yesS dey 'avoda, yeS maspik 'avoda, where day is considered slightly more leamed than ..... Lastudent (1-2). Jerusalem: Hebrew. University. Chayen, Moshe.
Fall,1986. B.H.H.E.
NAPH
HebrewGrammar:WishfulTeaching Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald Languages,Literatures,and Linguistics York University, North York, Canada and Departmentof Hebrew and semitic Languages Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan,Israel Absract Hebrew teachers are often challenged by the dilemma resulting from the gap betrveen the grammaticaly "correct" Modern Hebrew and the Israeli Hebrew actually used by native speaken. The gaps apply to all grammatical and lexical areas:pholonogy, morphology, syntax, and word choice. Some textbooks resolve this dilemma by presenting the colloquial uses as part of systematic Modern Hebrew, while others include only the "correct" grammatical forms and the students have to confront the other kind of Hebrew outside the classroom. The problem, both theoreticaland pedagogical,will be discussedhere. The basic method suggestedin this paper to avoid the problem will incorporatediglossictechniques. 1 Introduction The Authentic Language Standardsprinciple is our concern here. What is the authentic Hebrew standard?How could it be described and according to which norms? What are the nonns and who sets them? Researchersand teachersagree on the Hebrew standard of the educated native speaker, namely Hebrew spoken by high-school (at least) graduate native speakers(Rosen 1957, Chayen 1972), Donag-Kinrot 1975). However, this standard of the language is not unique and there are many standard varieties. The speakers themselves do not agree on the linguistic matters and they range from more conservative with conscious notions about language, to less conservative with more permissiveness in languagestandards. In the following paragraphsI shall list several examplesto demostratethe range of varieties regarding various phenomena,from formal to non-formal standardHebrew.[2] Although the
examples are classified according to the various linguistic areas (i.e., phonology, morphology, synftu, etc.), it must be kept in mind that not always is there a clear-cut distinction betweenthem. 2 Examples 2.1 Phonology
The pronunciationof 'ayin and Het: Chayen (1972)claimsthat educatedHebrewincludes no pharyngealconsonants,whereasMorag (1973)arguesthattheydo exist. l. The pronunciation of the spirantized consonantsb-v, p-f, k-x in words like litfor, litfos, Sabur,letalfen'to sew, to catch, broken, to telephone',etc., as opposedto formal litpor, litpos, Savur, letalpen (Ben-Horin & Bolozky 1972, Ornan 1973,Fischler1975,Schwarzwald r976).
l'--
NAPH
2. The pronunciationof the so-calledSva na' 'schwa mobile' is no longer madein all the classical environments, but oniy (a) between homo-organic consonants, e.g. 'constancy,she tedirut, hisesa, Safateti hesitated,I judged' (cf. Sxixut, dibra, xaSavti 'frequency,she spoke,I thought'), (b) after a two-consonant cluster, e.g. 'you (f,sg) will lie down, tiSkevi, nigmera 'you she (was) finished' (cf. teSvi, gamra (f,sg)will sit, shefinished),and (c) in some initial consonantclusters.The same is true for the realization of the dageS xazak 'Dagesh fortis' which is pronounced as geminate morpheme only across boundaries,and not within words. 3. The currentpronunciationof x for both Kaf and Het neutralizes some morphophonemic distinctions, hence pronunciations like 'forget (m,pl) Soxaxim, 'oraxat din lawyer (f;' (from , [3] occur insteadof Soxexim, din. 2.2 Morphophonemics
