The Influence of English on Afrikaans

2.3 Attitudes to anglicisms

The feelings of Afrikaners with regard to their language have often run quite high. The emotionalism which has so often manifested itself in language issues in South Africa in the past is something which is exceedingly difficult for a native-speaker of English to appreciate. Nevertheless, the tension in Belgian society that still flares up from time to time over language issues reminds one that it is not a concept which is exclusive to South African society. Afrikaans is after all a language which has been closely associated with the general struggle for freedom from British domination - it was at the forefront of the Afrikaners' fight for emancipation and equality which followed the Boer War. Afrikaners, with their firm conviction of their right to be in Africa and to lead a life true to the values of their forefathers, have often been compared with Israelis, the parallels of a chosen people in a promised land being obvious. But another parallel is the attitude of those two peoples to their national language, the

[p. 64]

Jews to Hebrew and the Afrikaners to Afrikaans, one aspect of which is the way ‘impurities’ in the languages are regarded. Nowadays the Afrikaners' struggle for economic and cultural emancipation has been won and what the language has achieved since the turn of the century is nothing short of remarkable. The period of emancipation witnessed emotional attitudes to English influence which are fortunately only rarely found these days. There is a linguistic confidence now among Afrikaners that was previously lacking, and consequently a more objective, scientifically responsible attitude to the ‘impurities’ in the language:

‘due to the contribution of Betz, Haugen and Weinreich, the terminology of bilingualism became more precise; romantic terms like “degeneration” of a language, “perversion” of a language or “purity” were discarded and a more neutral linguistic nomenclature was introduced.’ (Ostyn 1972: 2)

2.3.1 Previous attitudes

According to Coetzee (1982: 282), the attitude among Afrikaners to English influence on their language prior to the official recognition of Afrikaans was quite different from what it became after 1925:

‘Veral voor die erkenning van Afrikaans as amptelike taal naas Engels in 1925 word Engelse woorde vryelik gebruik en verafrikaans. Dit blyk dat Engels nie as die groot konkurrent gesien is nie. Engelse woorde moes ook gebruik en verafrikaans word om leemtes in die bestaande woordeskat aan te vul.’

In fact, as has been mentioned before, Du Toit (1897:iv) (cf. p. 50) went so far as to claim that English, together with French, had made Afrikaans what it was. In a sense I agree with this statement (cf. 4.5), but not for the reasons Du Toit gives where he wrongly attributes analytical development in Afrikaans to English influence. In holding this view, Du Toit was an exception, however. Coetzee goes on to quote the recommendations made by E.C. Pienaar and D.B. Bosman to the South African Academy in the 1930's, which reflect a new attitude:

‘Al die kommissielede is dit eens dat maatreëls moet ter hand geneem word om dié voortwoekerende euwel te stuit... Algaar is dit nie eens oor wat as anglisismes moet gebrandmerk word nie. Ons ondersteun dus in die eerste plek die aanbeveling van die drie memorandiste dat die Akademie 'n prys uitloof vir die

[p. 65]

beste verhandeling oor Anglisismes in Afrikaans en onderneem om die bekroonde werk in druk uit te gee.’ (p. 282)

The prize they refer to is the one which was ultimately awarded to H.J. Rousseau for the doctoral thesis he submitted to the University of Cape Town in 1933. Van Rensburg (1983: 137) says of this early, fervently negative reaction to English influence:

‘In der waarheid was hierdie vurige Anglisismejagtery 'n simptoom van onsekerheid oor die nuutverworwe status van Afrikaans, 'n simptoom van die gebrek aan selfvertroue.’

According to Boshoff (1963: 60), however, the situation still existed in the 1950's:

‘Met 'n onoordeelkundige jag op Anglisismes bereik ons niks nie: ons skep daarmee net by Afrikaanssprekendes 'n minderwaardigheidsgevoel, 'n vreeskompleks, 'n gedurige verbouereerdheid dat hulle hul op die een of ander oomblik van onbedagsaamheid aan 'n Anglisisme sal besondig.’

This lack of self confidence in linguistic issues is something which has still not completely disappeared. If one compares it to the definite insecurity that many Flemings experience as a result of the diglossia situation (i.e. dialect versus ABN) that so many of them still find themselves in, one is inclined to believe that it is an unavoidable ingredient of bilingualism.

But if a certain linguistic insecurity is still present in the Afrikaner as a result of the contact with English, the attitude that it is fashionable to use English words in Afrikaans is certainly a thing of the past.⁴ In 1963 Boshoff maintained: ‘... hy [doen] dit uit pronksug: hy wil sy toehoorder onder die indruk bring dat hy al 'n mondjievol van die vreemde taal ken.’ (p. 50) I find it difficult to believe that this was still the case in 1963, particularly as Le Roux stated as early as 1932 that:

‘Daar was 'n tyd toe baie, selfs opgevoede Afrikaners gedink het dat dit deftig staan om hulle taal te deurspek met Engelse woorde. Vandag tref ons die mees onsuiwere Afrikaans nog maar net by kleurlinge, verengelstes en half-opgevoedes, en helaas! by amptenare... Deur sy bontheid doen sterk gemengde

4 One possible exception to this is the conscious, often exaggerated use of English words in so-called studentetaal (cf. p. 40); this is a group which is generally speaking linguistically secure and the motivation for their use of ‘superfluous’ English vocabulary is quite different from that of the working class, who are linguistically indifferent on the whole.

