Logo DBNL
The Influence of English on Afrikaans (1991)

The Influence of English on Afrikaans

(1991)–Bruce Donaldson–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

3.2 Works written in the 1930's

After a virtual dearth of works on anglicisms since Mansvelt, in the 1930's there was suddenly a great interest in the topic and concern for the influence English was having. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the great social and political upheaval in South Africa at the time, occurring so soon after the official recognition of Afrikaans. In addition to numerous articles in the popular magazines of the age, two important monographs appeared on the topic, Taalgoggas in die daelikse lewe by Twee Oud-onderwysers and Die invloed van Engels op Afrikaans by H.J. Rousseau. Curiously enough they both appeared in the same year, 1937, and to this day are the only substantial monographs on the topic, although even the former is not devoted exclusively to Engelse goggas.

3.2.1 O. van Oostrum and P. Heslinga's Taalgoggas in die daelikse lewe (1937)3

Van Oostrum and Heslinga wrote this book under the pseudonym Twee Oud-onderwysers. Section one, pages 1-49, deals with the so-called Engelse goggas, and section two, pages 50-82, deals with Afrikaanse goggas. They maintain that the replacement of Dutch by Afrikaans has eradicated a large number of ‘Engelse woorde en ander Anglisismes’ (p. 1), but that nevertheless many remain. They seem to be in no doubt that the language at the time of writing had attained a degree of purity that was lacking thirty years before, although they clearly feel that this is no reason for complacency. The attitude of the authors to Dutch on the one hand and English on the other is clearly stated at the beginning:

‘In teenstelling met sekere vegters vir Afrikaans wat uit vrees vir verhollandsing so ver moontlik wil wegbly van Nederlands, en wat daardeur by Engels te lande kom, sien die meeste taalgeleerdes alleen heil vir die heropbou van Afrikaans in nouer aansluiting by Nederlands. Ons insiens tereg, want die Dietse karakter van ons taal word bes bewaar, of in so ver dit deur vreemde invloed geskend is, weer in sy suiwerheid herstel, deur terugkeer na die bron waaruit dit voortgekom het.’ (p. 2)

In taking this stance they are diametrically opposed to what Langenhoven (1935) was advocating at much the same time in history.

 

For the Twee Oud-onderwysers identification of an anglicism in Afrikaans was relatively simple:

‘... 'n Anglisisme is 'n woord of uitdrukking wat sy oorsprong in Engels het en indruis teen die Dietse taaleie van Afrikaans... Ons het met 'n Anglisisme te doen in elke geval waarin Engelse invloed besig is om die Dietse karakter van ons taal te ondermyn.’ (p. 4)

They add a footnote at this point in which they justify their use of the term anglicism to cover loanwords as well, their aim being to address eenvoudige lesers and not geleerdes. In keeping with the times in which they were writing, the authors are strictly prescriptive in approach and their attitude to the common man's perception of his own speech verges on arrogance; they are critical of the fact ‘dat hy [the average speaker of Afrikaans] hulle [anglicisms] nie meer aanvoel as iets wat aan die Afrikaanse taaleie vreemd is nie, inteendeel, hy leef in die salige oortuiging dat sy taal heeltemal in orde is.’ (p. 4) From a modern point of view and with the wisdom of hindsight, I would maintain that the authors failed to recognise what was occurring in the speech of the individuals they are so critical of as language change.

 

Van Oostrum and Heslinga see it as the patriotic duty of every Afrikaner to combat anglicisms in their language, although they are prepared to concede that ‘Daar is al heelparty wat ons nie meer sal kan wegkry nie: hulle moet beskou word as genaturaliseerde vreemdelinge.’ (p. 6) They resort to vivid imagery in which English is seen as having conquered Afrikaans territory from which the enemy must be driven back and conclude: ‘Ons is goeie vriende met die Engelse, maar elkeen moet op sy eie gebied bly.’ (p. 6) The reasons the authors give for code-switching, although they may have been valid in the 1930's, have certainly changed now; nevertheless, the phenomenon itself is still commonplace:

