, international organizations, and organs of world commerce. This was pretty much it. The invasion of French and English into more intranational affairs before the electronic revolution had been limited either to the postcolonial situation of ex-colonies, or to the centrality of Hollywood in the film industry, American pop in the music industry, and jeans in the apparel department. With an entirely different magnitude, the technological revolution of the 1970s and 1980s, the expansion of multinational corporate capitalism, and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, all contributed to the discursive framing of the world as a "global village", thereby accelerating the massive invasion of English into many intellectual, cultural, familial, and intimately personal domains. English acquired a depth of penetration it had not had in the past. Alastair Pennycook characterizes the discourse on the benefits of the spread of English as an international language as centered around the key terms "natural", "neutral", and "beneficial": By and large, the spread of English is considered to be natural, neutral and beneficial. It is considered natural because, although there may be some critical reference to the colonial imposition of English, its subsequent expansion is seen as a result of inevitable global forces. It is seen as neutral because it is assumed that once English has in some sense become detached from its original cultural contexts (particularly England and America), it is now a neutral and transparent medium of communication. And it is considered beneficial because a rather blandly optimistic view of international communication assumes that this occurs on a cooperative and equitable footing. (Pennycook 1994: 9) This positive type of discourse is no doubt the dominant way of framing the spread of English in the world. But an oppositional discursive framing has evolved as well, claiming that American and international corporate economic powers have a vested interest in the spread of English as an international language, that it is thus neither natural nor neutral either in its motivations or in its effects. Kandiah (1984) pointed out that in some countries proficiency in English has become a gatekeeping device. The economic and administrative elite is able to bar access to power positions from people not fluent in English, and often to distribute educational resources in an uneven way, thus blocking socioeconomic mobility, and perpetuating class structure. This gatekeeping function is particularly forceful in countries that have a British colonial history, where English served already as the domestic lingua franca, such as India or Singapore. But also in other countries, globalization often means Americanization, accompanied by the invasion of English into domains that have traditionally been reserved to local culture and language. Whatever one might think about the process, it is unlikely to be totally reversed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it would seem rational for any non-English speaking country to design an educational curriculum that would on the one hand not leave its students, especially those from lower socioeconomic strata, at a linguistic disadvantage in a world that has gone Anglo-bilingual, by making sure that the population, the whole population, becomes as proficient in English as possible. On the other hand, these reasonable language authorities would set apart domestic domains in which the invasion of English would be considered unwelcome, privileging local language and culture. The language planning authorities would encourage the public to discuss and work out a way to delineate these domains, hoping to enhance in society a caring yet balanced subject position on the matter of domestic language(s) and global Anglo-bilingualism. In this very enlightened spirit, the Israeli Ministry of Education approved in 1994 an experimental project of teaching music and sports classes in English in the method known as "immersion", in this case partial immersion. The choice of music and sports as areas of "content instruction" (Spolsky and Shohamy 1999: 23) was indicative of the understanding that culturally significant subject matters should be spared, and that the world of music and sports has become to some extent quite globalized anyway. The experiment was to be conducted in twelve schools, nine in the Jewish sector and three in the Arab sector, all in populations that are located low on the socioeconomic scale. The experiment was supported also by academic consultation provided by Prof. Elana Shohamy, from the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University, who stated in a letter to the minister at the time, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, that hundreds of research projects have substantiated the claim that this method not only enhances the acquisition of the foreign language but has positive effects also on the knowledge of the mother tongue. All in all, it was an attempt to