[p. 66]

taal net so pynlik aan soos die veelkleurige doek van 'n kaffermeid.’ (Die Taalgenoot, May 1932)

The final sentence contains a simile which can only make one smile these days and illustrates the degree of sophistication we have apparently now attained compared with our predecessors. Interestingly enough, Le Roux (1926: 357) had written in 1926:

‘In party kringe geld dit vir deftiger om Engelse woorde te gebruik as woorde van hulle eie taal’

but by 1932 he claims that this is a thing of the past. In the same year he stated in Die Taalgenoot:

‘... daar ek 'n ontwikkelde taalgevoel beskou as 'n blyk van beskawing, kan ek sê hoe beskaafder die spreker hoe minder Anglisismes hy gebruik, hoe onbeskaafder hoe meer Anglisismes hy gebruik.’ (July 1932)

The official recognition of Afrikaans in 1925 would seem to be the reason why a different attitude so suddenly became so commonplace. The earliest mention of the pronksugsindroom is provided by Tromp (1879: 199) who commented:

‘De taal, die men te Pretoria spreekt, is het gewone Boeren-Afrikaansch, doorspekt met Engelsche woorden. Op de zelfde wijze, als wij in Holland ter verfraaiing (?) onzer taal, eene menigte (en dikwerf nog wel verkeerd toegepaste) Fransche woorden en uitdrukkingen gebruiken, is dit in het deftig Afrikaansch in nog grotere mate met het Engelsch het geval. Bijna om het andere woord hoort men een Engelschen term, waarvoor het Afrikaansch zelf wel degelijk eigen woorden heeft, in het gesprek gesmokkeld.’

D.F. Malherbe in his Afrikaanse Taalboek (1917), the first Afrikaans grammar for Afrikaners since S.J. du Toit's Eerste Beginsels (1876) and Vergelykende Taalkunde (1897) - both of which were totally antiquated by 1917 - is the first work to express the modern attitude. As it was such an important book in the formation of the standard Afrikaans that was to gain full recognition eight years later, it is worth citing here:

‘Die ontsiering van Afrikaans deur Engelse woorde wat sedert tientalle jare aan die gang is, sal deur behoorlike onderwijs en skrijwe van ons taal langsamerhand verwijder word. Dit is nog nie so 'n groot gevaar nie. Want waar 'n taal alleen

[p. 67]

vreemde woorde oorneem, en daarbij nog woorde waarvoor goeie inheemse bestaan, kan hy eintlik nie veel skade lij nie. Daarvoor is Engels self 'n goeie voorbeeld. Ernstiger is die indringing van die Engelse idioom want dit raak die kern van ons taallewe aan.’ (p. 16)

Barnouw (1934: 39), a Dutch American who visited South Africa in 1932, i.e. during the all important post-recognition years, seems to have got the impression that Afrikaners will simply have to resign themselves to loanwords from English in order to cope with the modern world:

‘The educated are, consequently, exposing their Dutch vocabulary to what the Afrikaans patriot might call the contagion of English, and when they are called upon to deal with subjects to which the Taal cannot do justice they will, whether consciously or mechanically, resort to English for the terms that must supply the shortage.’

The ‘resignation syndrome’, like the pronksugsindroom, is also an attitude of the past. Another example of it is provided, rather surprisingly, by Smith (1962: 64) in a column he wrote in Die Suiderstem from 1936-39:

‘Veral waar dit selfstandige naamwoorde geld, is dit in die reël doeltreffender om, net soos die Nederlanders, 'n kort Engelse woord oor te neem en nie ons vernuf te verspil op die smee van allerlei onpraktiese samestellinge vir woorde soos flat, handicap, record, sandwich, scrum, en ander soortgelyke benaminge nie. Vir lift is al voorgestel hyser, hysbak, hysbus, hystoestel en ligter; maar geen enkele van hierdie woorde geniet algemene erkenning nie, en lift is nog altyd verstaanbaarder as nulle almaal. Vir flat is al aan die hand gegee deelwoning, kamerwoning, verdiepingwoning, vloerwoning - ja, selfs plat!’

That it was not at all futile to oppose the automatic adoption of such English loanwords has since been borne out by the fact that there are now totally acceptable and accepted Afrikaans words for several of the concepts mentioned here by Smith. It is worth noting that of all the alternatives he suggests for ‘flat’, woonstel is not even mentioned. The clause ‘en lift is nog altyd verstaanbaarder as hulle almaal’ shows a tolerance (or is it resignation?) to English loanwords that is rarely found these days. On puristic attempts to abolish such English words from Afrikaans, Smith (1962: 64) says:

[p. 68]

‘Ook maaksels soos toebroodjie vir sandwich en reissak vir portemanteau is misleidend, en dit is dan ook geen wonder dat hulle gebruik beperk gebly het tot ons koerante en puriste-enthoesiaste nie.’ (written in the late 1930's)

Works on anglicisms from the 1930's and 1940's are full of such examples which later developments have subsequently proven wrong. As Visagie commented as early as 1946:

‘'n Lys van argaïstiese Anglisismes sou voorwaar interessante en leersame leesstof verskaf.’ (Die Brandwag, 27/9/46)

A not uncommon attitude in older writings on anglicisms is the way in which Dutch was regarded as an extension of Afrikaans to be drawn on in cases of need to provide vocabulary or to rid one's speech of suspect phenomena, for example:

‘In ons stryd teen die Anglisisme is Nederlands vir ons onmisbaar, want hier vind ons dikwels die vereiste ekwivalent en een wat nie bots met die wese van ons taal nie, wat dus geen neerlandisme is nie.’ (Le Roux 1968: 174, but first published in Die Huisgenoot in 1947.)