'you (pl,m) wrote,studies',wherethe frst in eachpair is colloquialand the secondis the formal variety. The different forms require different stress pattern, penultimate in the colloquial ones, and ultimate in the formal ones. 1. Sometextbooksmark the two varietiesin the Pa'al pattern,but thereis no indication to the sffessformal shift in any of the other verb patterns.E.g., the forms hitxaltem, sipartem 'you (m,pl) began, told' axe written without any referenceto the stress in theverb(Coffin 1977). 2. Future weak verb forms: tilex/telex, 'you (m) will go, we will sit' niSev/neSev areoftenin free variationsin speech. person future 3. First yavo/?avo'I'll forms:?edaber/?adaber, speak,I'11 come' are frequentlyused in speechin freevariations. 4. The inflectionof prepositions suchas ?et, tim, min, ?el 'accusativemarker, with, from,to'. E.g.,
The varieties of the prefixed particles, especiallybe-, le-, ke-, ve-, mi-, 'in, to, as, and, from' in the various environments. Instead of formal ba?anaSim, litsdaka, kimsaper, umatay, mexe(y)fa 'in men, to charity, as a story teller, and when, from Haifa' one often hean be?anaSim, [4] letsdaka, kemesaper, vematay, mixe(y)fa (Efrat 1981,Schwarzwald1984a). 1. The vocalizations of Hif il pattern in Primae-nun or Hollow-verb roots is interchangeable, e.g. mapil/mepil, mavi/mevi, makir/mekir, makim/mekim 'drop, bring, know, raise' from the roots np-1, b-w-?, n-k-r, k-w-m, insteadof formal mapil, mevi, makir, mekim. (Schwarzwald1984b).
- ?oti, ?otxa,?otex/?otax, ?otxen/?etxen ... ?otxem/?etxem, - ?iti, ?itxa. ?itax, 'imxa,'imax)
(not: 'imi,
- mimeni,mimxa, mimeno/mimenu, ..., me?itanu/mimeru, mimxen/mikem, ...,mehem,... - ?elay,..., ?ele(y)xem/?aleyx€r, ..., hem,... ?ele(y) hem/?ale(y) 5. The forms printed with bold characters vary. The first onesare colloquial, and the othersareformal, morelearnedones.
6. The futurefeminineplural formstixtovna, tilmadna 'you (f,pl) or they (0 will write, Secondperson plural, past tense conjugation: study' are hardly heard in colloquial katavtem/ktavem. lamadetem/lemadetem Hebrew.They are actuallyreplacedby the 2.3 Morphology
-8-
masculine forms: tilmedu/yilmedu.
-9-
NAPH
B.H.H.E.Fall,1986.
form, without caringaboutthe grammatical agreement[5] 'with/by' 3. The prepositionalequivalentof 'im in Hebrew is or be-. In colloquial Hebrewtheuseof im is morewidespread:
tixtevu/yixtevu,
2.4 Morphosyntax The use of ?e(y)ze in phrases like ?e(y)ze 'itonim,?e(y)zetalmida'some newspapers, what a student (0', is replaced in formal normative Hebrew by?e(y)lu 'itonoim, ?e(y)zo talmida. The morpheme ?e(y)ze is used invariably in colloquial Hebrew, with no syntax agreement.Rosen (1966b) and Cole et al (1975) bring the colloquial use in their textbook, but only Rosen refers to the formal variety, too.
'im - nasati leyeruSalayim ' Jerusalem by car'
I
hamexonit went to
- katavti 'im 'et ' I wrotewith a pen' - hu ?axal 'im sakin vemazleg'he atewith a knife anda fork' - lexem 'im xem?a 'bread with butter'
2.5 Syntax The constructionsyeS Ii ?et ha- 'I have the', and ?e(y)n li ?et ha- 'I do not have the' are commonly used by speakers. Normativists object to this structure claiming that the definite noun is actually the grammatical subject of the sentence,and as such it could not be preceded by the accusativemarker ?et. However, the speakersperceive the definite noun as the direct object, and therefore, use the accusative marker. Rosen (1966b) discussesa variety of syntactic usagesof the predicate yeS, but he avoids the question of the accusativemarker ?et following it. This question is referred by him at length in 'ivrit tova (1966a). 1. Negation by ?e(y)n/lo in non-finite verb clauses differ. Variances such as hu ?e(y)no Somea/hulo Somea 'He doesnot hear',?e(y)nenibabayit/?anilo babayit'I am not home' are both in use. The first in each pair is common to a literary style, whereasthe secondto a colloquial style.