take notice of global processes and to channel their effects on the local disadvantaged pupils in ways that would curb the formation of a gatekeeping function associated with the knowledge of English while protecting central domains of Hebrew culture. This is the case around which a debate emerged, worth observing here in a few examples. In response to the initiative of the Ministry of Education, the minister was summoned to an "urgent irregular meeting [of the Academy of the Hebrew Language], to protest against the decision". Here are some of the claims that were brought up in Meeting 218, on 10 August 1994: Moshe Bar-Asher (chair) said: Teaching in English is a severe blow to the status of Hebrew as the language of the state and the nation. Who will remove the dust from the eyes of David Yellin, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Aharon Masie and their companions, leaders of the Hebrew Language Committee who understood that the Hebrew language could not be reinstituted without the Hebrew [adj.] school and the Hebrew [adj.] teacher. (Academy of the Hebrew Language 1994: 190) Efrayim Khazan (consulting member of the Academy and head supervisor in the religious education sector) said: The Language War [which took place some ninety years ago] has turned the use of another language in school teaching into a symbol. Some things are symbolically very weighty... Teaching in English inside a Hebrew [adj.] school infringes on a symbolic value. The Hebrew language is a flag and a symbol. A flag cannot be disgraced, a symbol must not be harmed. (Academy of the Hebrew Language 1994: 202-203) Moshe Shamir (author, emeritus member of the Academy) said: There is a principled debate between two points of view. According to one point of view, we are at the beginning of the way in creating a nation and a culture. We have to absorb millions of people who know no Hebrew, and the millions that have been here, thank God, need to be cultivated, strengthened, and improved, mostly in their national identity. The second point of view has given rise to the atmosphere that produced the idea to teach in English in the schools. Holders of this opinion say: "We have arrived. That's it. What we have come to possess satisfies us, and we wish to improve it only according to what is acceptable now in the entire world, among the nations of the world". I do not accept this point of view. I think that those who maintain that we are at the beginning of the road have to be very worried, and should put at the top of the scale of preferences Jewish education, Jewish culture, and our national Hebrew. We should exercise extreme caution vis-a-vis any foreign implant, certainly on behalf of the state. If private schools are to be opened, go ahead. But never on behalf of the state. (Academy of the Hebrew Language 1994: 204-205) The unanimous revivalist position expressed in this meeting is manifest. It was not a chance event, though, for it came two years after the Academy of the Hebrew Language decided to discuss for the first time the whole issue of la'az 'foreignism' (Meeting 205, 1 July 1992) in a regular meeting specifically scheduled for this topic. Most speakers in that meeting addressed the problem from the same early revivalist perspective. The result of this discussion was that the minister promised not to proceed with the program in the Jewish sector. Not everybody in Israel views these issues from this perspective. In addition to the Minister of Education we may also mention the President of Israel, Ezer Weizmann, who visited the Academy of the Hebrew Language on 27 June 1996, and, being offered by some members to head a new front against "foreignism", politely declined, saying: We have a problem of the small world, of Internet, television, and fax. And there is world culture... There is a feeling here that we are under immense influence of world culture, whose power keeps growing because of the communication media, a thing which did not exist forty and fifty years ago. Today every child comes home, turns the TV on, and is flooded with English. We cannot ignore the outside. We cannot ignore the need to draw on this culture to some extent. We and you must find the balance. (Academy of the Hebrew Language 1998: 423) The debate as shown above leaves the impression that its boundaries are clear, that the preference of Hebrew to English is motivated only by the revivalist attitudes, while a welcoming attitude to English may signal some liberation from the Zionist yoke. However things are more complex. An interesting new voice in the public debate on the role of Hebrew and English in present day academics in Israel has recently been aired by Adi Ophir from the Department of Philosophy at Tel-Aviv University and editor of the postmodern Hebrew periodical _Theory and Criticism_. He spoke in the founding assembly of the Israel Philosophy Association in June 1998. Orna Coussin, correspondent of _Ha'Aretz_, reported that Ophir made an appeal to Israeli philosophers to write and