In 1929 Smith's suggestion for maintaining the purity of Afrikaans was

‘Alleen deur goeie Afrikaans en veel Nederlands te lees sal ons in staat wees om die suiwerheid van ons taal te behou.’ (Die Huisgenoot 22/11/29)

In the late 1930's he was still advocating a similar policy but with a proviso attached:

‘In alle gevalle waar daar reeds 'n eg Afrikaanse of maklik verstaanbare Nederlandse woord of uitdrukking is, word die vreemde woord of isme verwerp... As die Nederlandse woord of uitdrukking vandag egter vir Afrikaans onverstaanbaar is, dan sal dit seker 'n onbegonne taak wees om eens te probeer om dit in die plek van 'n algemeen bekende en verstaanbare Engelse woord of uitdrukking te stel.’ (1962: 63)

He gives the examples of enamel and beperk for the Dutch emaille and naamlose vennootschap. In 1963 Boshoff (1963: 89) adamantly opposed Dutch being used as a yardstick by which correct Afrikaans can be measured. Commenting on the work that is being done by linguists where

[p. 69]

they are illustrating and emphasising that Afrikaans differs from Dutch in many important respects, he says:

‘Terwyl ons taal aldus as 't ware op die daad betrap, beluister en bestudeer word en sy seggingskrag aangedui word, is daar in allerlei grammatikas, skoolboekies en persvoorligtings 'n aantal beterweters aan die woord wat vir ons elke oomblik kom beduie dat wat ons werklik in Afrikaans sê, verkeerd is, omdat dit nie so in Nederlands gesê word nie, omdat dit foutiewe Nederlands is.’

Boshoff does not make this statement in support of retaining anglicisms, but it could well be quoted as grounds for doing so. Langenhoven's (1935: 103) opposition to Dutch went so far as to prefer anglicisms to hollandisms in Afrikaans. (cf. p. 77)

In another article written in 1963 Boshoff (1963: 60) concludes:

‘Anglisismes wat nie met ons taalaard in stryd is nie en nie deur ons taalgevoel verwerp word nie, asook dié wat wel met ons taaleie in stryd is en desondanks deur ons taalgevoel aanvaar word, kan as toelaatbare Anglisismes beskou word.’

An emotionally laden term often used in the past in works on anglicisms is gevaar, for example:

‘Ons moet voortdurend op ons hoede wees teen Anglisismes; dit lewer een van die grootste gevare op vir die Afrikaanse taal.’ (Le Roux 1968: 162, but written in 1947); ‘Deur ons eie manier van praat onnodiglik vir 'n vreemde praatgewoonte te verruil, verraai en verkrag ons die karakter van ons eie taal. Daarin skuil die gevaar van die sogenaamde ismes in 'n taal.’ (Boshoff 1963: 59)

Viewing English influence in this antagonistic light is possibly not yet entirely a thing of the past, but at least such emotive terms are now usually avoided in linguistic works.

It was also not uncommon for scholars to see anglicisms in Afrikaans as not merely a threat to the language, but to the culture as a whole, for example:

‘In sowel ons eie belang as volk as in die van ons taal, die draer naamlik van ons kultuur, moet ons baie versigtig wees en

[p. 70]

meermale ook die skyn van die kwaad vermy.’ (Le Roux 1968: 163, but written in 1947)

Precisely because the language is the ‘draer van die kultuur’, Afrikaans cannot avoid the influence of English because the Afrikaner's culture has been anglicised to a far greater degree than he is, or at least was, aware. (cf. Barnouw's comments, page 45) Le Roux (1968: 164) goes too far in personifying language when he states later in the same article:

‘'n Taal hou tred met die geestesaktiwiteite van die volk vir wie hy tot uitingsmiddel dien. Is 'n volk geestelik laks en daarom minder aktief, of is hy dadelik gereed om oor te neem uit die taal van 'n volk wat hom op die een of ander gebied voor is, dan vertoon die taal van die eerste die onmiskenbare nadelige gevolge van sodanige handelwyse.’

Even J.J. le Roux(1939: 76), who does not usually hold the same extreme views as T.H. le Roux, felt compelled on at least one occasion to comment:

‘Ons [moet] Anglisismes bestry omdat ons in die toenemende gebruik daarvan die duidelike tekens van die verdringing en ondergang van ons kultuur sien.’

Terblanche (Die Brandwag, 6/9/46) also irrationally personifies Afrikaans when he depicts it as young and impressionable:

‘Omdat Afrikaans nog jonk en baie vatbaar vir invloede van buite is, moet ons steeds alles in ons vermoë doen om onsuiwerhede uit ons taal te hou.’

The ‘vulnerability’ of Afrikaans has of course nothing to do with the age of the language - quite apart from the so-called age of Afrikaans being a debatable point anyway - but is the result of the situation in which the two languages find themselves. Undoubtedly Dutch, at least at the level of the spoken word, would have been affected to much the same extent as Afrikaans, had it remained the other official language of South Africa instead of Afrikaans.

The purification process that began in earnest in the 1930's brought a witch-hunt with it, the effects of which are still being felt in some circles. This so-called jagtery reinforced the linguistic inferiority complex that was present in many Afrikaners. (cf. p. 65) Although he was not referring specifically to anglicisms, D.F. Malherbe felt the need to issue the following warning as early as 1917:

[p. 71]

‘'n Derde gevaar om teen te waak is te dogmaties optree by die vasstelling van wat korrekte Afrikaans is.’ (p. 17)

In the 1940's it had apparently reached a serious level. Kempen (1946: 207) remarked that

‘Verskeie skrywers het so half en half laat deurskemer dat hulle daarvoor voel om uit te skei met die Anglisisme-jagtery. Een rede is dan dat daar deesdae soveel Anglisismes “ontdek” word dat die gewone prater van Afrikaans nie meer behoorlik vir sy buurman “môre” sou kan sê nie, of daar sal maar weer 'n Anglisisme(tjie) by insluip.’