‘... die veskynsel dat Afrikaners onder mekaar, sommer sonder aanwysbare rede, plotseling van Afrikaans in Engels oorslaan en ewe plotseling weer van Engels in Afrikaans... Die ware rede...[is]...omdat die sprekers nie een van die twee tale goed ken nie en daarom, as hulle geen woorde in die een taal kan vind nie, maar na die ander toe oorskakel.’ (p. 6)

I would be inclined to attribute the cause of such switching these days to the high degree of bilingualism so prevalent among Afrikaners, rather than to an insufficient knowledge of both or either languages.4

The book proceeds to discuss various sorts of Engelse goggas, which are grouped as follows:

‘a. Engelse woorde oorgeneem; b. klakkelose vertalings; c. Engelse sinsbou in Afrikaans; d. Engelse gebruik van voorsetsels; e. Engelse uitspraak van Afrikaanse woorde.’ (p. 7)

The authors attempt to present their corpus in what is presumably meant to be an entertaining fashion which may have gone down well in the 1930's, but simply sounds corny these days, for example:

‘Die winkelier neem stok op; maar wees gerus, hy sal niemand slaan nie; hy is maar net besig met sy voorraad.’ (p. 9)

On page 8 the reader is given plausible reasons for why skou5 cannot be used as a synonym for tentoonstelling, but as time has shown, such academic reasoning bears little relation to the realities of how language is perceived and used by the speech community.

 

On pages 10-16 there are long lists of English vocabulary which was apparently commonly used in Afrikaans at the time. Comparison of these lists with what is commonly said these days provides proof that what the Twee Oud-onderwysers advocated was not always unrealistic:6

‘Tog reken ons dat dit nog wel moontlik is om hul voortgang te stuit, mits die sprekers wat hulle gebruik, 'n besliste poging aanwend om in plaas daarvan die suiwer Afrikaanse woorde te stel.’ (p. 9)

At times what the writers prescribe reads like a Dutch grammar of the kind Changuion wrote, for example where they insist on the definite article being used with street names (in die Kerkstraat, p. 36) and on a distinction being made between onthou (to remember - keep in mind) and jou herinner (to remember - recollect). (p. 27) It is always amusing when reading these older works on anglicisms, where the authors are usually so schoolmasterly and so convinced that they are correct, to catch them committing the very sins they are preaching against, for example: having just insisted on a distinction being made between onthou and jou herinner, where confusion has arisen due to English having only one lexeme to cover both semantemes, the Twee Oud-onderwysers use bedoel where in fact they mean beteken, presumably also because English has

only one word for the two meanings, i.e. to mean (in the footnote on p. 28). Similarly on page 35 the authors quote the following sentence with particular reference to the anglicism na Hoofkantoor, while apparently being oblivious to the English use of sal instead of wil, something which is admittedly now considered to be standard Afrikaans (cf. 7.9.1.2):

‘Sal u so goed wees om die prinsipale (van skole) te vra om eksemplare van items waaroor hulle klagtes het, na Hoofkantoor te stuur.’

If the authors were completely consistent with their express desire to remain true to die Dietse taaleie, sal should be regarded as incorrect in this context. When reading such older writings on anglicisms where the authoritarian stance of the authors is so foreign to the approach linguists take these days, one feels inclined to do a little preaching oneself:

‘Haal eers die balk uit jou eie oog uit, dan sal jy goed kan sien om die splinter uit jou broer se oog uit te haal.’ (Matthew 7:5)

On the other hand, such ‘mistakes’ or oversights on the part of the authors are a convenient indication of the extent to which English influence had apparently given rise to language change even then. Grobler (1976: 47) looked at this book forty years later and came to the conclusion that ‘Die twee Oud-onderwysers sou “Taalgoggas in die Daelikse Lewe” 'n herdruk met geringe wysiginge kon laat beleef...’ She, like Van Oostrum and Heslinga, but with less justification than they, apparently also fails to see the phenomena in question as more than simple errors and to recognise them as examples of language change, either complete or in progress.

3.2.2 H.J. Rousseau's Die invloed van Engels op Afrikaans. Deel 1. 'n Sosiologies-taalkundige Ondersoek (1937)

There is no other work in anglicisms in Afrikaans that can be compared with Rousseau's for length and degree of detail. Rousseau wrote it originally as a doctoral thesis for the University of Cape Town which he presented in 1933. It was subsequently awarded a prize by the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie for the best work on anglicisms and it was on the direction of the Akademie that the thesis appeared as a monograph in 1937. Comparison of the book with the original dissertation shows very few, if any, changes with the exception that the latter was followed by three appendices in which the questionnaire and the examples which the author got people to pronounce and comment on were included. Rousseau apparently based his corpus on 400 questionnaires which he sent to students

at the Unie-Korrespondensiekollege in Pretoria, of which 200 were returned. Part 2, which according to the preface of part 1 ‘sal lyste Engelshede bevat’ (p. iv), never saw the light of day. The following comment from the preface applies as much to my work as it did to Rousseau's:

‘'n Verhandeling van hierdie aard kan egter nooit volledig of volmaak wees nie.’ (p. iv)

In one very basic respect Rousseau's intentions and mine clearly differ: ultimately he hoped that his work would be of some benefit to the purification of Afrikaans, an aim common to every Afrikaner that has written on the topic to date, whereas I aim merely to observe and present as objectively as possible, the linguistic processes which have occurred and are still occurring in this unique contact situation. Whether my work will ultimately assist purists in their efforts is another matter - it is certainly not my prime goal. Smith (1938: 30) said in praise of Rousseau:

‘In Suid-Afrika praat en skrywe ons baie oor taalsuiwerheid, maar hoeveel van ons is daar wat werklik 'n ernstige studie van die saak gemaak het? ...niemand het die saak tot nog toe op die omvattende wyse van dr. Rousseau aangedurf nie.’

In the opsomming (p. v) the author maintains:

‘Die taalinvloed van die Engelse kultuur het byna uitsluitlik van die Engelse spreektaal soos dit in Suid-Afrika lewe, uitgegaan, en het die Afrikaanse skryftaal meer ten goede as ten kwade, die Afrikaanse spreektaal meer ten kwade as ten goede gestrek. Dié invloed is veel wyer maar minder diepgaande as wat gewoonlik aangeneem word...

Many would still agree with his comment on the influence of English on the Afrikaans spreek- and skryftaal and there is little doubt that the influence is still greater than most realise, but whether one can still maintain that it is less penetrating, is open to question; much of what Rousseau observed as interference phenomena fifty years ago and still hoped to see eradicated from the language, or so it seems, can now be recognised for what it is - language change.

 

Rousseau regarded Boere-Afrikaans as the most reliable means of identifying English influence, whereas the Twee Oud-onderwysers relied on die Dietse taaleie, although for Smith (1962: 75, but written 1936-39) these amounted to the same thing. I am not in a position to argue that this was not the case in the 1930's or that Boere-Afrikaans was not a reliable

criterion at that time, but it certainly does not hold today. Rousseau concludes his resumé with the curious comment that in the battle to purify Afrikaans ‘kan Duits ons waardevoller hulp bied as Nederlands.’ (p. v)

 

Rousseau divides his book into four chapters. Chapter 1 (p. 1-36) is entitled ‘Taal en Taalvermenging’. After an analysis of the psychological reasons for language interference (‘taalvermenging’) in general, the author looks at the forms that interference can take and classifies these broadly as ‘Vreemde-woorde’, ‘Leenwoorde’, ‘Basters’ and ‘Ismes’. (p. 19) In seeing anglicisms as ‘veral die produkte van onvoldoend-tweetaliges’ (p. 5), Rousseau agrees with the Twee Oud-onderwysers (1937: 6); on this point I differ from these scholars, although the circumstances of the bilingual situation are now quite different from what they were in the 1930's. (cf. footnote 4 on p. 92) Rousseau also recognises the role of contributing factors (cf. 6.3) although he does not develop a theory beyond stating:

‘Bestaan daar reeds onsekerheid en 'n flou neiging in 'n bepaalde rigting, dan versterk 'n daarmee ooreenstemmende neiging in die vreemde taal dit in baie hoë mate.’ (p. 17)

According to Rousseau, a ‘vreemde-woord’ (p. 19) is a straight loan which is ‘te ongebruiklik in Afrikaans om as 'n Leenwoord beskou te word’ (p. 24) and which ‘word egter byna altyd, al is dit hoe min, aan die inheemse klanke aangepas; van leenwoorde is dit veel meer die geval.’ (p. 20) The line he draws between this category and the next is indeed a very thin one.

 

He classifies as ‘Leenwoorde’ (p. 20) (1) the names of things which, together with the things they designate, become part of his ‘kultuurbesit’, e.g. cultivator, and includes such hybrid forms as kidleer and horssweep. Here he mentions that such loanwords can be avoided by a) neologisms (e.g. kaalperske), b) new meanings being given to existing words (e.g. pond, voet)7 or c) loan translation (e.g. vonkprop, stortbad). (2) Under this subsection of loanwords Rousseau places what he calls ‘'n bekende saak met 'n vreemde naam’ to contrast with (1) above, which incorporates what he calls ‘'n vreemde saak met sy vreemde naam’; examples of the former are blackboard, breakfast, nice, wedding and teach where the psychological reasons for borrowing each of these are somewhat different in every case, according to Rousseau. In my opinion Rousseau's taxonomy actually leaves a lot to be desired, certainly as far as clarity is concerned; not only is the distinction he makes between various

loanwords often hazy, but he does not offer a satisfactory definition of the distinction he makes between ‘vreemde-woorde’ and ‘leenwoorde’. In as far as it is possible to pinpoint the distinction he makes, it seems he is guided chiefly by the psychology governing the adoption of each word (i.e. whether it is the result of necessity, desire to impress, brevity, etc.), rather than the form of the words concerned. I am not concerned with psychology but with linguistic forms, a point on which Rousseau's approach and mine differ markedly, which is not to say that I consider his approach invalid; on the contrary, much of what he describes in that respect is just as valid today.

 

Under ‘Basters’ (p. 22) Rousseau explains:

‘Die verskil tussen vreemde- en leenwoorde enersyds en basters en -ismes andersyds bestaan daarin dat die taalgebruiker in die laasgenoemde geval, gewoonlik bewus maar soms onbewus, die vreemde simbole vervang deur simbole uit sy eie taal sodat die deur 'n vreemde simbool geskepte of beïnvloede beeld vir oënskynlik suiwer eiesimbool weergegee word.’ (p. 22)

What he calls ‘basterismes’ or ‘basterwoorde’ - what the Dutch simply call bastaardwoorden - are those which have been influenced in one way or another by the contact with English because of their existence in English too. He identifies the following forms of influence:

(1) Die simbool bestaan in Nedl., maar sy betekenis (beeld) is Eng., bv. prominent, konstabel. (2) Die simbool bestaan in Nedl., maar sy verstofliking is Eng., bv. promminent8 (Nedl. proomienent - klanke), en authoriteit (Nedl. autoriteit - spelling). (3) Die simbool bestaan in Nedl. maar sy verbuiging is Eng., bv. 'n populêr kêrel. (4) Die simbool het nog nooit in Nedl. bestaan nie, maar bestaan wel in Eng., bv. diskusseer, denominasioneel.’ (p. 23)

Most Afrikaners are totally unaware of the role English influence is playing in such words, but this is explained bv Rousseau:

‘Gewoonlik is sy vreemde bevrugting taalkundig-bewysbaar alleen as die Nedl. in die een of die ander opsig van die Afr. verskil.’ (p. 23)

The author divides ‘Ismes’ (p. 23) into ‘woord-’ (e.g. eksamenpapier) and ‘beeld-ismes’ (e.g. loodneuskoeël). He also makes a distinction between what he terms ‘herhaalde ismes’ (e.g. maak as in maak 'n lewe/applikasie/geld; lyn as in in my lyn, langs hierdie lyne, lyne van 'n vers) and ‘aansluitende ismes’ (e.g. boelie, rof, stop, lot, boy, -self, die ander dag, 'n kans staan, siekverlof). (p. 24) I find this distinction rather artificial, unless one is perhaps looking at it from a psychological point of view, but I think he does have a valid point when he states:

‘... soms bestaan die vreemde invloed bloot daarin dat 'n bepaalde taaleenheid meer as tevore, of uitsluitlik gebruik word, bv. Wat het ek met jou te doen? (vroeër naas: Wat het ek met jou te maak?)...’ (p. 24)

He also makes mention here of Diets constructions that were on the wane or had died out, but of which the existence of a similar construction in English aided retention or the reintroduction of the phenomenon into Afrikaans (p. 24) - this refers to what I have called contributing factors (cf. 6.3), a facet of pseudo-anglicisms. (cf. 6.0)

 

In a sub-section of ‘Taal en Taalvermenging’ curiously entitled ‘-Ismiete’ (p. 24) Rousseau looks at the question of who is responsible for the introduction of anglicisms into Afrikaans - Afrikaans speaking Englishmen or English speaking Afrikaners? He concludes that it is difficult to assess but admits that ‘Hoe meer die Afrikaners Eng. ken...hoe meer moontlikheid...dat dit Afrikaners is wat dié -ismes skep en versprei.’ I would postulate, however, that although it may not have been clear in Rousseau's time where the source lay, it is now obvious, with the degree of bilingualism the Afrikaner has now attained, that it is to be found in his community and that the contribution of the English community in this regard is negligible. (cf. p. 17)

 

Rousseau gives due consideration to the various factors that have shaped Afrikaans, pointing out where apparent anglicisms may in fact be found in contemporary Dutch, Dutch prior to 1650 or Dutch dialects. These factors, together with English, he calls the ‘uiterlike toetsstene’. (p. 25) I cannot agree with his suggestion that ‘[daar] bestaan in die hedendaagse Nedl. duisende taaleenhede waaraan weens kulturele omstandighede nooit 'n behoefte in S.-Afrika bestaan het voor die koms van die Engelse nie, so is dekstoel, Latyn neem, die voordeel van die twyfel suiwer in Nedl., maar -ismes in Afr.’ (p. 26) Here Rousseau competely ignores the fact that contact with Dutch, at least with written Dutch, was never lost (i.e. because of the diglossia situation, cf. p. 37), at least not until after 1925, and what existed in Dutch had every right to be regarded as Afrikaans too if the need

arose.9 I do agree, however, with the following sentiment expressed by Rousseau:

‘Tog is die 17e eeuse Nedl. by ons taalgeleerdes 'n kwaal geword: sodra 'n taaleenheid wat in Afr. gebruik word in die een of ander geskriffie van voor circa 1650 aangetref word, is dit 'n bewys dat dié taaleenheid in Afr. suiwere erfgoed is.’ (p. 26)

This is a ‘kwaal’ which still exists. He makes a similar point in the subsection on the role of Dutch dialects:

‘Om 'n verdagte Afr. taaleenheid op rekening van 'n miskien onbeduidende Nedl. dialek te skuiwe net omdat dit daar aangetref word, getuig van veel minder wetenskaplike sin as om dit aan die in S.-Afrika so kragtige Eng. invloed toe te skrywe.’ (p. 27)

Rousseau regards the following as ‘innerlike toetsstene’ (p. 29): ‘Boere-Afrikaans’ (p. 29), ‘Materiële Kultuur’ (p. 30), ‘Gebruiksfeer’ (p. 31), ‘Gevoelswaarde’ (p. 31), ‘Betekenis’ (p. 31), ‘Opname in Afr. eenhede’ (p. 32), ‘Klank- en vormveranderings’ (p. 32). The importance he attaches to the first has been mentioned before: this must be a much less reliable criterion these days, where monolingual farmers exist no more, although Rousseau does add the interesting comment that ‘Die omstandigheid dat iemand g'n Eng. ken nie, is dan ook g'n bewys dat hy van Eng. “smette” vry is nie’ (p. 30), which is also an indication of language change occurring, although he does not see it in those terms.