philosophize in Hebrew. In Ophir's opinion, a growing distance has been created between philosophy and Israeli society, due to the academic system that requires articles to be written in foreign journals. Ophir associated this tendency with the lack of an authentic Israeli philosophy. He complained that young philosophers are instructed to philosophize in English, like their colleagues in the social sciences. Consequently, they find it difficult to go back to writing in Hebrew. If forced to do so, their style in Hebrew is often somewhat limping, diluted with too much English or French: "Their professional training is a process of being liberated from Hebrew, a liberation that is nothing more than a concession, abandonment." As a result, local philosophical discourse revolves only around itself. Ophir calls for a return to scholarship in Hebrew, but he does so from an entirely new perspective. It is not an exclusionary, purist position that advocates Hebrew discourse for its own sake, but one that requires intellectual involvement in the local scene, commitment to a philosophy that is responsive to cultural and political reality, and is done, for the sake of relevance, in Hebrew. However, since the world is in fact becoming increasingly Anglo-bilingual, one can no longer simply say that whatever is published in English is external to Israeli reality or to Israeli discourse. To publish in English is one way, perhaps not the major way, to make a contribution to Israeli discourse. It may address a smaller part of the potential readership, it may be more specifically aimed at the academic and cultural elite, but Israeli academics should be entitled to do so, without having to face accusations of alienation, provincialism, Levantinism, or elitism. A discussion of Israeli issues, which is democratic, open, and respectful of interventions from the outer world, will be enriched in its domestic discourse as well. In considering the language of publication, one envisions one's potential readership. Since I view this book as a contribution not only to Israeli cultural discourse, but also to socially oriented linguistic disciplines and to cultural studies, its publication in English is, in my opinion, unavoidable. Along the lines of Ophir's argumentation, I hope that the day of its publication in Hebrew is not very far, and that the scope of Israeli readership, to whom this book is aimed as an intervention in Israeli culture, will be broader when published in Hebrew. 3)---------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 June 2001 From: Leonard Prager Subject: Journals Received 1) _Toplpunkt: fertlyor-shrift far literatur, kunst un gezelshaftlekhe frages_ 2 (friling 2001), Redaktor: Yankev Beser. Not since the publication og the literary/art journal _Milgroym_ in Berlin in 1924 have we seen so splendidly illustrated a Yiddish periodical as _Toplpunkt_ [not, incidentally, "Toppelpunkt"]. Menashe Kadishman is the chief mover in the graphic dimension, but one must also mention Muni Ben_Khayim and Kalmen Polger. The somber but engrossing monologue of Avrom Sutskever and the work of several women poets help make this a rich issue. 2) _Lebns-fragn; sotsyalistishe khoydesh-shrift far politik, gezelshaft un kultur- num' 589-590 (may-yuni 2001), Redaktor: Yitskhok Luden. In large part due to the energy and devotion of Yitskhok Luden and a small group of his colleagues, this Bundist journal in Yiddish today celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, emphasizing -- as it always has -- the world of Yiddish culture. 3) _Jiddistik Mitteilungen_ No. 25 / April 2001. In the lead article of this compact and always informative periodical sponsored by the Yiddish department of the University of Trier, Ittai Joseph Tamari comments on his study of Hebrew typography in the German-language sphere, a study which includes Yiddish printed works. Yiddish texts were printed in type forms which differed from those used for Hebrew. Tamari notes the original elements in the development of these forms. Since there was no fixed standard for Yiddish type-forms, type-designers were free to improvise, borrowing elements from various kinds of local Hebrew cursive. Simon Neuberg reviews Ewa Geller's book on Warsaw Yiddish [_Warschauer Jiddisch_, Tuebingen: Niemeyer, 2001] and Marion Aptroot writes on Ulrike Kiefer and Robert Neumann's Yiddish self-study website [http://www.jiddischkurs.org]. ______________________________________________________ End of _The Mendele Review_ 05.007 Leonard Prager, editor Subscribers to _Mendele_ (see below) automatically receive _The Mendele Review_. Send "to subscribe" or change-of-status messages to: listproc@lists.yale.edu a. For a temporary stop: set mendele mail postpone b. To resume delivery: set mendele mail ack c. To subscribe: sub mendele first_name last_name d. To unsubscribe kholile: unsub mendele ****Getting back issues**** _The Mendele Review_ archives can be reached at: http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele/tmrarc.htm