The contradictory nature of so many articles etc. on anglicisms was leading to desperation in some people who, according to Kempen, were giving up writing Afrikaans altogether and switching to English. An anonymous writer in Die Huisgenoot in 1944 confirms what Kempen says about the degree of contradiction prevalent at the time:

‘Selfs as jy jou woordeboek eers raadpleeg, is daar môre nog iemand wat sê jy is 'n taalketter.’ (22/9/44)

And another writes:

‘My vrees is egter net dat ons naderhand so getrou sal goggas jag dat ons te min kragte sal oorhou vir die omspit en aanplant in ons taaltuin en naderhand 'n stuk kaal vlakte aanhou, sonder goggas, maar ook sonder enigiets anders.’ (17/7/42)

An editorial comment in Die Huisgenoot of 1/11/57 indicates what the inevitable result of this Anglisismevrees was to be:

‘Vir sulke mense het suiwer taal 'n saak vir die “geleerdes” geword. Dis bo die vuurmaakplek van iemand wat sy taal maar net van sy ma gekry het.’

If that were the case in 1957, when bilingualism among Afrikaners was not as common and when many more people still had a knowledge of Dutch than today, it is all the more valid in the 1980's.

An attitude that one encounters occasionally in older writings is a tolerance for anglicisms that, in the opinion of the writers concerned, are appropriate to the Afrikaner's wav of life or outlook, for example:

[p. 72]

‘Tenslotte dien daarop gewys te word dat 'n uitdrukking soos “skouer aan (teen) die wiel sit” (die hand aan die ploeg slaan), wat so goed aanpas by die Afrikaanse lewe, bepaald sy bestaansreg in Afrikaans verdien.’ (Terblanche, Die Brandwag 25/10/46)

Le Roux (1952: 39) picked on the very same example and offered a similar justification for accepting the expression:

‘Origens vertoon dié uitdrukkings wat goed aanpas by die Afrikaanse lewe, soos Skouer aan die wiel sit, die meeste lewensvatbaarheid.’ (written in 1945 and thus contemporary with Terblanche's statement)

Such statements are linguistically irrational and are evidence of an outdated means of keeping the national image of the Afrikaner as a voortrekker alive; in such instances the proponents suddenly don't seem to mind that the anglicism verdring die inheemse.

Another attempt to justify the presence of certain anglicisms in Afrikaans was the argument that a word or expression may have been - or is still - present in other Germanic languages or in Germanic itself, and is therefore acceptable, for example:

‘Feit is egter dat “iemand oor die kole haal” baie gangbaar is, en taalkundig beskou is dit nie onmoontlik dat ons hier met 'n Duitse of Nederlandse uitdrukking te doen het nie, en dat die Engelse “haul over the coals” slegs gedien het om 'n ou Germaanse segswyse hier te lande nuwe lewe in te blaas.’ (Terblanche, Die Brandwag 25/10/46)

The origin of the expression is ultimately of no importance, but rather its acceptability based on common usage. The notion that certain anglicisms are acceptable because they fill certain gaps in Afrikaans is also a defence that was commonly offered in the past and is still occasionally heard, for example:

‘Natuurlik moet ons selfs hier oppas vir oordrywing en nie teen werklik nuttige gebruiklike ismes stry nie - veral nie as sulke ismes maklik by ons eie spraakgewoontes aan te pas is nie.’ (Smith, Die Naweek 7/10/48)

The literature on anglicisms abounds with statements such as this. What is ‘nuttig’?; what does ‘maklik by ons eie spraakgewoontes aanpas’ mean? Even if explanations are offered, the criteria are inevitably so subjective as

[p. 73]

to be useless. Hiemstra (1963: 9), also realising that condemnation of all anglicisms is impossible, maintained:

‘Ontlening van die onmisbare is dus taalverryking, en afwysing van nodige leengoed beteken taalverarming.’

These are all such noble terms but are meaningless in practice. Even when scholars have not remained as vague but have given concrete examples and arguments for the defence of the retention of certain anglicisms, they are arguments that are highly subjective and unlikely to be heeded in any way by the community at large where the decisions are finally made; see Le Roux (1968: 162-3) where he defends the use of sypaadjie but condemns lighuis in favour of vuurtoring. His recommendations happen to coincide with what is in fact now used in practice, but not for the reasons he gives, particularly with regard to vuurtoring.⁵ Despite fifty years of trying to find an objective definition of an ‘acceptable’ anglicism, scholars' definitions, however satisfied they themselves may be with them, fall far short of what the common man, and even educated Afrikaners, are only too ready to accept in their speech.

5 HAT does not recognise lighuis, although it is still commonly heard, but both vuurtoring and ligtoring - not mentioned by Le Roux - are recognised.

2.3.2 Current attitudes

The most recent comprehensive article on anglicisms in Afrikaans is one by Combrink (1984: 105) at the conclusion of which he quotes De Villiers (1970: 245):

‘Wat ons verre voorouers gedoen het, was om oor te neem EN te vertaal. En dit is ook ons taak: oorneem EN vertaal.’

In so advocating, De Villiers points out the parallel that formerly existed between Romance and Germanic languages where the latter opted to translate vast quantities of classical vocabulary in order to keep up with new concepts, for example: Gothic dáupjan (< Gk. baptízein), geweten (< Lat. conscientia), onderwerp (< Lat. subjectum). ‘Oorneem EN vertaal’ would seem to be the modern school of thought; the vaktaalburos and a multitude of terminological dictionaries bear witness to this being the current attitude at the official level. Resignation to the ‘inevitable’ adoption of English loanwords outright in Afrikaans (cf. p. 67) is now rejected as an appropriate means of keeping up with new demands on the vocabulary of the language. Purism is now considered too important for such an easy solution to be acceptable; thus De Villiers' emphasis on ‘EN’.

