Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew

What it is about

A programmatic essay: Classical Hebrew is known only in writing, so formal (generative) methods built on speech and intuition fit it badly; it should be studied as a social product of scribes, institutions and ideologies. Writing is conservative and can invent archaisms; spelling choices often signal identity rather than sound (Old Aramaic ʾrq → ʾrʿ versus Hebrew ʾrṣ). Schniedewind lists social events that should leave traces in the language: Assyrian conquest (Akkadian loanwords from the late 8th century), Persian Aramaic administration, Hasmonean nationalism. He argues that change is easiest to measure in spelling and script, then in the lexicon; syntax and the verb change slowly and are hard to date; written complexity (subordination) may grow with literacy.

Ideas

I1. A spelling profile per book and per passage: share of plene versus defective spellings of frequent words (e.g. holem with or without waw) from the WLC text; report it next to the linguistic dating variables, as a separate, conservative signal.
I2. A loanword layer in the Torah dictionary: tag Egyptian, Akkadian and Persian loans (from BDB's notes) so that their distribution can be counted by book.
I4. A note in the grammar that our data is a written, scribal register; spoken features cannot be read off it directly.

For Mova

I3. Measure subordination density (subordinate clauses per 100 clauses: advcl, acl:relcl, ccomp) per book and genre in the trees, as Schniedewind's literacy gauge.

I1 and I3 are measures on the Torah trees (tools/macula); I2 is a column in the dictionary builder; I1–I4 go into languages/hbo/12-biblical-mishnaic-modern.md (stages, dating) and 10-lexicon.md (loanwords).

Institutions

🎓University of California, Los AngelesLos Angeles ·

United States44 works · 52,306 citations

Topics Hebrew & Aramaic Semitic languages

Cite

Cite as William M. Schniedewind. 2004. Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5.

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5508/jhs.2004.v5.a6

@article{schniedewind2004prolegomena,
  title = {{Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew}},
  author = {William M. Schniedewind},
  journal = {Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5},
  year = {2004},
  doi = {10.5508/jhs.2004.v5.a6},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2004.v5.a6}
}

References

4 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

Press, 1977); The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); W. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (Padstow, Cornwall: T. J. Press, 1982); “Writing is a Technology That Restructures Thought,” in The Written Word: Literacy in Transition (ed. Gerd Baumann; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 23-50. find
For the distinction between illiterate and non-literate see B. Holbek, “What the Illiterate Think of Writing,” in Literacy and Society (eds. K. Schousboe and M. Larsen; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989), pp. 183-96. find
Bloomfield, Language, p. 291. Bloomfield, Language, p. 292. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999), pp. 235-252; and, “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers At the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. find
Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 245-255. Also see J. Joosten, find

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/schniedewind-2005-prolegomena-sociolinguistics-classical-hebrew/

📄 Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew