Na'ama Pat-El

Introduction: Contact Among Genetically Related Languages

The study of language contact has blossomed in the last several decades, especially since the publication of Uriel Weinreich’s ground-breaking Languages in Contact 60 years ago (Weinreich, 1953). Linguists have come to see contact as one of the most important mechanisms of language change, with some going so far as to suggest that contact is the principal catalyst for change (e.g., Dixon, 1997). While the extent to which language contact should be given primacy in models of language change is debated (see, e.g., Bowern, 2010 for discussion), there is no question that the effects of contact are of critical importance to our understanding of language change and relationship, and that they provide intriguing insights into past interactions among peoples. The relevance of contact has been recognized by linguists for well over a century—the German linguist Hugo Schuchardt famously declared in the 1880s that there is no language completely free of foreign influence (Schuchardt, 1884).1 However, the scientific study of language contact gained its most solid foundation considerably later, with the publication of Weinreich’s (1953) seminal book; this work treated contact-induced change systematically according to the grammatical categories involved (lexicon, phonology, morphology, syntax, etc.) and the probability of transference within them, i.e., movement of features

Contact or Inheritance? Criteria for distinguishing internal and external change in genetically related languages

Several prominent scholars have recently doubted whether it is possible to differentiate borrowing from internal change, to the point that in some cases subgrouping is not feasible or is restricted (Dench, 2001; Dixon, 2001). Since a situation of prolonged and intense contact between closely related languages is very common, language contact and its results are a major problem if not a real hazard to historical linguistics. The main practical problem is how to differentiate internal changes, changes motivated by internal processes, from external changes, changes due to language contact, when the structure of the languages is so similar. In other words, how do we know which linguistic form is the source of the change: one of the attested languages, or the mother of both of them? In this paper, I suggest two preliminary criteria to isolate the source language in cases of contact: 1) the existence of intermediary stages, and 2) an even spread of the change across categories. I will show, using test cases from the Semitic language family that these criteria can help us distinguish between internal and external changes.

Features of Archaic Biblical Hebrew and the Linguistic Dating Debate

As is well known to readers of this journal, some scholars have recently claimed that biblical texts cannot be dated on the basis of their linguistic features. The core of their claims is collected in Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. This book primarily challenges the linguistic distinction between Classical or Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew, which a number of prominent scholars, such as Robert Polzin, Avi Hurvitz, and Jan Joosten have advocated. The crux of their argument is that linguistic differences between texts can be attributed to non-historical factors, such as differences of style and dialect. Recently, Robyn Vern has published another book based on a dissertation supervised by Ian Young denying the possibility of linguistic dating, this time concentrating specifically on the alleged linguistic distinction between archaic poetry and standard poetry. She offers arguments against the methodology used for linguistic dating and eventually concludes that style is a more likely explanation for the difference between “archaic” and “standard poetry.” While she deals with a different genre and time frame than Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd do, she suggests that her conclusions, namely that dating is untenable, are representative of the methodology as a whole. In the following we will review and evaluate Vern’s arguments. We will then suggest a number of features which we believe are characteristic of archaic poetry. The methodology underlying linguistic dating will not be discussed

Israelian Hebrew: A Re-Evaluation

The biblical text implies that the language of the southern and northern monarchies differed, though with the exception of one anecdotal story no specifics are offered. While the hypothetical existence of a number of dialects is widely accepted, several scholars have claimed that there is actual evidence for at least two, possibly three, dialects in the text of the Hebrew Bible. In order to substantiate this claim a long list of grammatical features has been suggested over the past three decades. In this paper I will evaluate the evidence purported to prove the existence of Hebrew dialects, and show that it is weak and does not support the dialectal hypothesis.

The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel: An Explanation in the Context of Grammaticalization (review)

ing a “new” major specimen of this corpus available. Penchansky is primarily interested in canonical (and deutero-canonical) wisdom texts, which is fine (although an exclusively biblical focus is not conveyed by the title Understanding Wisdom Literature), but an author who attempts to sketch out the development of wisdom literature in the Hellenistic period should examine all the key examples of this genre from this era. Additionally, 4QInstruction has much in common with both Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, none of which fits well with the author’s dismissive understanding of these two compositions. These criticisms notwithstanding, readers can benefit from this book. The often idiosyncratic arguments of the author can spark debate (and perhaps even conflict and dissonance) in the field about how to interpret ancient Jewish wisdom texts.

Traces of Aramaic Dialectal Variation in Late Biblical Hebrew

This paper discusses some uses of the particle lmh in Late Biblical Hebrew and suggests that its varying uses reflect an Aramaic calque which can best be explained in light of the different syntax of this particle in East and West Aramaic dialects.