[p. 74]

The fact that this attitude is now more prevalent than previously is because in the sixty years since the official recognition of Afrikaans and the emancipation of the language and the people that has occurred during that period, Afrikaners have been educated to become far more taalbewus than earlier generations were. An unavoidable repercussion of this is ‘dat wanneer opgevoede Afrikaners erg taalbewus gemaak word, hulle 'n fobie ontwikkel teenoor Engelse invloed.’ (De Villiers 1970: 246) In other words, purism - sometimes taken to extremes with negative consequences such as hypercorrection - is the result. (The various ramifications of purism are looked at in detail under 5.00) The campaign against outright borrowing without translating has been so successful that it has led to negative social connotations being associated with the use of English words in Afrikaans:

‘In die onversorgde omgangstaal word baie Engelse woorde gebruik, in min of meer suiwer Engelse uitspraak. Teenswoordig word dit as 'n gebrek aan beskawing gesien.’ (Scholtz 1980: 105)

This prevalent attitude to English loanwords, as well as the unjustified prejudice against Romance vocabulary in Afrikaans which resembles English (cf. Combrink 1984: 83), has given rise in South Africa to a feeling of contempt for the use of such words by the Dutch, a feeling which nowadays probably goes hand in hand with a general dislike of all things Dutch because of the political hostility between the two countries. It is true that the Dutch, proud of their traditional polyglottism, often make use of English words, some of which are now integral to the language (e.g. accountancy, cake, computer, jam, lift), while others are the result of the previously mentioned pronksugsindroom, an attitude which is still prevalent in Holland, but antiquated in South Africa. The Afrikaner sees this ‘exaggerated’ use of foreign words by the Dutch as a sign of linguistic weakness and his own purism as a sign of strength. Indeed, one can even talk of a feeling of linguistic superiority in this respect in South Africa, the exact opposite of what so many Afrikaners must have felt in the late nineteenth century when they were still required to write Dutch but had great difficulty in doing so.⁶ This feeling of linguistic superiority, if I have read the current mood correctly, is totally misplaced, however. The Dutchman resorts to the use of foreign vocabulary - these days predominantly English words and increasingly fewer French words - precisely because he feels secure in his linguistic environment and his language is not threatened. (Similar unjustified aspersions are cast on the Dutch by their southern neighbours for the same reason, cf. Suffeleers 1979: 185) A good command of English is still a thing to be admired in Holland, whereas in

6 See Ponelis (1983: 13) for further comment on the feeling of lingusitic superiority among Afrikaners vis-à-vis the Dutch.

[p. 75]

South Africa it is taken for granted. In South Africa it is not considered any great achievement for an Afrikaner to speak good English; on the contrary, a lack of a good knowledge of English is considered backward. Thus while the Dutchman can still impress by using ‘superfluous’ foreign vocabulary, the Afrikaner cannot. And with regard to ‘necessary’ loanwords like those given above, Dutch does not hesitate to adopt such words because it is not under any threat. One finds a totally different attitude to loanwords, but then chiefly from French, in Belgium, for obvious reasons.

The Afrikaner's impression of Dutch, based on the facility with which that language adopts English words, is wrong for another reason however. The average Afrikaner, with his understandable layman's view of language in general, and of his own language in particular, associates purity of vocabulary with linguistic purity in general. The influence English has had on Dutch, whatever the number of loanwords may be, is extremely superficial because in all but very few cases, it has not gone beyond the level of the lexis; in Afrikaans the lexis may appear pure, but the influence on other aspects of the language has been enormous. For reasons that have been mentioned before, the average Afrikaner is unaware of this. What is more, even as far as lexical influence is concerned, English has only affected the randwoordeskat of Dutch, but it has reached the kernwoordeskat of Afrikaans. The following statement by De Vooys (1925: 4-51), although written as early as 1925, still reflects the attitude of the Dutch today to foreign influences (primarily lexical) on their language and is in sharp contrast to the way English influence in Afrikaans is perceived by many in South Africa:

‘Geen volk, geen stam leeft geheel op zichzelf. Wat wij kultuur noemen, is het produkt van gemeenschap in ruime kring. De onmiddellike nabijheid van volken met een machtige beschawing is een groot voorrecht, en ongelukkig het volk dat zijn grenzen voor vreemde invloeden zou sluiten... De vreemde woorden zijn geen lastige indringers, maar onmisbare en dus welkome gasten... Die menging met vreemde bestanddelen, als begeleidingsverschijnsel van diepgaande invloed kan dus op zichzelf moeilik als een bederf, een ontaarding beschouwd worden... Vreemde elementen kwamen de volkskracht versterken: de kern was gezond genoeg om ze op te nemen en te versmelten. Zo ook is het taalbezit, dat wij door aanraking met andere volken verwierven, in veel opzichten meer aanwinst dan “besmetting”... [and on p. 19 he says] Een onafhanklik volk, bewust van zijn kracht, en niet bevreesd om door vreemde invloeden

[p. 76]

overweldigd te worden, ziet in vreemde woorden geen bederf, maar verrijking van zijn taal.’

To conclude the discussion on the difference in attitude to English loanwords in Afrikaans and in Dutch, it is interesting to note that in South Africa one finds a higher frequency of English words in Afrikaans the lower down the social ladder one goes, whereas in Holland the reverse is the case - in Holland it is the result of linguistic security, whereas in South Africa it is the result of the opposite.

De Villiers' (1970) and Combrink's (1984) advice to ‘oorneem en vertaal’ is in direct contrast to Boshoff's (1964: 39): ‘Moenie onnodig leen of ontleen nie.’ The subjectivity and ambiguity of terms such as ‘onnodig’ ‘nuttig’ in this context have been mentioned before. (cf. p. 72) The only alternative to borrowing, with or without translating, is the coining of neologisms. Afrikaans has been quite successful in many cases in creating new words to avoid resorting to loans (e.g. hysbak - lift, moltrein - underground, rekenaar - computer), but if all new vocabulary had to be created in this way, it would put tremendous demands on the ingenuity of the bodies concerned, but above all a greater resistance to general acceptance of such terms would probably be met with: translation of an item already known to Afrikaners in English is an easier pill to to swallow because it is less foreign and already contains a kernel of familiarity. Thus, although neologisms will undoubtedly continue to be formed and will presumably meet with some success, they will always be outnumbered by loan translations.