4. FormalHebrewusesbe- in all thesecases: nasatibamxonitliruSalayim. katavtibe'et hu ?axalbesakinuvmazleg. lexembexem?a. 5 . ln colloquialHebrewbiglal Se- 'because' is often used instead of mipne(y) Se-, mike(y)van S€-, miSum Se-, ki. In normativeHebrewbiglal mustbe followed by a noun.The sameappliesto lamrot, 'al ?af vs. ?af Se-,?af 'al pi Se-'in spiteof'. The former expressionsprecede a noun phrase in formal Hebrew, whereas the latter expressionsprecede a sentential clause.In colloquialHebrew,lamrot and 'al ?af are often precededby Se- and a sentential clause. 2.6 Lexicon
2. The masculine numbers from 3 to 10 are quite confusing in Hebrew, becausethey have a stressed -a ending, like ordinary feminine nouns and adjectives. 8.g., xamiSa ?anaSim/xameS naSim 'five men/five women'. Many native speakersas well as second languagelearnerssimplify the situation by opting for feminine short
1. The questionin the case of the words maspik/day:is syntacticaswell aslexical. Their choice entails different normative yeS ?or maspik,yeS syntacticstructures: kis?ot[6]maspikim,yeS 'avodamaspika versusyeSdey[7]?or, yeSdeykis?ot,yeS dey 'avoda 'thereis enoughlight, thereare enoughchairs,there is enoughwork'. In colloquial Hebrew they are used
-9-
J--
NAPH
B.H.H.E.Fall, 1986.
indifferently as yeS dey ?or, yeS maspik ?or, yeS dey kis?ot, yeS maspik kis?ot, yesS dey 'avoda, yeS maspik 'avoda, where day is considered slightly more leamed than maspik. Radday (1965) uses these normative forms (p. 58), whereas Rosen (1966) uses the colloquial form (p. 40).
l . Some bring both formal and colloquial forms as examples 5 (prefixed particles) in Rosen (1966b, pp. 150-152, 154), Coffin (1977, pp. 92-93, 132-134), example 7 (2nd pl. past forms in Coffin (1977, pp. 209 ff.), and Rosen (1966b, p. 79[8]), example l0 (?et inflection) in Coffin (1977, p. 198) and Rosen (1966b, pp. 157-158),example11 (f,pl future)in Rosen (1966b, p. 71, 275191), example 19 (lama/maduain Rosen(1966b,pp. 25, 106, 137[10],234, andmore.)
The ciassical distinction between madua '*hy, for what reason',and lama 'why, for what purpose' dces not exist anymore.The word madua is used in literary style in its former meaning, whereas lama is utilized in speechfor both meanings. J.
- 10-
Othersbring only one variety, either (a) the colloquial,as in Cole et al (1979, book 2, pp. 89, 107, 123, 154), Coffin (1917, p. 422 ff .), Blum & Ashuri (1977)U11,BenSheffer& Rosen(1967,pp.115,120)in the future plural feminine forms, Cole et al in the preposition inflection (1979, p. 175, 215), or (b) only the formal form as in Radday (1965), Feinstein (1973), Kamhi (1982), Levy (1970) throughout the entire books, Ben-Sheffer & Rosen (1967) in example L2 (?e(y)zel?e(y)zo)(p. 45), example7 (past2nd pl) (p.77).
The utilization of foreign words such as patent/hamtsa?a'patent', doktor/rofe 'doctor, physician' raises the question regarding the extent to which loan words are allowed in regularHebrew speech.
4. The basic first question taught in all the textbooks is ma Simxa/Smex? 'what's your (r/0 name?', although the more common expression is ?e(y)x Kor?im lexa/lax (literally: how do people call you?'). This expression is hardly mentionedin the textbooks.
3. Some phenomenaare handled in the same mannerin all textbooks,namely, either by ignoring the phenomena,e.9., kor?im , yeS li ?et? or by bringing only the normative forms,e.g.,numerals.
2.7 Summary The above examples are just a sample of the discrepancies between colloquial and normative Hebrew. They are not unique in nature because they range from spoken colloquial to spokenformal Hebrew or from a 'iterary spokenvariety to a one. Nevertheless, they do representt.,e gaps existing between the daily usageof I ebrew and the normative requirements. The question is how the textbooks designatei to teach Hebrew as a secondlanguagecopewith thesegaps?
4 Normativism Any referenceto normative standardsis bound to involve evaluationandjudgement.Defining the standardis a very difficult task.It involves emotional subjective criteria as well as linguistic objective measurements.This is why the readersprobably varied in their views regarding the examples presented above, depending on their evaluative standards. Therefore the question of what is authentic Hebrew standardis difficult to solve.
3 Attitudes in Textbooks Textbooks assigned to teach Hebrew as a secondlanguagevary:
There is no general uniform consensus regarding authentic Hebrew standards.Some linguists,researchers,and Hebrew teachersare stricter than others. Some oppose foreign
10-
11
NAPH
B.H.H.E.Fall, 1986.
there is a general phenomenonthat can handle many case,let it be taught rather than several single phenomenathat do the same.Thus, for example, the choice of lo to negate nominal sentences is prepferable to teaching both ?e(y)nand lo. On one hand, it is supportedby some classicalHebrew sourcgs.On the other hand, the teacherdoes not have to deal with unfamiliar constructions and several inflectional forms suchas:
influence very strongly while others accept it as a natural processof languagechange.Some are very careful in phonological and morphological matters and set these requirements for others too. Others are focused on syntactic matters and comment on lexical choicesonly in casesof ambiguity. Moreover, the normative requirements are not accepted by all. Ben-Asher's book (1969) proves this point. He demonstrates how different grammarians approach the same controversialissue and how each solves the problem by allowing or disallowing certain usages.It is interestingto observein this book how certain grammarians change their attitudes at different points in their lifetime (pp.32-33,4I-43).
?e(y) + NP + nominal predicate (?e(y)nhu Somea)NP + conjugated ?e(yOn+ nominal predicate (hu ?e(y)noSomea/hu?e(y)nenuSomea) SinceIo is well known as a negativeformative in general,it can be usedsimply in
Finally, since the justifications for each normative requirement are mainly extralingual the rationalefor the standartizationsis not unique. In many cases the decisions are subjectiveand they changefrom one period to another, and from one group of speakers to instance, the phonetic another. For requirementto pronounceHet, 'ayin, Sva na', and dageS xazak was abandonedyears ago. People are not that particular about avoiding foreign words, and copying foreign phraseologyhas actually become fashionable in modern Hebrew.
hu 1oSomea as well as in other constructions. The same simplicity principle applies, for instance,to feminine plural future forms such as tixtovna, tilmadna 'you (f. pl.) or they (l) will write, study'. They are rarely used today and hardly attested in Mishnaic Hebrew. therefore, the student does not need to memorize theseforms.
5 Teaching and normativism None of the textbooks used for Hebrew languageteachingis consistentin all linguistic matters.The authors themselvesbring their personal preferences to their books. They might be permissive in some questions, forbidding in others,and still ignoring in some other delicatematters.Their attitudescould be understood in the light of the above discussion. However, pedagogical and teaching methodology should be taken into considerationas well.
must Simplification taken into be considerationin lexical choicesas well. In the first stagesof languageacquisition,there is no point in imposing synonyms. Therefore, the teachershould opt for the more common word and this word is the one to be taught without the nuancesother expressionsmight have. the study of synonymsor parallei semi-equivalent expressionsshould be delayed to a later stage of the languageinstruction.
