DOI 10.1515/ijsl-2013-0015 IJSL 2013; 220: 85 – 108 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein Religiolinguistics: on Jewish-, Christian- and Muslim-defined languages1 Abstract: This article investigates the impact of religion on language. Since religions (or secularisms) are intrinsic parts of human society and communication, every linguistic variety may be analyzed for its religious characteristics and described as a religiolect, a spoken and/or written language variety employed by a religious (or secularized) community, typically of a specific region. Our starting point is an analysis of Jewish-defined languages: wherever Jews have wished to distinguish themselves from their neighbors or have been encouraged or forced to do so, depending on majority-minority dynamics, they developed distinct linguistic elements in their speech and writings. Jewish languages, however, were never an isolated phenomenon. We have tracked several instances where Christians and Muslims have adopted Jewish linguistic usages. Moreover, not only did Christians and Muslims enter the Jewish linguistic spectrum in some places, they also created their own (equally porous) religiolects, or Christian- and Muslimdefined languages. The model of Jewish-defined religiolects can thus be applied to other religious settings, exporting theory developed in a “minority” field to general disciplines or other “minority” fields. This article maps out a prototype of a Jewish-defined language and, most importantly, applies this prototype to Christian- and Muslim-defined languages. Keywords: religion and language; Jewish languages; Christian languages; Muslim languages; religiolinguistics; religiolects; inter-religious relations. Benjamin Hary: Emory University, USA. E-mail: benjamin.hary@emory.edu Martin J. Wein: Tel Aviv University and NYU‐Tel Aviv, Israel. E-mail: martin.wein@nyu.edu 1 Earlier versions of this article were presented at various venues, including the annual meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies that was held in Washington DC in December 2005 and the University of Haifa in March 2008. We wish to thank the anonymous readers for their thoughtful remarks and important suggestions. We also wish to thank Suzi Brozman for her careful editing of this essay. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 86 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein 1 Preface This essay focuses on the mutual impact of religion and language, discusses the term religiolect in the Jewish linguistic spectrum, and applies this concept to Christian and Muslim environments. By doing so, we are suggesting that the conventional theoretical hierarchy, which prefers the development of models in general disciplines and their subsequent application to minority fields, needs to be reevaluated. In this case, the field of Jewish Studies offers a valuable laboratory for the complex interaction of religion and language allowing for a deeper understanding in the universal sense. Indeed, language as a vehicle for religious identity has often been overlooked by scholars of religion.2 2 From Jewish languages to religiolects Scholars began to investigate the field of Jewish linguistics only at the end of the nineteenth century (Sunshine 1993; Wexler 1981). They were typically interested in the use of Jewish languages in the Diaspora, especially Hebrew, Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish. Most wrote about individual languages but some also conducted comparative studies. In recent years there has been an increase in the study of Jewish linguistics as Benor (2009) has shown in her comprehensive summary of the major debates in the field. It is clear that the term language may not be suitable for the entire Jewish linguistic spectrum. Certainly in some instances the term language would seem to be fully justified -for example, in the case of Yiddish, especially after its recognition as a “national” language of the Jewish people at the Czernowitz conference in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1908. But what constitutes a language that separates it from a dialect? What are the prerequisites of a speech form that turn it from a dialect into a language? Even the famous Yiddish phrase, “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy”,3 does not fully answer these questions. Linguists in general prefer to use the term variety when they do not wish to commit themselves to either language or dialect. In fact, Fishman (1985) has convincingly demonstrated that there are no clear linguistic or social criteria that can be used 2 For further discussion, see Schiffman (1996: 23 [n. 36], 63–66 [Section 3.3]). 3 The actual quote taken from Weinreich (1945: 13), has been widely used among sociolinguists, and became part of Yiddish Studies. Weinreich writes that he heard it from someone else; George Jochnowitz thinks that the latter may have been Joshua Fishman and the latter has confirmed this. See Fishman (1997: 469); however, it does not seem to fit Weinreich’s description of the incidence. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 87 to distinguish between a language and a dialect. The term variety is fuzzy and vague, and as such can fit ambiguous situations. It is in fact doubtful whether in many cases it is even possible, or advisable for that matter, to determine if a certain speech variety is separate or not. For example, Benor (2005) demonstrated that Orthodox Jewish English, also called “Yeshivish” or “Yinglish”, is variously considered to be a separate language, a dialect, or a jargon, while some do not notice anything at all to distinguish it from other varieties of English. Linguists describe varieties and possible sociological phenomena associated with them, irrespective of whether or not a given variety can be considered “separate” from another.4 In the past, Hary has used the term ethnolect in the context of Jewish varieties.5 However, the term ethnic is problematic and has undergone several changes in meaning. Though in popular usage the meaning is close to “racial”, the academic usage is very different: for example, ethnie has been defined as a “named human population with a myth [emphasis ours] of common ancestry, shared memories and cultural elements, a link with a historic territory or homeland and a measure of solidarity” (Smith 1993: 49).6 Therefore, a better and more suitable term is religiolect, which Hary mentioned briefly in the past (1992: xiii, n. 1). The term religiolect avoids the messiness of “ethnicity” and relates directly to the religious backgrounds of the people who use this language variety. Alas, there is no universally accepted definition of religion either. Geertz’s famous definition of religion as a “cultural system” (Geertz 1973: 87–125) may be elaborated upon by stressing issues of boundaries, membership, purpose, practice, and community.7 However, since this definition was developed in a Western academic context, the applicability of all this remains questionable when it comes to non-Christians8 and specifically non-monotheistic faiths. On the other 4 See Sarah Benor, Jewish Languages Listserv, 4 March 2005. 5 See Hary (1992), (1996: 727–728), (2003: 62), (2004: 226) and more. 6 This is one of the classic definitions of ethnicity. See also Spira (1999: 207): “An ethnic group is a collectivity of peoples who identify themselves or are identified by others in cultural terms”. Spira (1999: 200–232) also lists alphabetically throughout his dictionary more than 250 entries for concepts that involve the term “ethnic” or “ethno-”, e.g. ethnic accommodation, ethnic identity, ethnocratic state, etc. 7 On problems of the term “culture”, see for example Spira (1999: 142): “There is no single definition of culture on which everyone would agree, no universally accepted categories, which everyone would accept as most useful.” Spira (1999: 124–151) also lists alphabetically throughout his dictionary more than 240 entries for concepts that involve the term “culture” or “cultural”, e.g. cultural adaptation, cultural behavior, culture accumulation, etc. 8 The terms “non‐Christians” or “non‐Jews” are problematic because they represent categories ex negativo; they are used here for convenience only. See Hary (2009: 6, n. 2). Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 88 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein hand, Christian-based secularism and other Western ideologies seem to fit Geertz’s definition of religion rather well.9 Asad (1993) has argued that religion is actually a secular concept. Attempting to define it and thus disentangle it from other realms of life means ignoring the specific historical circumstances in which it was first developed. In this regard, we view secularism as part of the religious discourse (and vice versa). First, secularism is implicitly defined vis-à-vis religion. Second, theory of civic or civil religion has pointed to continuing links and transformations between the two realms.10 We therefore use the term religion in this context to describe actual religious practice, but also religious literacy or education and religion-based collective identities, even of secular people.11 A religiolect is thus a language variety with its own history and development, which is used by a religious community. Since religions (or secularisms) are intrinsic parts of human society and communication, language varieties could be analyzed for their religious associations and described as religiolects. A Jewish religiolect, then, is a spoken and/or written variety employed by the Jewish population of a specific area, although it later may extend to other communities and areas as well. Our knowledge of Jewish religiolects of the past is inadequate, since in many cases scholars began to study them when only a handful of speakers were still using them or, worse still, they had already become extinct. New Jewish religiolects have been created in modern times, due in part to migration patterns, con- 9 For further reading on this issue see: Albanese (1992); Asad (2003: 187–194); McCutcheon (2001); Wasserstrom (1995). We would like to thank Michael Berger, David Blumenthal, Vincent Cornell, Nate Hoffer and Gordon Newby, personal communications. 10 Civic religion may be described as a concept that posits that religion did not really decline, but was rather transformed under the aegis of nationalist ideologies. Nationalism typically built a “quasi-religious” set of symbols, festivals, myths and rituals that are often based on religion, but made to look secular and open to all members of the nation. (See Cristi 2001; Liebman and DonYehiya 1983.) 11 A special case may be that of Yiddish-speaking secular Jews of the first half of the twentieth century, for example, who might have been uncomfortable with the term religiolect in reference to their variety. However, the term religiolect describes not a personal identity of speakers, but characteristics of a variety that had often been embedded before the rise of secularism. Furthermore, even secular Jews may resort to religion-based self-definition in group construction, e.g. Bundists, Folkists or Zionists, who upheld quasi-religious distinctions between Jews and non-Jews while often rejecting Jewish religion itself. The term religiolect, however, may not fit all religious communities. In India the term castelect is more suitable. Thus, Jewish Malayalam is one of many castelects of Kerala. The dichotomy, then, in Kerala is not necessarily between the various religious communities, but rather between /ambalakkār/ ‘those who go to temples’ and /paḷḷikkār/ ‘those who go to /paḷḷi/ [prayer shrines, i.e., church/mosque/synagogue]’. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 89 version and changes in Jewish identity. Some of these modern aspects of the Jewish linguistic spectrum have only been investigated in part or not at all. Jewish religiolects may be examined via the interaction of sociolinguistic methodologies with historical contextualization. Sociolinguistic studies attempt to analyze language use according to variables such as place of birth and place of domicile, age, gender including sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, occupation, education, social setting and more. An additional important variable has been religious affiliation and identity. We often find that Jews, for example, speak and write differently from Christians, Muslims or members of other religions, just as young people speak and write differently from older people. Wherever Jews have wished to distinguish themselves from their neighbors, or have been encouraged or forced to do so, depending on majority-minority dynamics, changes occurred in distinctive features such as clothing, foods and language. The degree to which the language characteristics, including phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, have differed vary from being largely “unintelligible” to other speakers to exhibiting merely a few added Hebrew or Aramaic words to the dominant languages. Thus, the spectrum of Jewish linguistic practice includes languages like Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Spanish and Yiddish, as well as the use of select Yiddish or Hebrew words among secular Jews in North America today. 3 The prototype of Jewish religiolects It is generally acknowledged that Jewish religiolects share several characteristics. The prototype of Jewish varieties we would like to suggest here has ten features, ranging from their script and grammatical structure to a specific tradition of translating sacred texts,12 though not every Jewish religiolect needs to have all the features to qualify. Jewish varieties should rather be placed on a continuum stretching from those with a high concentration of the most prominent characteristics to those with few and marginal traits. In fact, Jewish speakers and writers have at their disposal a repertoire of linguistic elements different from their neighbors in other religious communities, and they choose when and how to use them. In these ways, they make their language variety distinct from the language varieties around them: 12 Among the first to sketch shared characteristics of Jewish languages are Birnbaum (1971) and Weinreich (1980). Recently, Hary (2003, 2009) and Benor (2004, 2009) developed more refined lists of features. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 90 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein 1. The first and most apparent of these features is the consistent use of Hebrew characters in the written forms. Jews almost invariably adopted the spelling conventions of Talmudic orthography, employing the final forms of Hebrew letters and sometimes adding vowel and diacritic signs using existing consonants and/or symbols. Thus, the Hebrew script symbolizes the “Jewishness” of the community, as it is common to use script as a religious marker of a language.13 2. Jewish varieties use different traditions of orthography and different writing systems, sometimes simultaneously. Such a competition among various orthographic and writing systems is typical of a situation in which the choice between linguistic systems transmits implicit political, cultural and religious messages. This can be seen, for example, in the Soviet spelling reform of Yiddish. In the USSR there was an attempt to dissociate Yiddish from its religious roots (among others) by abolishing the traditional Yiddish spelling of Hebrew/Aramaic-derived words. Thus, the name of the Yiddish Communist newspaper and publishing house /‘em‘es/ ‘truth’ (a translation of Russian /pravda/) was spelled phonetically with ‘ayin-mem-‘ayin-samekh, whereas traditional spelling would have been ’alef-mem-tav,14 as is the case in Hebrew, from which the word is derived. An example from Judeo-Arabic is the historical competition of three orthographies: the phonetic, the Arabicized and the Hebraized (Hary 1996). The tension between the latter