Yiddish was the everyday language spoken by most Central and East European Jews during the last millennium. As a result of the extreme loss of speakers during the Holocaust, subsequent geographic dispersal, and lack of institutional support, Yiddish is now an endangered language. Yet it continues to be a native and daily language for Haredi (strictly Orthodox) Jews, who live in close-knit communities worldwide. We have conducted the first study of the linguistic characteristics of the Yiddish spoken in the community in London’s Stamford Hill. While Krogh (in: Aptroot, Aptroot et al. (eds.) Leket: Yiddish studies today, Düsseldorf University Press, Düsseldorf, pp 483–506, 2012), Assouline (in: Aptroot, Hansen (eds.) Yiddish language structures, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp 39–62, 2014), and Sadock and Masor (J Jew Lang 6(1):89–110, 2018), investigating other Hasidic Yiddish-speaking communities, observe what they describe as morphological syncretism, in this paper we defend the claim that present-day Stamford Hill Hasidic Yiddish lacks morphological case and gender completely. We demonstrate that loss of morphological case and gender is the result of substantial language change over the course of two generations: while the case and gender system of the spoken medium was already beginning to undergo morphological syncretism and show some variation prior to World War II, case and gender distinctions were clearly present in the mental grammar of both Hasidic and non-Hasidic speakers of the relevant Yiddish dialects at that stage. We conclude the paper by identifying some of the language-internal, sociolinguistic and historical factors that have contributed to such rapid and pervasive language change, and compare the developments in Stamford Hill Hasidic Yiddish to those of minority German dialects in North America.

The loshn koydesh (Hebrew and Aramaic) component has historically influenced the development of Yiddish lexis and grammar. We examine its contemporary use among 26 native speakers of contemporary Hasidic Yiddish from Israel, New York, and London using a written questionnaire examining the gender of loshn koydesh nouns, periphrastic verbs with a Hebrew/Aramaic element, and adjectives derived from the loshn koydesh element of periphrastics. Our findings show that there are differences on both the geographical and gender axes, many of which are consistent with the speakers’ varied exposure to Modern Hebrew, English, and loshn koydesh. We also found that the loshn koydesh component has developed since the pre-War stage of the language in ways that seem to affect contemporary Hasidic Yiddish usage in all locations and for both genders. We take these developments to provide evidence for the existence of this newly emergent variety of Yiddish – Contemporary Hasidic Yiddish.

Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun precedes both (Giurgea 2009, Adger 2012. This observation may suggest an analysis in terms of X-bar-style 'structural layering'. However, such an account faces several problems: (i) in languages with PP-AP-N order, scrambling of the AP is permitted, (ii) in languages with AP-N-PP order or PP-N-AP order, there is evidence that the AP can c-command the PP, as well as the other way around, and (iii) in languages with N-AP-PP order, the AP can take scope over the PP, as well as the other way around, arguably as a consequence of a structural ambiguity. We therefore develop an alternative analysis based on a striking parallel between the syntax of attributive APs and that of objects: while OV languages systematically allow adverbs to intervene between object and verb, VO languages tend to require verb-object-adverb order. This aspect of verbal syntax is familiar and can be captured in terms of a well-known linear constraint: Case Adjacency (Stowell 1981; Janke and Neeleman 2012). We propose that this constraint has a nominal counterpart that ensures N-AP adjacency in noun-initial structures. Thus, this instance of NP/VP parallelism has its source in parallel constraints, rather than parallel structural layers.Keywords: AP adjacency, PP peripherality, Attribution, Case Adjacency Parallels between nominal and verbal structuresSimilarities between nominal and verbal grammar have been a theme in generative research since at least Lees 1960. Lees observed that clauses like the army destroyed the city and nominalizations like the army's destruction of the city display certain syntactic and semantic parallels. For example, the event denoting word is preceded in both structures by an agentive phrase and followed by a patient. Moreover, both structures seem to allow passivization (as in the city was destroyed by the army and the city's destruction by the army).Perhaps the most influential account of such parallels is given in Chomsky 1970. In this paper, Chomsky introduces X-bar theory, an abstract system of projection that applies to both

This article documents a recent project translating COVID-19 information into Yiddish for the benefit of the Hasidic Jewish communities in London’s Stamford Hill and in Manchester in the UK. The translation work developed as a response to the urgent need for Yiddish-language resources specifically designed for the Hasidic community near the beginning of the pandemic. The translations were undertaken by a team consisting of linguists and native speakers of Hasidic Yiddish and took place within the framework of a research project funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, dedicated to linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis of contemporary Hasidic Yiddish worldwide. In this article we discuss the sociolinguistic background to the translations and investigate the reasons why they were so urgently needed, before going on to address the issues encountered during the course of the translation process and the decisions taken in order to resolve them. These issues include the type of Yiddish chosen for the translations, the translation of medical terminology, gender-based linguistic differences affecting the translations, and specific cultural considerations that needed to be taken into account.

We argue, following Barros and Vicente (2011), that right-node raising (RNR) results from either ellipsis or multidominance. Four considerations support this claim. (i) RNR has properties of ellipsis and of multidominance. (ii) Where these are combined, the structure results from repeated RNR: a pivot created through ellipsis contains a right-peripheral secondary pivot created through multidominance. (iii) In certain circumstances, one or the other derivation is blocked, so that RNR behaves like pure ellipsis or pure multidominance. (iv) Linearization of RNR-as-multidominance requires pruning. The same pruning operation delivers RNR-as-ellipsis, which explains why the two derivations must meet the same ordering constraints.