In certain higher social registers, the idea that structures found in Dutch are also the preserve of the Afrikaner, still lives on. This is certainly the case in the religious sphere, where the old adage Die Afrikaner is drietalig: hy praat Afrikaans, bid in Nederlands en vloek in Engels still has some qualified validity. This attitude is also reflected in the authority that is still often given to Dutch usage. Firstly, as previously mentioned, the Taalkommissie often takes Dutch convention into consideration when deliberating on issues; secondly, in arguments such as that given by Le Roux (1952: 8) where his defence for the validity of in die loop van die tyd - seen by some as an anglicism because it corresponds literally to the English expression and is therefore replaced by met/na verloop van tyd - is that this is the Afrikaans translation of the Dutch expression in de loop des tyds. The same applies to the argument for and against op vakansie versus met vakansie (cf. Le Roux 1968: 171-2) where, when deliberating on the validity of the former in Afrikaans, one must keep in mind that the two also co-exist in Dutch.

[p. 77]

Despite the regard given to the custom in Holland in some circles, because of the even wider gap that has emerged between Afrikaans and Dutch over the last fifty years, the following advice from Langenhoven (1935: 103) is being heeded more and more in practice, even if current prescriptive works are slow to come to terms with this new reality:

‘... 'n Anglisisme [kan] in baie gevalle 'n beter afrikanisme word as menige neerlandisme.’

HAT, for example, may continue to claim that raar does not mean ‘rare’ and imply that verdieping is better Afrikaans than vloer, but in practice the truth of what Langenhoven maintains is borne out.

That certain loanwords and loan expressions are considered ‘necessary’, is a concept that was discussed in the previous section. (cf. p. 72) The following statement by Scholtz (1940: 151), although made in 1940, would still find some support today, but there would now be a greater tendency to translate the word or adapt it, rather than borrow it outright (e.g. beeld - image, sleng - slang):

‘Oor die algemeen gesproke, kan ons sê dat, wanneer die leenwoord voorsien in 'n behoefte waartoe die eie woord nie in staat is nie, dit 'n aanwins is en nie af te keur nie.’

There is little doubt that the Afrikaner is far less concerned with the purity of his speech than with the purity of his written language. This phenomenon is hardly exclusive to his situation; De Vooys (1925: 26) quotes J.J. Salverda de Grave who described it as follows:

‘Het woord dat ons in bepaalde omstandighede het eerst voor de geest komt, is als het meest eigene te beschouwen, want door de tijdelike tweetaligheid van hun denken, is het eigen woord tijdelik op de achtergrond gedrongen. Bij rustige overweging, door scherping van hun taalgevoel zou het eigen woord weer te voorschijn komen.’

The attitude Cluver (1982: 85) takes in the following quotation is what one expects to find these days:

‘Die suffiks -ing is besonder produktief in Afrikaans [with reference to “aardingsklamp” - earthing clamp]... 'n Mens wonder... of “aarding” nie ook 'n Anglisisme is nie. Intussen het dié Anglisisme al ingeburger geraak. Ek meen dat die term “aardklamp” hier beter sou gewees het.’ (my italics, BCD)

[p. 78]

Cluver accepts the reality of this word having gained acceptance, whatever its morphological faults may be, whereas a previous generation, H.J. Terblanche for example, may have insisted on aardklamp being ‘better’ Afrikaans and may thus have attempted to prescribe a structure like aardingsklamp out of existence.

If the following comment was valid in 1931, how much more must that be the case over fifty years later?:

‘Verder bestaan daar as gevolg van die tweetalige kultuur 'n massa woorde en uitdrukkinge, sommige waarvan uit 'n puristiese oogpunt miskien nog afkeuring verdien, maar die meeste waarvan reeds so ingeburger is dat hulle feitlik nie meer as Anglisismes gevoel word nie.’ (Pienaar 1931: 174-5)

Pienaar gives the following examples to illustrate his point: besigheid (doen), besigheidsman, boikot, platform, eleksie, opgenome, 'n sitplek boek, iemand afsien, die ander dag etc. Typical of the more sensible, self-assured attitude towards anglicisms which one finds among linguists today is the following:

‘Wat moet ons houding teenoor afwykende Afrikaans wees - alles toelaat, of sinswendinge bestry wat verskil van hoe Afrikaans “behoort te wees”? Laasgenoemde beteken gewoonlik: soos dit in 'n vroeër fase van die geskiedenis van die taal wás. Dit lei dan gewoonlik tot soveel reëls en beperkinge dat dit Afrikaans stroef maak en sprekers afskrik om dit te gebruik.’⁷ (Steyn 1980: 332)

This is a realistic attitude, perhaps forced upon the Afrikaner by the circumstances of the last fifty years, but at least it takes account of the language as used and perceived by the average speaker. Steyn implies, without explicitly stating, that ‘behoort te wees’ is synonymous with Dutch usage. His attitude to Dutch is also supported by Odendal (1973: 30) whose opinion deserves mention here, not only because he is chairman of the Taalkommissie, but also because he is chief editor of HAT:

‘Nederlands kan nie aan Afrikaans voorskryf hoe hy daar moet uitsien nie. Ons gaan tog nie ons onoorganklike werkwoord “wonder” of ons dubbel-nie laat vaar omdat Nederlands dit nie het nie, of skielik 'n lidwoord vereis nie... Dit is egter

7 Uys (1983: 167) claims that the second vernederlandsing of Afrikaans, that of the twentieth century, was very successful ‘want selfs vandag in die laaste kwart van die twintigste eeu ly ons nog (onnodiglik?) onder die spore van hierdie tweede vernederlandsing van Afrikaans.’