two from the fifteenth century onwards reflected the changing dynamics of interreligious relations, negotiating greater proximity or distance between Jews and Muslims. In other words, the emergence of Hebraized orthography in Late Judeo-Arabic was driven, among other things, by increasing fragmentation of society along religious lines, which is also evident in Christiandominated countries in the same period (Israel 1989). Furthermore, the competition between the Judeo-Arabic phonetic and Arabicized orthographies in the tenth century and the disappearance of the former at that time may hint at an increased literacy. It seems that the phonetic orthography (Blau and Hopkins 1984: 13–15; Hary 1996: 731) reflected a culture that centered more on oral than on written transmission. Moreover, Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin 13 There are still unanswered questions in this area. The Karaite branch of Judaism used both the Hebrew/Aramaic and the Arabic script when they wrote Judeo-Arabic. The explanations given for this phenomenon thus far have ranged from better education among the Karaites, thus they were familiar with Arabic characters, to the desire to protest Rabbinic authority through the non-use of Hebrew/Aramaic characters and the use of the Arabic script. 14 This does not mean that /’emet/ was ever pronounced by Yiddish speakers. See Hary (1992: 112–113) for further examples. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 3. 4. 5. 6. 91 characters have competed in Judeo-Spanish.15 Finally, the Karaites used to write Judeo-Arabic in Arabic characters, in addition to Hebrew/Aramaic letters. Hirschfeld (1891, 1917/1918) and later Blau (1999 [1966]) and Khan (1990: 20, n. 65) have claimed that the Karaites used the Arabic script as a subtle attack against the dominant Rabbanite community with whom they competed for intellectual and political power (also see above). Jewish varieties incorporate Hebrew and Aramaic elements. These elements are not restricted to the sphere of religious-cultural vocabulary, but are also found in the whole lexicon, as well as in phonology, morphology and syntax. For example, in Judeo-Arabic ’ila marks the definite direct object just like the Hebrew ’et (Hary 1991). Judeo-Italian creates paxad ‘afraid’, paxadoso ‘timid’ and impaxadito ‘got scared’, or the verb gannaviare ‘to steal’ in the sentence guarda che non gannavi ‘watch that s/he does not steal (from you)’. In Jewish English we can find Hebrew words such as drash ‘biblical interpretation’, kasher ‘kosher’ and halakha ‘Jewish law’ taking the English morphemes -ing, -ed, -ic and -ally to create the following respectively: drashing ‘presenting a (biblical) interpretation,’ kashering ‘rendering (vessels and kitchen surfaces) kosher’, non-hekhshered ‘(food) without a rabbinic seal of kashrut’ and halakhically ‘as far as Jewish law is concerned’ (Benor 2004, 2009). Jewish varieties have sometimes developed a distinct spoken form, mostly “unintelligible” to people outside the community (it is obvious that written Jewish languages are unreadable to most non-Jews, if only for the use of the Hebrew script), for example, Baghdadi Judeo-Arabic as demonstrated by Blanc (1964). Jewish religiolects have been used by Jews writing for a Jewish audience, with their literature usually treating Jewish topics. However, it has happened that Christian epics as well as other works have been translated or adapted into several Jewish varieties. Furthermore, this trait is not as exclusive as had been assumed in the literature (Blau 1999: 49), considering the crossing of religious boundaries discussed below. Further, the feature of migrated or displaced dialectalism is evident in Jewish varieties. For example, in Cairene Judeo-Arabic one may find the phenomenon of niktib/niktibu for 1st person sg. / 1st person pl. imperfect, which is typical of western Arabic dialects. This characteristic is not usually expected 15 In fact, Jews used Hebrew script, while conversos used Latin script in Spain and after their 1492 expulsion. During the 20th century, as societies became more secular, Jews started using more Latin script for writing Judeo-Spanish. They often went to Alliance Israélite Universelle schools and learned French and other European languages and thus preferred the more “international” alphabet. See Schwarzwald (2002: 572–600). Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 92 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein in Cairo, but one may find it in the language of Cairene Jews, probably due to Jewish migration from Morocco to Cairo. Another example from Egyptian Judeo-Arabic is the appearance of the plural demonstrative pronoun /hadōli/ ‘these’ (alongside /dōli/). The Egyptian Judeo-Arabic variant /hadōli/ does not exist in standard Cairene and comes to Egyptian Judeo-Arabic through migrated dialectalism from Christian-Arabic /hadōli/ and Judeo-Arabic /haḏōli/ Baghdadi dialects.16 Another example of migrated or displaced dialectalism can be found in Judeo-Italian. In the southern Italian dialects (Gyoto-Italian) one finds the form /li donni/ ‘the women’ (rare) instead of the standard /le donne/. At the same time, a typical characteristic of central Italian dialects is a system of seven vowels. The combination of these two distinct regional features can only be found in Judeo-Italian, suggesting a synthesis of dialectal elements from different regions due to unique migration patterns among the Jewish communities in Italy. 7. Jewish religiolects often preserve archaic forms that have become extinct in the respective co-territorial or dominant languages. For example, in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic the verbal pattern fu‘ul has survived, as opposed to fi‘il, which has replaced it in the modern Egyptian dialect. Judeo-Arabic /ēš/ ‘what’, /lēš/ ‘why’ and /kēf/ ‘how’ have survived in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic in the sentence-initial position, in contrast to the situation in the dominant dialect, where other pronouns, /ēh/ ‘what’, /lēh/ ‘why’, and /ezzāy/ ‘how’ appear at the end of the sentence (Hary 2009: 23–24). In this respect it is only fitting that Judeo-Spanish and Yiddish, both Jewish religiolects with a rich history of migration, use many archaisms. The former preserves the archaic Spanish phonemes /š/ and /dž/, as opposed to /x/ for both in modern Spanish. Yiddish has kept the archaic word hait, which has disappeared as an independent word from standard German, surviving only as a suffix, e.g. Kindheit ‘childhood’ (Birnbaum 1979: 10). 8. Jewish speakers have usually considered their varieties to be separate from the local languages giving them special names such as illuġa dyalna ‘our language’, or il ‘arabiyya dyalna ‘our Arabic’, in Moroccan Judeo-Arabic, whereas Muslim Moroccan Arabic is termed il ‘arabiyya dilmsilmīn ‘the Arabic of the Muslims’. In places where Jews and Christians spoke different dialects of Neo-Aramaic, the Jewish one is called by the Jewish speakers as lishan hodhaye ‘language of Jews’, or lishan(a) deni/didan ‘our language’ (Yona Sabar, Jewish Languages Listserv). The Judeo-Italian of Rome has been called Scionacodesce and that of Turin Lason Acodesh, in both cases from Hebrew 16 For more examples from Judeo-Arabic, see Hary (2009: 23, n. 38). See also Hary (2010). Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 93 Lashon ha-Kodesh (“Holy Tongue”, Jochnowitz, Jewish Languages Listserv). Speakers of Judeo-Tat refer to their language as zuhun imu ‘our language’, zuhun juhur ‘language of the Jews’ or juhuri dzhuhuric, juwri ‘Jewish’, as opposed to Muslim-Tat.17 Even the Hebrew Bible calls its language yehudit ‘Jewish’ (2 Kings 18: 26, 28; Nehemiah 13: 24; 2 Chronicles 32: 18). 9. The “spirit” of Jewish varieties, or in other words, the reservoir of images, formulations, concepts and icons, is derived from Jewish sources in Hebrew and Aramaic, usually sacred texts. 