The Influence of English on Afrikaans

[p. 55]

2.2 Definitions of the term anglicism

Before explaining how the term anglicism is used in this book, it is important to see how it has been interpreted by others who have written on the phenomenon in Afrikaans and to compare various dictionary definitions of the term:

2.2.1 Dictionary definitions

WAT (1950):

‘Enige verskynsel in 'n taal, veral 'n woord of wending, wat, hoewel dit na die uiterlik inheems lyk, so gevorm of gebesig word dat dit 'n Engelse model navolg, in stryd met die aard of idioom (taaleie) van die betrokke taal; barbarisme uit Engels afkomstig: 'n Anglisisme is nie verwerplik bloot omdat dit 'n Engelsheid is nie, maar omdat dit in die meeste gevalle iets inheems bedreig of verdring...’ (followed by a substantial list of the sorts of influence and examples.)

WAT's definition of a barbarisme is as follows:

‘Woord of uitdrukking wat in klank en uiterlike vorm inheems is, maar in betekenis, vorming of samevoeging so in stryd met die [Afr.] taaleie is en so 'n duidelike navolging van die idioom van 'n ander taal vertoon dat dit aanstoot gee: “Hy hardloop 'n besigheid in Kaapstad”, is 'n barbarisme van die ergste graad.’

HAT (1965):

‘Engelse idioom wat letterlik in 'n ander taal nagevolg is, bv. hy groei blomme i.p.v. kweek.’

HAT (1983):

‘Vorm wat onder Engelse invloed in 'n ander taal opgeneem word; ook, sodanige vorm wat in stryd is met die sisteem van die ontlenende taal.’

[p. 56]

WNT (1949):

‘Uitdrukking die aan het Engelsch eigen is en die in een andere taal wordt overgenomen, in strijd met het idioom van die taal.’

VAN DALE (1984):

‘Woord, uitdrukking of constructie naar het Engels gevormd of eruit overgenomen, in stryd met het taaleigen van de overnemende taal.’

OED (1933):

‘1. Anglicised language, such as the introduction of English idiom into a sentence in another language, hence, a peculiarity of the English language, an idiom specially English.
2. An English characteristic or fashion.
3. English political principles or methods of administration.’

Shorter Oxford (1984):

‘1. Anglicised language, hence, an idiom specially English.
2. An English fashion 1787.
3. English political principles or methods 1873.’

HAT and Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls (7th edition) spell Anglisisme with a capital letter, the latter in accordance with E (Ideologie) in the chapter on capital letters. WAT did not capitalise it in 1950 nor did the first edition of HAT in 1965. Because all lemmas are capitalised in WNT and OED, it is not immediately obvious what these dictionaries recommend; an accompanying text in WNT implies it favours a capital letter in Dutch, whereas usage in English would seem to suggest that OED would favour a small letter. The word is seldom, if ever, encountered in English with a capital letter and these days never spelt with a small letter in Afrikaans. The latest Van Dale (1984) in three volumes gives the word a small letter and one never sees it written with a capital letter anymore in Dutch, although it does occur in older texts, for example: De Vooys used it in 1914 but was no longer using it in 1925. (cf. bibliography) General practice and the main prescriptive works in the English, Dutch and Afrikaans speaking areas ultimately suggest, despite some inconsistency in the past, that anglicism be written with a small a in English, anglicisme with a small a in Dutch and Anglisisme with a capital a in Afrikaans. Personally I find the inconsistency lamentable and also favour a small a in Afrikaans, but practice would seem to demand otherwise. This convention

[p. 57]

will be respected throughout this work. The inconsistency of spelling in the quotes is that of the authors being cited.

2.2.2 Definitions of those who have written on anglicisms in Afrikaans

What follows are the opinions of several leading scholars, most of whom have made quite prolific contributions to the wealth of literature on English influence on Afrikaans. It is illuminating to see where their conceptions of the term anglicism in particular differ from one another.

Smith (1962: 67), although of course realising the limited utility of his definition in practice, maintains that anglicisms are usually regarded as being as follows:

‘Gewoonlik neem ons aan dat elke uitdrukking wat letterlik ooreenstem met die ekwivalente Engelse uitdrukking en wat nie in Nederlands vandag voorkom of vroeër voorgekom het nie, as anglicisties [sic!] in ons taal moet beskou word.’

Assuming he means by ons any Afrikaner and not linguists in particular, I doubt whether in 1962 anyone was still aware of what differed in Afrikaans from Dutch. Nevertheless there is possibly a certain truth in his claim that the common man immediately regards as suspect anything that corresponds literally with an equivalent English expression. No-one else has attempted to define an anglicism in the terms that Smith uses here. On page 62 he does, however, imply that he regards die eintlike anglicismes as translated idioms etc., and in this he is supported by Boshoff (1963).

Boshoff, in the four radio talks he delivered for the SABC in 1964, was most insistent on drawing a distinction between loanwords and anglicisms:

‘Engelse woorde is geen Anglisismes nie. Dit is die eerste wanbegrip waarvan ons ontslae moet raak.’ (p. 51)

He sees three types of influence: ‘vreemde woorde, leenwoorde (d.w.s. aangepas), Anglisismes.’

‘As ons in Afrikaans dus Engelse woorde soos lift gebruik wat hulle deur hulle uitspraak, klemtoon, betekenis of deur watter kenmerke ook al as onafrikaans of oneie laat uitken, dan is hulle eenvoudig vreemde Engelse woorde en nie Anglisismes nie... Wanneer vreemde woorde aldus ingeburger

[p. 58]

geraak het, dan noem ons hulle leenwoorde, ontleende woorde of ontlenings. Maar ook die leenwoorde uit Engels is nog geen Anglisismes nie.’ (p. 51-2)

It is clear from a statement he made in his thesis in 1921 that Boshoff (1921: 409) had always made a distinction between loanwords and anglicisms where he maintains that poets, dominees, teachers etc. are striving against ‘die gebruik van Engelse woorde en uitdrukkings, sowel as teen die gebruik van allerlei Anglisismes.’ As will be illustrated, Boshoff (1963: 59) is not the only one to take this stance, but he is the only person who disagrees with the idea of an anglicism having to be in stryd met die taaleie to qualify for the label:

‘Dikwels word beweer dat ons 'n taalverskynsel in Afrikaans alleen 'n Anglisisme kan noem as dit met die Afrikaanse taaleie in stryd is en dit geweld aandoen.’

Compare the dictionary definitions where this is often (even usually) stipulated as a condition. Boshoff disagrees and cites the example of malgaan being an anglicism although it is identical in form to doodgaan and thus does not clash at all. The concept of clashing is dealt with later. (cf. 4.3)

De Bruto (1970: 36) introduces the idea of value judgement into the definition of an anglicism:

‘Die kwessie van Anglisismes is... in sy wese taalpolities van aard, en by so 'n benadering gaan dit basies om 'n keuse tussen goed en sleg. Word op 'n bepaalde vlak op 'n bepaalde manier 'n bepaalde leemte gevul, heet 'n Engelse bousel bv. 'n Engelse leenwoord; maar verdring hierdie bepaalde bousel die Afrikaans op 'n bepaalde manier, heet dit 'n Anglisisme.’

De Bruto gives examples of the various forms of influence as he sees them: he regards lift as a ‘vreemde woord’, jokkie as a ‘leenwoord’, brug (the game) as a ‘leenvertaling’ and partikulier (in the meaning of ‘choosy’) as an ‘Anglisisme’.

Le Roux (1968: 163), in defining an anglicism, is less interested in the distinctions insisted upon by Boshoff and De Bruto, and more interested in the role of clashing as a determining factor:

‘'n Anglisisme is... vir ons 'n taalelement of groep van taalelemente wat onder invloed van die Engelse taal gebruik word en wat - hier kom dit veral op aan! - in een of meer

[p. 59]

opsigte bots met die wese van die taal.’ (first appeared in Die Huisgenoot in 1947)

What Le Roux calls botsing is what Boshoff calls in stryd met die taaleie. With respect to the relevance of this concept, these two scholars are apparently diametrically opposed. I shall return to this further on.

H.J. Terblanche, founder of the Genootskap vir die Handhawing van Afrikaans, must surely have been one of the most vocal spokesman on the topic of anglicisms in Afrikaans. In an article he wrote for Die Brandwag (6/9/46) entitled ‘Wat is 'n Anglisisme?’ he maintains that anglicisms are (a) ‘leenwoorde’, (b) ‘basterwoorde (impressie, poeding, etc.)’, (c) ‘werklike Anglisismes (eksamenpapier, die tyd is op)’. What De Bruto calls ‘vreemde woorde’, as distinct from ‘leenwoorde’, Terblanche apparently sees as ‘leenwoorde’, choosing to ignore the distinction made by De Bruto.

De Villiers' (1970: 245) statement that ‘soos u weet, word in baie kringe 'n onderskeid gemaak tussen enersyds die leenwoord uit 'n ander taal en andersyds die navolging van vreemde betekenisse, woordvorminge en sinswendinge, wat ons saam as Anglisismes bestempel’ implies that the distinction is not one which is made by everybody, despite Boshoff's insistence on such a distinction existing; De Vooys (1914), in an article entitled ‘Hoe zijn anglicismen te beschouwen?’ discusses only loanwords, for example.