From a methodological point of view, it is simpler not to impose too many close or similar forms on the students' memorv. If
u
6 Solution The implementation of authentic language standardprinciple underpins our discussion . Throughout the paper we have demonstrated that it is difficult to determine what the authenticHebrew standardis. Up to this point we have just describedthe dilemma. Now we shall proposea possiblesolution.
B . H . H . EF . a l l ,1 9 8 6 .
NAPH
The existing discrepencies in Hebrew resemble a diglossia situation, where two languages, or two varieties of the same language, are assigned to different sociolinguisticsituations.As in the case of diglossia, the students must learn both communication systems and use them accordingly.
t2-
instruction, the colloquial usage will be stressed because of the communicative necessitiesof the students. However, these books must include the formal nonnative varietiesas well in order to enablethe student to recognizethe oral and written styles and to distinguishbetweenvariousHebrew registers.
Our solution is, therefore, a combination of both Hebrew varieties in the textbooks, namely, textual presentationof both formal and colloquial Hebrew forms next to each other (supported, of course, by formal instruction). This solution is verv similar to what is already widely in use in Rbsen's Textbook of Israeii hebrew (1966b),and sporadicallyin Coffin's Lessons in Modern Hebrew (1977). Rosen calls the two types of Hebrew "Colloquial and Classicizingstyles." Coffin talks about formal or literary Hebrew versusspokenor colloquial varieties. However, they both refer to the discrepenciesthat exist in standardlanguage usage. By teachingonly the colloquial variety (as in Cole et al L975), the studentswill never be able to encounter literarv or classical swle. When there is no referenc-eto the more formal variety, the students will have a hard time strugglingwith literary texts or even with texts produced by mass communication (radio, television, newspapers).On the other hand, texts that presentonly formal Hebrew will not enable students to cope with the authentic spoken laguage.they will have a hard time communicating with native Israeli speakers and their languagewill sound,as the common Hebrew expressionssay, as 'ivrit Sel Sabat 'hebrew of Sabbath.
Secondlanguageteachinghas a side-effecton the learners.They becomemore linguistically aware of the structure of their native language as well as that of the new language taught. Contrastive analyses prove that the mother tongue helps the second language leamers when the languagesresemble,but it can also hold them back from acquiring new pafferns (inhibition or interference)becauseof partial similarity or total dissimilarity between the languages(Fisiak 1981). By experienceingthe diglossic situationin the classroom,the studentwill realize that it is not unique to the second language they Ne learning; it is relevant to their own language as well. @nglish speakers will discuss phenomenasuch as: he ain'V he is not, gotcha/ I've got you, gona go/ I am, you are going to go, you and me/ you and I, etc.).
7 Addendum After completing this paper I came acrossB. Edward Gesner'sarticle (1986), in which he discussedsecondlanguageteachingproblems from a French Canadian teacher'spoint of view. Many of the problems are quite similar to thosediscussedin this paper. It seemsthat the authentic language standarddefinition is difficult, no matter what the languageis and, consequently,it is a problem teachersof any secondlanguagehaveto solve.
The empahsison the formal versuscolloquial varietieswill differ in the books dependingon the ultimate goals of Hebrew instruction.In Footnotes books designated to teach Hebrew as a *This is an expandedversionof a paperread Foreign Language (FL), the formal variety will be stressedbecausethe communicative at the 1986NationalConference function is less effective and the studentsare in University Teachingof Hebrew Language primarily required to read Hebrew texts. In and Literature, New York University, May books assignedfor Second Language (SL) 18-201 . 986.
t2
B.H.H.E.Fall,1986.
NAPH
[1] Diller (1978) presentsa more extreme view aboutthe language: "A languageis what its native speakers say, not what someone thinksthey ought to say." (p. 17). [2] Formal Hebrew is determined here by morphophonemic and literary noffns listed in school grammar books and often discussedby the Academy of the Hebrew Language, by teachers,and by linguists, based on classical standardsand usedin fact by languageeditors. 'trade (m, pl)' and [3] Compare: soxarim ?oraxat'guest'from ,