10. Lastly, Jewish religiolects share an important literary genre, which has developed in many of them. This genre is the (verbatim) translation of sacred religious and liturgical Hebrew/Aramaic texts into the various Jewish religiolects (šarḥ in Judeo-Arabic, šarʿ or šarḥ in Judeo-Neo-Aramaic, tavsili in Judeo-Georgian, tefillot latini or tefillot vulgar in Judeo-Italian, tamsir in Jewish Malayalam in India, ladino in Judeo-Spanish, taytsh in Yiddish, etc.). The translations include, among others, the Bible, the Siddur (the prayer book), the Passover Haggadah, Pirke ’Avot (the basic literature of moral and religious teachings during Second Temple times and following its destruction), and more. In sum, while we would like to acknowledge the existence of the spectrum of the Jewish linguistic use, we still need to emphasize that there are some typical features of Jewish religiolects. This does not mean that in order to qualify for the “status” of a Jewish religiolect, the system needs to follow all these requirements. Any time a language used by Jews differs, even to a small degree, from the dominant language around it, it should be considered as a part of the Jewish linguistic spectrum. Jewish varieties can be placed on an imaginary continuum, where on one side of the continuum there are significantly different varieties from the dominant languages (Yiddish, for example). On the other side of the continuum, one may find varieties that have not produced major differences from the dominant languages (varieties of secular Jewish English, for example). 4 Crossing religious boundaries The linguistic reality of Jews, Christians and Muslims is sometimes more complex than its academic classification. Many Jews adopted Christian or Muslim 17 See Ethnologue website at: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=jdt (accessed 2 August 2010). Also see Vitaly Shalem on the Jewish Language Research Website www.jewish-languages.org (accessed 2 August 2010). Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 94 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein languages all over the world. Conversely, we find several cases where Christians or Muslims have entered into the Jewish linguistic spectrum. In the most minimal sense, this could be through lexical influx in a professional subgroup: sometimes Christian and Muslim craftsmen borrowed professional terminology from their Jewish colleagues in their respective trade jargons and even argot. For example, Primo Levi has reported the adoption of Judeo-Italian elements in Northern Italy among Christian furriers (Levi 1984: Chapter 1). In Cairo and in Alexandria Muslim and Christian goldsmiths still use an argot they think of as “Hebrew” or “Jewish” and which contains Hebrew and Aramaic elements. For instance, they use the word /ša”āl/ ‘a thief’, which seems to be derived from Aramaic /šqal/ ‘take’ (Rosenbaum 1990: 131). At times, the lexical influx from Jewish religiolects reached the entire nonJewish language community. There are examples of Hebrew and Aramaic impact on Christian-German dialects in the Rhine valley via Yiddish dialects which may date back to the Middle Ages and survive until today. For example, in Hessonian dialects the word schäckern ‘to flirt’ comes from Hebrew /šeker/ ‘lie’; Schmiere stehen ‘to keep a lookout’ comes from Hebrew /šmira/ ‘guard’; Ganove ‘a thief’ from Hebrew /ganav/ ‘a thief’ with the same meaning spread beyond local dialects to standard spoken German. Further, Llanito (or Yanito), a mixture of Andalusian Spanish and British English varieties, spoken by the majority of Gibraltarians, includes hundreds of Hebrew lexemes as well as other influences from Haketia, a Judeo-Spanish variety influenced by Arabic spoken in Northern Morocco and the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.18 Moreover, Muslims in some villages in Iran such as Sede use the Judeo-Persian variety employed by Jews in Isfahan and distinguished from the Persian used by Muslims there (Rabin 1979: 53, 56). Finally, American non-Jews may use some Jewish English elements as well, mostly in the lexicon, especially if they live in cities with strong Jewish populations, like New York or Chicago. Thus, a Catholic Italian-American may ask a bellboy to schlep her suitcase. More rarely, there was actual bilingualism cutting across religious lines. For example, in Ruthenia (today Western Ukraine) Christian nannies sometimes learnt Yiddish and used it to communicate with the Jewish families they worked for. In some cases they also taught Jewish children the Hebrew prayers, while Hebrew blessings were widespread among the general Greek-Catholic (or Russian-Orthodox) population of the region (Erez 1959: 231–244, 249–252; Sole 1959: 149). There are also reports from early modern Saloniki where non-Jews, especially those who worked in the city’s harbor, employed Judeo-Spanish as 18 On Llanito, see Ethnologue (under Gibraltar). On Haketia, see Bentolila (2003). Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 95 their professional variety. The historical background of this linguistic phenomenon was the demographic prevalence of Jews in the Saloniki port (Benbassa and Rodrigue 2000). However, the greatest challenge to traditional definitions of Jewish varieties is the case of Modern Hebrew as it is used in the State of Israel today. Many Israeli non-Jews, especially educated speakers, have achieved a near-native or native ability in Hebrew, while younger Israeli Arabs increasingly code-switch and effectively create a mixed language. Thus, the latter regularly use terms like /glida/ ‘ice cream’ (Hebrew) rather than /būza/ (Arabic) or /ramzor/ ‘traffic light’ (Hebrew) instead of /išāra/ (Arabic) when speaking Arabic.19 Similarly, among Arab Israeli speakers, the Hebrew verbal root š-m-r ‘guard’ takes the Arabic verbal pattern to result in /byušmur/ ‘he guards’ (Geva Kleinberger and Hary 2010). In fact, the majority of Israel’s non-Jews, over a fifth of the country’s citizens, are to varying degrees bilingual, usually Arabic-Hebrew and sometimes Russian-Hebrew. In spite of popular misperceptions, the linguistic community of Hebrew is not outlined anymore by religion but, for the most part, by citizenship or residency. Such linguistic achievements, however, have often not translated into full acceptance into the Israeli “nation”. Tellingly, the Hebrew term /israeli/ ‘Israeli’ typically denotes an Israeli-born Jew and usually does not include a non-Jewish Israeli citizen. In some ways, this term replaces the term /tsabar/ ‘sabra, prickly pear’ used through the 1970s. The distinction of Hebrew-speakers along religious lines is also apparent in the reaction to the writings of the Israeli Arab author Anton Shammas. He was born in 1950 in Fasuta in the western Galilee and moved to Haifa with his family when he was twelve years old. Shammas studied Hebrew, Arabic and English literature at the Hebrew University and edited the Arabic literary monthly aš-Šarq ‘The East’. He began working for the Arabic programs division of the Israeli Broadcast Authority’s television unit in 1976, and in 1979 he published his first Hebrew book Arabesques /arabeskot/. Following this publication, Jewish Israeli critics were surprised to discover that an Arab can write “like an Israeli” and even used biblical and other Jewish references in his writings. What actually disturbed most of the critics was the fact that an Israeli (Christian) Arab found his way into the Hebrew core of the Israeli nation, “despite” the fact that he was not Jewish. Similarly, Sayed Kashua, an Israeli Muslim, has emerged as a significant literary figure in Hebrew literature, journalism, and culture in recent years. Finally, the Israeli Druze poet and diplomat Reda Mansour has published in Hebrew. Some Arabs in the Palestinian Territories also employ various levels of Hebrew. 19 Yoav Stern. “They say /glida/ instead of /būza/ . . .” Haaretz, 29 April 2008 [Hebrew]. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 96 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein Fig. 1: Crossing religious boundaries (underlined cases still exist) Taking these examples into account, we would like to introduce the term Jewish-defined (respectively Christian- or Muslim-defined) religiolects. Furthermore, it should be noted that the boundaries of the speech community of religiolects could be so porous, that religiolects themselves may be defined by different religions at the same time. See Figure 1. 5 Extending the Jewish-defined religiolects model: methodological considerations When considering the model of Jewish-defined religiolects, we realized that the borderline between Jews, Christians and Muslims is permeable not only on the level of language communities but also on a theoretical level. In other words, what works for a minority, marginal field can actually say a great deal about the center and the majorities as well. We will now attempt to move Jewish Studies from the margins to the center of the academic discourse by applying theoretical ideas on the links between religion and language developed in this article to “general” disciplines in order to enrich them. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 97 From our perspective, general disciplines (i.e. history, linguistics, sociology, etc.) do not fully live up to their universal promises, and are still steeped to a remarkable degree in Euro-American, Christian-centered, male-oriented canons, particularly when it comes to theory.20 This is not to say that the field of Jewish Studies has not shared some of the same blind spots. For example, the field has tended to emphasize male-oriented viewpoints, and has furthermore developed its own inner hegemonic perspectives such as Ashkenazi-centered approaches. However, the field of Jewish Studies has developed a specific sensitivity to complex religious/secular issues, which have all too often been overlooked by the general disciplines. In this respect, we agree with Green, who has claimed that “[i]n the West, religion has been one of our principal schools for otherness”, suggesting that religious difference is the prototype for the whole concept of “otherness” in the humanities and the social sciences (Green 1994: 1198). In the United States this primacy of religious difference can be traced back to the First Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the freedom of religion, speech and press (not coincidentally mentioned here together). Questioning traditional European hierarchies, this amendment established the principle of multiple validities and was expanded over time to entail virtually all religions. The precedent of this principle has also been claimed in discourses about other human differences such as “race”, gender, sexual orientation, language, etc. Eventually, new fields have been developed over the last decades in order to advance marginalized “minorities” such as blacks, Jews, Queers, women, etc. In fact, the field of Jewish Studies is an outcome of this development, too. Giltin has described the evolution of such minority fields as follows: Each [group] felt it had a distinct world to win – first by establishing that its group had been suppressed and silenced; then by exhuming buried work and exploring forms of resistance; and, finally, by trying to rethink society, literature and history from the respective vantages of the silenced, asking what the group and, indeed, the entire world would look like if those hitherto excluded were now included. (Giltin 1995: 315) Green has suggested calling the emergence of such fields “experimental foundationalism” because they are based on subjective, often biologically 20 There has been a surge in recent years in investigating minority and marginalized languages. While this is a welcome development, the methods and the theoretical axioms employed are often still mirroring the assumptions of “classical” canons. For example, linguists still use the Latin differentiation of parts of speech in analyzing Aboriginal languages. Furthermore, statistics from Corpus Linguistic studies suggest that nouns can be divided into positive- and negativeassociate rather than, or in addition to, traditional modes of classification. For example, the case of the verb cause, usually followed by a “negative” noun, hints at the existence of a new set of grammatical links. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 98 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein founded experiential differences, and has claimed that “[t]hese new fields of learning begin in conviction and develop into argument” (Green 1994: 1195). However, it is unclear to us how this essentially differs from the established general disciplines.21 We therefore suggest introducing the term “satellite fields” (instead of “minority fields”), defining them via their positions vis-à-vis general disciplines rather than through some inherent differences. However, even this extended academic structure of general disciplines and satellite fields preserves to a large degree the initial hierarchy: the satellite fields continue to revolve around the established canons. Most notably, they have not been originally intended to undermine the basic theoretical assumptions, but rather to complement them. As Chakrabarty wrote in his Provinicializing Europe: The everyday paradox of third-world social science is that we find [European] theories, in spite of their inherent ignorance of “us” eminently useful in understanding our societies. What allowed the modern European sages to develop such clairvoyance with regard to societies of which they were empirically ignorant? Why cannot we, once again, return the gaze? . . . Only “Europe,” the argument would appear to be, is theoretically . . . knowledgeable; all other histories are matters of empirical research that fleshes out a theoretical skeleton that is substantially “Europe.” (Chakrabarty 2000: 28–29) Some satellite fields, such as Gender Studies and Postcolonial Studies, have long tried to reverse this theoretical monopoly of general disciplines by attempting to develop theories with a general impact. Thus, Feminist and Queer theories introduced the notion of gender by pointing out that the assumptions of sexual “neutrality” of the general human canons were misleading, that they were in fact male-oriented, and that masculinity itself was a gendered construction. In other words, male-dominated societies and their academic discourses cultivated an ideology of masculinity. This ideology was dependent on the exclusion of the “other”, i.e. “non-men”, e.g. Queers or women. It is our aim to similarly expose the religious impact, as well as the role of inter-religious relations, on the use of languages by beginning with a revision of the hierarchy among general disciplines and satellite fields. At the same time, however, we advocate parity and permeability between general disciplines and 21 For example, the modern discipline of history was founded, among others, by Herder, Hegel and Fichte, who combined proto-historical methods with religious apologetics to argue that their own group, i.e., northern European Christian, Protestant males, had been predestined to dominate. (See Blättler 2002: 10–15; Fichte 1971 [1808]: 274, 481, 495–499; Hegel 1956 [1830]: 74, 195–198, 343, 419–421; Hegel 1975 [1830]: 188, 197; Herder 1966 [1784–1791]: 157–159, 162–164, 196, 311–316, 430–437. For the religious impact on philology in the 17th–19th centuries, see Olender [1992].) Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 99 satellite fields, rather than suggest new, reversed hierarchies that end up mirroring the old power structures. For us, exporting theory from Jewish Studies to general disciplines is thus also an exercise in federalizing the relationship between general disciplines and satellite fields, allowing for mutual, rather than one-sided theoretical influences (Figures 2 and 3). As a final note, it must be mentioned that establishing Jewish, Postcolonial, or Gender Studies as separate fields is in itself Fig. 2: “General” disciplines and minority studies “satellites” Fig. 3: Changing the theory flow Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 100 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein a theoretical problem, as these (or any) categories cannot stand by themselves, requiring interaction with each other and “general” disciplines, even for their definition.22 6 Applying the Jewish religiolects prototype to Christian and Muslim contexts Considering these methodological innovations, we can transfer the prototype of Jewish religiolects from a context of a minority field, i.e., Jewish Studies, to both general disciplines (i.e. Christian-defined contexts) and to another satellite field, i.e. Muslim contexts, perhaps via Postcolonial Studies. Interestingly, the Jewish linguistic spectrum and the prototype of Jewish-defined languages discussed above are largely applicable in both Christian and Muslim contexts: 1. First, Christian religiolects are frequently written in Latin or Greek-Cyrillic characters (although see some counter examples below). In former Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian was practically one language, except for the script: Cyrillic characters were used in Serbian to symbolize the centrality of the Serbian Orthodox Church in that language community, whereas the Latin alphabet was employed in Croatian, indicating the Roman Catholic background of most of its users. Since the breakup of the country, Serbian and Croatian have found ways to further distinguish themselves from one another. In addition, some other Christian religiolects also developed their very own script, e.g. Armenian, Coptic and Georgian. Maltese is the only Arabic variety written in Latin letters, due to the predominantly Catholic religion in the language community (Hary 2003). Similarly, Muslim religiolects often use Arabic characters, a marker of Islam, in cases such as Aljamiado, Jawi (Malay), Māpiḷḷa-Malayalam,23 Persian, Ottoman Turkish and Urdu, all of them languages used by predominantly Muslim language communities. Similarly, the Hui Muslim community of Xiaojin writes their Chinese variety in Arabic letters. On the other hand, there are also Muslim varieties that have adopted Latin or Greek-Cyrillic letters, e.g. Turkish, Indonesian, and some Central Asian languages. In sum, López-Morillas wrote that the Arabic script em22 Interestingly, some younger scholars of Jewish studies have expressed a “collective sense of frustration” with the traditional boundaries of the field and have attempted to extend their research beyond directly Jewish-related data. This was especially seen since the 2005 Association of Jewish Studies meeting. See Inside Higher Ed (2005). 23 This is a castelect of Muslims in North Malabar. It is written in Arabic script with some orthographic adjustments to the phonetic system of Malayalam. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 101 ployed in Aljamiado, a Spanish variety used by the Moriscos in the sixteenth century, as well as in other Muslim languages, became “an explicit emblem for the religious and cultural cohesion of the linguistic group” (LópezMorillas 1994: 17).24 2. Competing traditions of orthography also exist in Christian languages. In the context of Christian Latinized languages, Power has written about North American Lakota speakers, who “have been raised on orthographies inspired by whims and dictates of missionaries, federal educators, and more recently linguists, each of which has introduced various kinds of orthographies . . . ” (Power 1990: 496; Sebba 2007). In the Muslim context, there has been tension inside some language communities about traditions of orthography. For example, in the interwar period of the twentieth century the Latin alphabet competed with and eventually replaced the Arabic characters for the writing of Turkish against opposition. A recent development has been the introduction of the “Arabic chat alphabet”, used to communicate electronically in emails, blogs and text messages, where no Arabic letters are available. Based in part on the visual similarity, Latin letters and even numbers are employed to represent specific Arabic characters, e.g. the use of the number 3 to represent the Arabic latter ‘ayn.25 In fact, Dua‘a Abu-Elhij’a of Haifa University investigates in her MA thesis how different dialects of colloquial Arabic are being written with Latin characters in electronic media. She claims that this is a new development, which is challenging the traditional domination of Modern Standard Arabic and the maintenance of diglossia.26 3. There are elements of “sacred languages” or “Holy Tongues” 27 also in Christian and Muslim languages, with a set of theological vocabulary and phrase- 24 We do not wish to imply here that people actually “choose” a script to fit their need for religious identification. When rulers imposed a religion on a country, the religious authorities would usually be given responsibility for education, and they would impose their standards, including the script, on that country. 25 See Wikipedia (2010). 26 The term diglossia has been challenged in the literature. See, for example, the term continuglossia, which better accounts for the continuum that exists between the two poles of standard (usually written) and colloquial language varieties (Hary 2003; Hary 2009: 37–38, n. 12, 40–44). 27 Examples for “Holy Tongues” are: Ancient Armenian (Krapar) for the Armenian Orthodox Church; Church Slavonic for the Russian and other Orthodox Churches; Classical Arabic for Islam; Coptic for various Coptic Churches; Ecclesiastical Latin for the Roman Catholic Church; Ge’ez for various Ethiopian Churches; Hebrew, Aramaic and other languages for Judaism; Koiné Greek for the Greek Orthodox Church; Mandaic Aramaic for the Sabian Mandaic Church; Old Tibetan for Tibetan Buddhism; Pali for Theravada Buddhism; Sanskrit for Hinduism, Mahayana Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 102 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein ology, even if they are not always conceived as such by their speakers. The following are a few English examples, many of which entered the language through the Church of England’s King James Bible translation of 1611: – Lexical items: absolution, amen, apocalypse, baptism, confession, firmament, gospel, grace, halleluiah, holocaust, inquisition, liturgy, messiah, miracle, mission, monastery, redemption, repentance, resurrection, sacred, stigmata, Sabbath, tabernacle, testament, trinity. – Idioms: “a man after his own heart”, “broken-hearted”, “city on a hill”, “clear-eyed”, “everyone has a cross to bear”, “fire and brimstone”, “holy of holies”, “Jesus Christ!”, “Judas’ kiss”, “Last Judgment”, “Last Supper”, “lion’s den”, “love thy neighbor as thyself”, “Philistine”, “Samaritan”, “scapegoat”, “shibboleth”. – Semantic fields: apple (tree of knowledge), blood (of Christ), bread (body of Christ), calling (Samuel), father (God), flood (Noah), lamb (Christ), lord (God), shepherd (God), star (of Bethlehem), Sunday (holy day), to part (the sea), virgin (Mary), wine (blood of Christ). An especially clear example of the impact of a “Holy Tongue” on a vernacular is that of Polish. Cienki has demonstrated that the earliest extant Polish prose texts, originating in the 13th–14th centuries, tellingly a set of Catholic sermons for saints’ days, were in fact written in a Slavic-Latin continuglossia,28 with the input of Latin, often whole sentences, ranging from 16–54%. However, Cienki (1983) also found similar phenomena in 14th–15th century English (11% Latin), German (6–10%) and French sermons (3%). Further examples of the influence of “Holy Tongues” can be identified in orthography, morphology, syntax and other linguistic aspects (see below). In the case of Muslim languages, Arabic vocabulary is evident throughout, usually in the religious sphere, but also in “secular” areas. In fact, both Persian and Turkish have a high percentage of Arabic-based lexemes, some of which must have come through the impact of sacred texts, and others through language contact. Urdu and Malay are also examples, where Arabic-based words must have arrived through the “Holy Tongue”. Stillman (1991) has furthermore pointed out relevant morphological and syntactic features in Muslim contexts, as in Persian and Turkish. 4. In minority situations, both Christian and Muslim varieties at times developed distinct spoken forms, where intelligibility with the majority dialect Buddhism and Jainism; East Syriac for the Assyrian Orthodox Church in Iraq; West Syriac and Arabic for the Maronite Catholic Church in Lebanon and others. 28 See Cienki (1983) and Wein (2009: 43) in passim. On the term continuglossia see Hary (2003) and above. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 103 was lower. Examples include Christian Baghdadi Arabic, distinguished from Muslim Baghdadi Arabic (Blanc 1964), and possibly Muslim religiolects of Chinese. Furthermore, the production and use of literature within the Christian and Muslim religious communities is similar to that among Jews. In other words, Christian or Muslim writers typically composed texts on Christian or Muslim topics for a specifically Christian or Muslim readership. There were some reported cases of migrated dialectalism among Christians in Baghdad (Blanc 1964). More research needs to be conducted to establish a Muslim language case of migrated dialectalism. Preserving archaic forms is typical of varieties in situations of migration. For example, “Catholic” Quebec French preserves archaic forms that are not used in contemporary Parisian French. Moreover, Louisiana French exhibits archaic forms, brought by French speakers who were displaced from Acadia in Canada and settled around New Orleans, Louisiana. Similarly, “western” Arabic dialects preserve forms that are common in the Qur’an but are not found in “eastern” dialects, for example, /ḥūt/ ‘fish’ and /zarība/ ‘carpet’, vs. their “eastern” equivalents /samak/ and /basām/ respectively. In addition, Bedouin Arabic dialects tend to preserve archaic forms such as the interdental fricative phonemes /ḏ/ and /ṯ/ or the preservation of the gender distinction in plural verbal forms, e.g. /tiktubu/ ‘you (masc. pl.) write’ and /tiktubayn/ ‘you (fem. pl.) write’; /yiktubu/ ‘they (masc.) write’ and /yiktubayn/ ‘they (fem.) write’.29 Christian speakers sometimes view their language as a separate entity or even refer to it as specifically Christian such as in the case of South- and EastAsian Portuguese Creoles, e.g. cristião (Portuguese-Malay Creole), papia christam (Portuguese-Cantonese), kristi (Portuguese Creole in India). Castilian is allegorized as lengua cristiana or simply as cristiano (Cano 1989; Pulido 1985). The same holds true in the case of Muslim religiolects such as Māpiḷḷa-Malayalam or Muslim Tat (“Mussulman Tati”).30 The “endowment” of Christian- and Muslim-based languages with a reservoir of religious concepts, icons and images is obvious. Finally, the standardization of Christian religiolects has typically involved a translation of Christian sacred texts, i.e. the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, Bible digests, catechisms, and liturgy. The vast majority of the translations of these sacred texts were done by Christians for a Christian readership 29 These examples reflect the Bedouin dialect of Yarim, Yemen (Fischer and Jastrow 1980). 30 See Ethnologue website. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 104 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein or for missionary purposes. The centrality of (sometimes translated) Muslim sacred texts, such as the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sira in language communities which are dominated by Muslims, is evident as well. Table 1: The prototype of Jewish-defined religiolects applied to the Christian case 1. 2. 3. Script Different traditions of orthography “Holy Tongue” elements 4. Distinct spoken varieties √ √ √ 8. (√) minority situations Production and use within religious √ community Migrated dialectalism (√) minority situations Archaic forms (√) minority situations Speakers’ view √ 9. “Spirit” 5. 6. 7. √ 10. Translations of sacred texts √ Usually Latin, or Greek-Cyrillic Lakota “absolution”, “a man after his own heart”, “apple”, etc. Christian Baghdadi Arabic By Christians, for Christians, often texts on Christian topics Christian Baghdadi Arabic Quebec and Louisiana French Lengua christiana (Castillian), cristião (Portuguese-Malay Creole), papia christam (Portuguese-Cantonese), kristi (Portuguese Creole in India) Reservoir of Christians, concepts, icons and images Armenian Bible, Vulgate, King James Bible, Luther Bible, etc. Table 2: The prototype of Jewish-defined religiolects applied to the Muslim case 1. 2. 3. Script Different traditions of orthography “Holy Tongue” elements √ √ √ 4. 5. √ √ 6. 7. Distinct spoken varieties Production and use within religious community Migrated dialectalism Archaic forms 8. Speakers’ view 9. “Spirit” (√) minority situations √ 10. Translations of sacred texts ? √ √ Usually Arabic Turkish, Arabic chat alphabet Several elements taken from Islam, such as “Allah” Muslim Arabic (dominant) varieties By Muslim, for Muslims, often texts on Muslim topics “Western” Arabic dialects, Arabic Bedouin dialects Māpiḷḷa-Malayalam and Muslim-Tat Reservoir of Muslim, concepts, icons and images The Qur’an, Hadith and Sira Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 105 Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate the application of the Jewish religiolect model to the Christian and the Muslim cases. Overall, the prototype of Christian- or Muslim-defined varieties is strikingly similar to the prototype of Jewish-defined religiolects, especially in the case of minority situations, and within limitations it may be possible to apply this model also to many other sets of religious-defined varieties or religiolects. 7 Summary This article shows how a theoretical model stemming from a linguistic analysis in the field of Jewish Studies may be “exported” into general linguistics, and applied to Christian and Muslim cases. This is an example of how the hierarchies between general disciplines and “satellite” fields can be reversed, and “minority” fields sometimes enrich general disciplines with new theoretical models. The porosity of theory is also mirrored in the porous boundaries between the various religious-defined language varieties and cultures, stressing the value of interreligious research. References Albanese, Catherine L. 1992. America: religions and religios. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Asad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of religion: discipline and reasons of power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Benbassa, Esther & Aron Rodrigue. 2000. Sephardi Jewry: a history of the Judeo-Spanish community, 14th–20th Centuries. Berkeley: University of California Press. Benor, Sarah Bunin. 2004. Second style acquisition: the linguistic socialization of newly Orthodox Jews. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. Benor, Sarah Bunin. 2009. Do American Jews speak a “Jewish language”? A model of Jewish linguistic distinctiveness. Jewish Quarterly Review 99(2). 230–269. Bentolila, Yaakov. 2003. Le processus d’hispanisation de la “hakétia” à la lumière de quelques sources littéraires. In Frank Alvarez-Péreyre & Jean Baumgarten (eds.), Linguistique des langues juives et linguistique générale, 247–265. Paris: CNRS Editions. Birnbaum, Solomon Asher. 1971. Jewish Languages. Encyclopedia Judaica 10. 66–69. Birnbaum, Solomon Asher. 1979. Yiddish: a survey and a grammar. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Blanc, Haim. 1964. Communal dialects in Baghdad. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 106 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein Blättler, Sidonia. 2002. Nationale Identität, Nationaler Gegensatz und die Geschlechterdifferenz am Beispiel Fichtes “Reden und die Deutsche Nation” (IWM Working Paper). Wien: Institut für die Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Blau, Joshua. 1999 [1966]. The emergence and linguistic background of Judaeo-Arabic: a study of the origins of Neo-Arabic and Middle Arabic, 3rd edn. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute. Blau, Joshua & Simon Hopkins. 1984. One early Judaeo-Arabic orthography. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 12. 9–27. Cano, J. M. 1989. No Hay Marcha En Nueva York. In Descanso Dominical. Madrid: Sony International. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provinicializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cienki, Alan. 1983. The use of Latin in the Holy Cross Sermon. Unpublished ms. Cristi, Marcela. 2001. From civil to political religion: the intersection of culture, religion and politics. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Erez, Yehuda (ed.). 1959. Encyclopedia of diasporas: Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv: Encyclopedia of Diasporas Publishers. Fichte, J. G. 1971 [1808]. Reden an die Deutsche Nation. In Immanuel H. Fichte (ed.), Fichtes Werke, 257–501. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). 1985. Readings in the sociology of Jewish languages. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Fishman, Joshua A. 1997. Notes. Language in Society 26: 469. Fischer, Wolfdietrich & Otto Jastrow. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Geva Kleinberger, Aharon & Benjamin Hary. 2010. Hebrew components in the Arabic of the people of ʿIsfiya. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Middle Eastern Studies Association, San Diego, 18–21 November. Giltin, Todd. 1995. The rise of identity politics. In M. Bérubé & C. Nelson (eds.), Higher education under fire, 308–325. London & New York: Routledge. Green, William Scott. 1994. The difference religion makes. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 62(4). 1191–1207. Hary, Benjamin. 1991. On the use of ʾilā and li in Judeo-Arabic texts. In Alan Kaye (ed.), Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau, 595–608. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Hary, Benjamin. 1992. Multiglossia in Judeo-Arabic: with an edition, translation, and grammatical study of the Cairene Purim Scroll. Leiden, New York & Köln: E. J. Brill. Hary, Benjamin. 1996. Adaptations of Hebrew script. In W. Bright & P. Daniels (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 727–734 & 741–742. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hary, Benjamin. 2003. Judeo-Arabic: a diachronic reexamination. International Journal for the Sociology of Language 163. 61–75. Hary, Benjamin. 2004. Jewish languages — are they sacred? In P. Bádenas de la Peña, S. Torallas Tovar, E. R. Luján & M. A. Gallego (eds.), Lenguas en contacto de la Antiguedad a la Edad Media, 225–244. Madrid: CSIC. Hary, Benjamin. 2009. Translating religion: linguistic analysis of Judeo-Arabic sacred texts from Egypt. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Hary, Benjamin. 2010. Jewish languages and migration: on the linguistic connection between religiolects and migration. Paper presented at the European Association of Jewish Studies, Ravenna, Italy, 25–29 July. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM Religiolinguistics 107 Hegel, G. W. F. 1956 [1830]. The philosophy of history. New York: Dover. Hegel, G. W. F. 1975 [1830]. Lectures on the philosophy of world history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herder, J. G. 1966 [1784–1791]. Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit. Darmstadt: Melzer. Hirschfeld, Hartwig. 1891. Review of D. S. Margoliouth’s “A commentary of Daniel by Jephet ibn Ali the Karaite”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4. 330–336. Hirschfeld, Hartwig. 1917/1918. Early Karaite critics of the Mishnāh. Jewish Quarterly Review (New Series) 8. 157–188. Israel, Jonathan I. 1989. European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism 1550–1750. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Inside Higher Ed. 2005. The New Jewish Studies. http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/ 12/21jewish (accessed 21 December 2005). Khan, Geoffrey. 1990. Karaite Bible manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levi, Primo. 1984. The Periodic Table. New York: Schocken Books. Liebman, Charles S. & Eliezer Don-Yehiya. 1983. Civil religion in Israel: traditional Judaism and political culture in the Jewish state. Berkeley: University of California Press. López-Morillas, Consuelo. 1994. Textos aljamiados sobre la vida de Mahoma: El Profeta de los moriscos. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional. McCutcheon, Russell T. 2001. Critics not caretakers: redescribing the public study of religion. Albany: SUNY Press. Olender, Maurice. 1992. Languages of Paradise: race, religion and philology in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press. Power, William K. 1990. Comment on the politics of orthography. American Anthropologist (New Series) 92(2). 496–498. Pulido, Javier G. 1985. La “Catalanofobia” expresión ideológica de masas del espańolismo. Revista Nación Andaluza 4(Mayo). 47–63. Rabin, Haim. 1979. Ha-leshonot ha-yehudiyot: ha-meshutaf, ha-meyuhad ve-ha-be‘ayati [Jewish languages: the common, the unique and the problematic]. Pe‘amim 1. 40–66. Rosenbaum, Gabriel. 1990. Milim ‘ivriyot u-sfat starim shel tzorfim karaim be-fi yehudim ve-lo yehudim be-mitzrayim ha-modernit [Hebrew words and Karaite Goldsmiths’ secret language used by Jews and non-Jews in modern Egypt]. Pe‘amim 90. 115–153. Schiffman, Harold F. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. London & New York: Routledge. Schwarzwald, Ora (Rodrugue). 2002. Judeo-Spanish Studies. In M. Goodman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Jewish Studies, 572–600.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sebba, Mark. 2007. Spelling and society: the culture and politics of orthography around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Anthony D. 1993. Ethnic sources of nationalism. Survival 35(1). 48–62. Sole, Aryeh. 1959. Between the two world wars. In Yehuda Erez (ed.), Encyclopedia of eiasporas: Subcarpathian Ruthenia, 139–226. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv: Encyclopedia of Diasporas Publishers. Spira, Thomas. 1999. Nationalism and Ethnicity terminologies: an encyclopedic dictionary and research guide. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press. Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM 108 Benjamin Hary and Martin J. Wein Stillman, Norman. 1991. Language patterns in Islamic and Judaic societies. In Steve Wasserstrom (ed.), Islam and Judaism: 1400 years of shared values, 41–55. Portland: Institute for Judaic Studies in the Pacific Northwest. Sunshine, Andrew. 1993. History of Jewish interlinguistics: a preliminary outline. In K. R. Jankowsky (ed.), History of linguistics, 75–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wasserstrom, Steve. 1995. Between Muslim and Jew: the problem of symbiosis under Early Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wein, Martin J. 2009. Chosen Peoples, Holy Tongues: religion, language, nationalism and politics in Bohemia and Moravia in the seventeenth to twentieth Centuries. Past and Present 202. 37–81. Weinreich, Max. 1945. Der Yivo un di problemen fun unzer tsayt [Yivo and the problems of our time. Yivo-Bleter 25(1). 3–18. Weinreich, Max. 1980. A history of the Yiddish language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wexler, Paul. 1981. Jewish interlinguistics: facts and conceptual framework. Language 57(1). 99–149. Wikipedia. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_chat_alphabet (accessed 2 August 2010). Authenticated | benjamin.hary@emory.edu author's copy Download Date | 3/19/13 2:50 AM