Le Roux (1926: 329), another prolific spokesman on anglicisms in his day, gives the following definition in which he too recognises the ambiguity sometimes given to the term:

‘In die meer algemene betekenis is 'n Anglisisme, Gallisisme, Germanisme, ens., 'n woord of uitdrukking wat na die model van Engelse, Franse, Duitse, ens. woorde en uitdrukkinge gevorm is, of uit een van dié tale oorgeneem is. In die meer beperkte betekenis is sulke ismes (na die definiesie van Prof. J.W. Muller) woorde en uitdrukkinge wat uiterlik, d.i. in klank en (buigings)-vorm inheems, maar innerlik, d.i. in woordvorming en woordvoeging, maar veral in betekenis, skakering, gevoelswaarde en kleur uitheems is.’

In his well-known monograph on the topic written much later, he retains this definition, although the wording is vastly improved:

‘Barbarismes is woorde, woordverbindinge, sinwendinge en

[p. 60]

segswyses wat Afrikaans is na die uiterlike vorm (klank en verbuiging) maar op 'n vreemde manier gebruik word, bv. wat betref betekenis, funksie, woordvoeging, manier van samestelling, ens... Terwyl Anglisismes dus aan die een kant as 'n algemene term gebruik kan word om alle vorme van Engelse invloed in te sluit, word dit aan die ander kant ook in meer beperkte sin gebruik as sinoniem met barbarismes van Engelse herkoms om hulle te onderskei van leenwoorde.’ (1952: 2)

Du Toit (1965: 121) had the following to say in Die Huisgenoot in 1934:

‘... 'n barbarisme, ofskoon omskryf as 'n woord uit inheemse bestanddele, maar in navolging van ander en strydig met die wette van die eie taal gevorm, berus tog in eerste instansie op 'n letterlike vertaling van die vreemde woord of uitdrukking en veronderstel vanself die prysgewing deur die spreker van die vryheid wat hy het om hom makliker en meer regstreeks van 'n leenwoord te bedien.’

He refers to the ‘leenwoorde, basterwoorde en barbarismes’ as the ‘Engelse bestanddele van die Afrikaanse taal’. Ultimately Du Toit favours using the word anglicism in the broader sense to include all three categories ‘op grond én van die populêre betekenis wat ons hier aan die woord heg, én van sommige definisies, waarmee dit ook deur wetenskaplikes omskryf word.’ (p. 121)

In conclusion, I want to look at Johan Combrink's understanding of the term anglicism. Combrink has also been quite prolific on the topic but his understanding perhaps deserves more attention than what has been dealt with so far, as he is still a practising linguist, unlike nearly all those mentioned to date, but above all because he is also a member of the Taalkommissie and is thus likely to be closely connected with any publication on anglicisms put out by the Taalkommissie. In his latest article, initially compiled for the Taalkommissie, Combrink goes to great lengths to point out what English and Afrikaans have in common, thus ultimately implying what an anglicism is not (1984: 83-96). In 4.3.2, the section entitled ‘Die begrip Anglisisme’, he states:

‘Daar is byna soveel betekenisse van die begrip “Anglisisme”, as wat daar woordeboeke en taalhandleidings is. Die gevolg van hierdie veelheid van begrippe is dat die breë publiek dink (a) dat alles wat na Engels klink of lyk en wat nie alledaags is nie, 'n Anglisisme is, (b) dat alle Engelse invloed Anglisisties is, d.w.s. sleg is vir Afrikaans.’ (p. 101)

[p. 61]

Under (a) he is referring to what I have so far called international vocabulary. On this he goes on to say:

‘Dis natuurlik 'n infame misvatting dat hierdie woorde van Engels kom, maar die tipe taalsuiweringsveldtog wat in Afrikaans gevoer is, het tot gevolg dat hierdie misvatting die sterk gevestigde algemene opinie is.’ (p. 102)

This statement is of course correct but what Combrink neglects to mention here is that a great deal of such vocabulary has entered Afrikaans via English, as will be discussed later (cf. 7.12), and that some of it is in fact English - it is impossible for the layman to distinguish, and what is more, it is irrelevant to his purposes. After having discussed the indispensability of certain ‘true’ anglicisms, Combrink adds the following rider to his understanding of the term anglicism:

‘Mens moet hulle beskou as gevestigde Engelse ontlenings, sodat die term Anglisisme - waaraan daar 'n stigma kleef - gereserveer word vir dié Engelse invloede wat mens wil bekamp, d.w.s. wat onnodig is omdat daar goeie Afrikaanse ekwivalente bestaan, én wat nog nie algemeen gebruiklik is tot in taalbewuste Afrikaanse geledere nie.’ (p. 102)

In this Combrink does not differ in essence from what De Bruto postulated (cf. p. 58) in that both put a negative value judgement on the term.

2.2.3 The author's understanding of the term anglicism and opinion of the definitions of others

Throughout this book the term anglicism is used in its broadest sense, incorporating what the above Afrikaans writers on the topic have referred to as ‘leenwoorde’, ‘basterwoorde’ and ‘barbarismes’. In adopting this definition I associate myself most closely, of all the authors mentioned, with S.J. du Toit whose reason for favouring the more general definition was based on both the opinion of some linguists, but above all on the common man's understanding of the word. Boshoff's radio talks seem to be reason enough to take this stance: if he had to go to such lengths to establish firmly in people's minds what the difference is between a loanword and an ‘egte Anglisisme’, because that ‘misconception’ was so deeply rooted, what better reason can there be for not adopting his definition? It is also heartening to find that the primary definition in HAT is now in accordance with the way the term will be used here, which was not the case in the first edition, (cf. p. 55) This is not to say, however, that I can completely

[p. 62]

identify with the popular notion of the term because of the misconception referred to by Combrink above. It is a curious thing that what the average Afrikaner regards as an anglicism, i.e. first and foremost the use of ‘unnecessary’ English words (but also international vocabulary that resembles English), is precisely what so many Afrikaans academics have taken great pains to emphasise it is not.

I also find it impossible to ally myself with those, such as De Bruto and Combrink, who support a definition where personal value judgement plays a role. Clearly my reason here is because of the obvious subjectivity involved and thus lack of consistency. No-one has yet come forth with an adequate definition of a ‘permissible anglicism’, although each scholar seems to be quite satisfied with his contribution to clarification of the issue. This goes to prove that no definition that necessitates a value judgement is, or ever can be, adequate. The only guide to the acceptability of a given anglicism is its degree of ingeburgerdheid, firstly in the spoken language and ultimately in the written language, as determined by usage - deliberations on the origin and possible alternatives are then superfluous. In this, although I cannot accept Combrink's reservation of the term anglicism for influences one wishes to oppose because they are ‘unnecessary’, I am in full agreement with his second rider that an anglicism cannot be regarded as ingeburgerd ‘wat nog nie algemeen gebruiklik is tot in die taalbewuste Afrikaanse geledere nie’ (1984: 102). Where does this put English structures which do have equivalents in Afrikaans but are nevertheless common in the Afrikaans of so-called taalbewustes?

As the various definitions given above indicate, the idea of in stryd met die taaleie or botsing is considered important by most scholars when determining what is or isn't an anglicism. HAT adds the proviso of in stryd met die ontlenende taal as a rider to the definition, but does not include it in the primary definition, unlike all other dictionaries with the exception of the OED. It is rather ambiguous what exactly is meant by this phrase, but presumably it is synonymous with botsing (cf. Le Roux 1968: 117) and that this in turn is what Combrink (1984: 102), who avoids both terms, means by ‘wat onnodig is omdat daar goeie Afrikaanse ekwivalente bestaan’, i.e. Bedürfnislehngut as opposed to Luxuslehngut.

Van den Toorn (1977: 77), discussing the issue of interference in Dutch from neighbouring languages, distinguishes between loans on the one hand and barbarisms on the other,

‘waaronder men verstaat: volstrekt overbodige, tegen de struktuur of woordvormingsgewoonte van de ontlenende taal indruisende formaties. Een barbarisme wordt dus als een fout

[p. 63]

beschouwd, maar het is niet altijd gemakkelijk vast te stellen wat echt fout is en wat nog als acceptabel geldt.’

He too avoids the phrase in stryd met as such, but his wording suggests that his understanding of what is implied by the phrase is quite different from the South African conception of it. As he sees it in Dutch, a given phenomenon is not merely an undesirable barbarism because it is superfluous and competes with an indigenous phenomenon, but because it is incompatible in some way with the structure or rules of word formation of Dutch. Does this difference in conception between Van den Toorn and Afrikaans linguists (with the exception of Boshoff, cf. p. 58) reflect the Dutch lack of obsession with purism which is so common in South Africa and non-existent in Holland? Van den Toorn's understanding of in stryd met would seem to be literal - does this also apply to the definitions in WNT and Van Dale on page 56? - whereas in South Africa it actually means verdring die inheemse. He too introduces a value judgement but is forced to admit that he isn't sure where to draw the line.

That the word Anglisisme is synonymous with fout for Afrikaners was borne out time and time again during the period of my research in the Republic. Whenever I jotted down a ‘suspect’ construction, the speaker would immediately ask me, a non-native-speaker, ‘what should I say then?’, the implication being that if the phenomenon is English in origin, however ingeburgerd, there must be a ‘better’ way to say it. In this treatment of the topic I also distance myself from the negative connotation so commonly applied to the term anglicism.