[p. 79]

hoogste tyd dat voorskrywers - en grammatika- en woordeboekskrywers - hulle dit erns maak om tussen die twee tale te onderskei en om die een nie as norm vir die ander te gebruik nie.’

Van Rensburg (1983: 136), after having discussed superceded loanwords such as brekfis, koort, juts etc., which were so common in Afrikaans up to the 1940's, comments:

‘'n Mens frons vandag maklik oor Afrikaans soos dié (In baie gevalle is die frons aangeleer).’

The emphasis that has been placed on purism, particularly at the level of the lexis, has given rise to this modern reaction to such loans. Van Rensburg's reference to aangeleerde frons is an astute observation of a modern attitude that was formerly lacking.

There has been so much conflict of opinion on the crucial issue of the presence of English influence in Afrikaans that modern Afrikaans linguists, above all textbook and dictionary compilers, must deliberate very carefully before committing their recommendations to paper. Le Roux (Die Taalgenoot, June 1932) saw their task as follows:

‘Ten opsigte van Anglisismes in hierdie algemene betekenis [i.e. covering both loanwords and the so-called “egte” Anglicisms] is die gewone leek... in die reël òf totaal onverskillig òf 'n radikale teenstander van wat hy as 'n onvermengde euwel beskou... Dis die taak van die wetenskap om tussen hierdie twee leke-standpunte uitspraak te doen.’

In this respect very little has changed since the 1930's, except that nowadays one can hope for more responsible, less emotional guidance from more enlightened linguists than was the case earlier this century. Nevertheless, vestiges of most of the previously common attitudes discussed under 2.3.1 are still encountered from time to time, regrettably even in textbooks and reference works, which perpetuate these misconceptions.

2.3.3 The author's attitude

I do not set out my attitude to anglicisms in Afrikaans here with any ambition whatsoever of trying to influence the way in which anglicisms are regarded by people in the Afrikaans speaking community, whether they be linguists or laymen. Nevertheless, even a non-native-speaker forms an opinion of the issue after all the reading I have done and what I have been

[p. 80]

confronted with daily during my various sojourns in the Republic. As that opinion coincides in many instances with what has been advocated by some Afrikaans scholars, but in other instances is somewhat unorthodox, it does not seem out of place to express that opinion here.

Two questions need to be posed on the matter of anglicisms in Afrikaans: firstly, should one attempt to put a halt to the influence English is having on Afrikaans and secondly, can one? The answer to the first question is most probably yes, and the means by which it should be done is through education. This is the current policy and has been so for a long time.

The second question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. There are many examples in the writings of the thirties of anglicisms which were then considered to be ingeburgerd by the scholars of the time, but which have since disappeared without trace, or are less frequent now than they apparently were then. This is in itself proof that something can be done to counteract the phenomenon. On the other hand, there are many anglicisms which were vehemently opposed by those same scholars some fifty years ago which are still in the language today and are still not recognised as ‘correct’ Afrikaans by current prescriptive works. (In such instances one wonders how long they have to exist to be fully accepted and gain official recognition.) There are undoubtedly also many anglicisms in Afrikaans now that were unknown to the scholars of the thirties or were at least not as common as nowadays. These factors would thus seem to support a negative answer to question two. The truth of the matter obviously lies somewhere between the two. Without the support of educational bodies to counteract the influence of English over the sixty odd years since recognition, Afrikaans would certainly have contained many more anglicisms than it does today; the fact that the campaign has been only partially successful lies in the nature of the issue. One must accept, although many Afrikaans prescriptive grammarians seem to have difficulty in doing so, that the language as used by the people and as perceived by them to be correct, will ultimately become correct Afrikaans - the many indispensable ingeburgerde anglicisms in Afrikaans today are living proof of this. Such anglicisms are concrete evidence that not all anglicisms in Afrikaans can be brushed off as interference phenomena which a good dose of purification will remedy, but that the contact situation with English in which Afrikaans finds itself, has led and is leading to linguistic change, (cf. 4.5) The degree to which English has shaped, and is continuing to shape, the language - because of the nature of South African society, the affinity of the two languages and the high degree of bilingualism - has given rise to an inevitable blend of idiom which simply is Afrikaans and is one of the important characteristics which distinguish it from Dutch.

[p. 81]

The number of anglicisms which are likely to enter the language over the decades ahead, because of the forces at work in such a language contact situation, will probably be enormous and the educational system will at best only be able to stem the tide. The continuing influx of immigrants, most of whom opt to join the English speaking community, plus the understandable preference shown for English by Blacks, and increasingly by some Coloureds too, quite apart from the international forces that have always favoured the position of English in South Africa, will assure an ever increasing influence of English on Afrikaans. In the face of such odds, one could well expect an attitude of resignation to the inevitable. There are indeed Afrikaners who see no future for their language and who seem quite unperturbed about its demise, but they are a small minority. Afrikaners still remember with great pride that their ancestors, a nation of farmers, held the whole British Empire at bay for almost three years at the turn of the century, and although finally defeated, rose as a united people out of the turmoil of the Boer War to gain control ultimately of the whole country. This sort of determination, sometimes futile but always sincere, has been applied by them to language issues in the past and can be expected from them in future too. The result will be a compromise, to which the many accepted anglicisms in Afrikaans today bear witness. People such as Kruger (1969: 22) had their heads in the clouds if they really felt that a complete ‘cure’ was possible or even desirable:

‘Teen hierdie besmetting, hierdie indringing van kwaad in die murg van ons taal, sal ons vasberade moet optree. Die genesing gaan 'n langdurige en veeleisende proses wees - 'n proses van bewusmaking en opvoeding.’

My attitude towards anglicisms in Afrikaans, towards accepting the inevitability of many of them and of regarding them as an asset and above all as a reflection of the cultural assimilation of English and Afrikaners, is very close to that adopted by Langenhoven (1935) when he maintained fifty odd years ago that anglicisms are often preferable to hollandisms. (cf. p. 77) In the same work, written together with the academic E.C. Pienaar in the final year of Langenhoven's life, he went on to say:

‘As daar in 'n stuk Afrikaans geen anglisisme of neerlandisme of ander vreemde isme voorkom nie - of nou nie meer voorkom nie omdat 'n skoolmeester of redakteur dié wat daar was uitgehaal het - dan is die stuk nou nie meer on-Afrikaans nie. Maar is hy positief Afrikaans? Het hy 'n Afrikaanse geur en kleur?’ (p. 105)

[p. 82]

De Vooys (1925: 21) made a similar anti-puristic plea with reference to Dutch, illustrated by a very appropriate example, with which I can identify:

‘Een andere dwaling bestaat daarin, dat het vreemde woord verdreven zou moeten worden, alleen omdat het van vreemde afkomst en dus een indringer is, waarbij dan vaak vergeten wordt dat het etymologies-histories “vreemde” woord het meest vertrouwde en dus meest eigene kan zijn: taalkundig beschouwd behoort paraplu tot onze “moedertaal”, terwijl regenscherm een “vreemde” woord is.’

Too many Afrikaans scholars in their treatises have attempted to draw the line between misbare and onmisbare anglicisms, which has unavoidably led to contradiction because of the subjectivity of the criteria being applied. In future the division should be one based on ingeburgerde and nie-ingeburgerde anglicisms where the decision makers are the users of the language, and works such as WAT, HAT and textbooks must take more heed of common usage. Of course in any standard language the written word lags behind the spoken word, and English influence usually begins at the level of the spoken language (cf. footnote 2 p. 17 on papier-anglisismes) - a certain time span must be allowed to give the written language time to catch up with events. It has been my impression, however, that this time span is too great in Afrikaans if one is really expected to abide by the prescriptions of certain grammars and dictionaries. To take an extreme example, A.N.E. Changuion observed the use of een in expressions such as 'n mooi een in 1844, but in 1978 J.P. Botha and J.M.H. van Aardt were still advocating against its use - 134 years later. This can only be regarded as an unrealistic refusal to accept an undeniable linguistic change, purely and simply because the authors concerned see it as English in origin, regardless of its frequency and the degree of acceptability which the phenomenon enjoys in the speech community at large.⁸ The following sound advice of Rousseau (1937: 219) should be heeded by grammarians such as Botha and Van Aardt:

‘Veral as 'n Engelsheid nie as sodanig deur die gewone Afrikaner gevoel word nie, en dus nie die gewone Afrikaner sebewussyn benadeel nie, is die verstandigste gedragslyn miskien: Laissez-faire.’

Le Roux (1968: 172) stated quite correctly:

‘Bo die logika staan wat die taal betref, die lewende taalgebruik self; dit is 'n nog hoër wetboek. Die skryftaal loop nie

8 It is in fact questionable whether this use of een is an anglicism. (cf. 7.27.7)

[p. 83]

sommer die volksmond na nie; die geskrewe woord moet in breër behoeftes voorsien as die gesproke woord en is daarom algemener en ook konserwatiewer. Maar die skryftaal het voortgekom uit die beskaafde spreektaal en moet steeds daarmee in voeling bly, of hy boet van sy lewe in en word houterig en stereotiep.’

I find no fault with this statement, but Le Roux is himself one of the many scholars who continually prescribes forms which are at odds with accepted practice (e.g. p. 173 where he discusses stress). Malherbe (1917: 17), although his style would now be considered somewhat romantic, gave sound advice with regard to admitting anglicisms into one's written style:

‘Laat ons ons skrijftaal nie aan bande lê en so vaste grense afbaken waarbuite geen skrijwer mag gaan sonder om hom te besondig aan seker wette en reëls wat feilbare mense opgestel het nie.. Laat die skrijftaal gedra word deur die krag wat vloei uit die lewende omgangstaal. Vir die bouwer aan ons taal, die skrijwer, sou 'n mens wil sê: Gaan jouw gang onbekommerd, wees gehoorsaam alleen aan die innerlike drang wat die vorm skep waarin jouw eie wese geopenbaar word; volg selfs die beste stijl nie na nie, tensij navolging beteken deurdringing van die gekose model met eie wesenstrekke, wat dan geen navolging meer sal wees nie. So sal ons vorm die Afrikaanse skrijftaal van die toekoms, die draer van ons kultuur, die beeld van ons volksiel!’

To follow his advice, which in a nutshell amounts to writing what you as a native-speaker feel sounds correct - whatever its origins and whatever alternatives may exist in the language - would mean these days to admit a vast number of anglicisms to written Afrikaans that have been frowned upon by generations of academics and schoolteachers.

Suffeleers (1979: 186), referring to the situation in Flanders, comments:

‘Het is zonder twijfel aan ons puristisch voorgeslacht te wijten dat de termen “taalzuivering” en “taalzuiveraar” in zekere zin werden gediscrediteerd doordat die taalverzorging vaak werd geïdentificeerd met een irrationele stryd tegen het vreemde woord.’

I don't think the same contempt for the work of the purist of the past exists in South Africa yet, but I must concede that my feelings began to move in that direction as I made my way through the vast wealth of material that has

[p. 84]

been written on the topic of anglicisms in Afrikaans. It is to be hoped that a new age has finally dawned in South Africa in this respect and that sensible guidelines that take account of common practice will soon be forthcoming from the Taalkommissie and that an end will come to the long era during which stubborn prescription not based on the realities of the South African situation will be a thing of the past.