 

Chapter 2 (p. 37) is entitled ‘Verengelsing van Afrikaners’10 and is divided into the ‘stoflike’ and ‘geestelike oorsake’ of English influence on the Afrikaans community. Under the former the author gives an excellent account of the position of Dutch and English in South Africa and how socio-political conditions led to anglicisation of Afrikaans. He is one of the few scholars who maintains, and in this I support him entirely, that many internationalisms (or ‘Engelsismes’) did not come into Afrikaans via Dutch, even though they occur in Dutch (p. 40); this is of course compatible with his argument that Dutch had little influence on Afrikaners, a point on which I do not agree with him.

 

The nature of many of the ‘geestelike oorsake’ (p. 55) he discusses has changed since the 1930's although the concepts as such still exist, for

example: the inferior position of Afrikaans (p. 55), the inferiority complex (p. 56) and the fact that Afrikaans is read far less than English (p. 57).

 

Chapter 3 returns to the categories of anglicisms mentioned on p. 19 which were discussed in general terms there. This chapter (p. 67-205) contains a very detailed discussion, illustrated with profuse examples, of the categories ‘Leenwoorde’ (p. 67-110), ‘Basters’ (p. 110-172) and ‘Anglisismes’ (p. 172-206). ‘Vreemde-woorde’, which he gave as a separate category on p. 19, is curiously dealt with as a sub-section of ‘Basters’ (p. 162-170) in chapter 3. The author classifies loanwords according to the social sphere to which they belong, i.e. government, railways, etc. This is an approach which I have not chosen to take in this book, as it would not contribute anything new to an understanding of anglicisms in Afrikaans and because it can also easily lead to an even greater artificiality of categorisation than is the case anyway; after all, each anglicism arises individually rather than as part of a group of foreign structures.

 

Many of the social conditions Rousseau refers to are now a thing of the past, for example on p. 71 where he maintains that English is the language of the courts and ‘dat selfs vandag nog baie mense skaars op Afrikaans kan tel.’ (p. 81) It is interesting to note, however, that he observed a definite trend in various spheres towards purity that was apparently previously lacking, for example under ‘verkeer’:

‘Soos in die ander gevalle, is dit interessant om hier op te merk dat, hoe jonger die saak, hoe minder Eng. dit word, bv. alleenvlug (solo flight)...’ (p. 74)

Rousseau continually betrays a thorough understanding of the linguistic processes at work in a society (cf. for example his discussion of slang, bottom p. 106-107) and refrains from emotional forms of self-expression. On both these counts he differs markedly from so many of his contemporaries although his written style is inevitably somewhat dated, for example:

‘Die meeste basterwoorde in Afr. kom nie uit Frans oor Nedl. nie, maar, hoewel vermom deur 'n spits baardjie en 'n snor wat aan die punte opswaai, uit Engeland...’

It is unfortunate - but nevertheless illuminating for linguists - that so much of his corpus is now out of date and that the book is typographically not appealing to the modern reader either, because it does contain a great deal of valid information despite such drawbacks. Rousseau's attempt to be

thorough has, I feel, led him at times to see a red under every bed, as it were, which was also Smith's (1938: 32) opinion:

‘By die deurlees van die werk het ek so langsamerhand tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die skrywer in sy ywer vir dié goeie saak, soms 'n bietjie te ver gaan: en daar is meer as een taalverskynsel wat hy somaar sonder meer as Engels beskou, maar waaromtrent 'n mens glad nie so stellig kan praat nie.’

In his discussion of ‘Basters’, the author devotes considerable space to his methods of research in trying to ascertain the origin of a given ‘foreign’ phenomenon in Afrikaans. He considers each of the following in turn: Dutch, Afrikaans, English, one's ‘taalgevoel’, meaning, sounds, and form. His conclusions, most of which are just as valid today as then, and possibly even more so because of the inferior knowledge of Dutch these days, were arrived at on the basis of information gleaned from his questionnaires:

‘Hierdie lys het aangetoon dat die gewone Afrikaner nie tussen egte en onegte basters (angll.) kan onderskei nie; dat hy dikwels Nedl. woorde vir angll. aansien en angll. vir Nedl.; en dat ook sy uitspr. baie anglisisties is.’ (p. 130) ‘M.a.w. ons onderskeidingsvermoë tussen Afrikaners en uitlanders is vinnig op weg om afgestomp te word, en dit byna uitsluitlik weens ons gedurige samesyn met Engelse.’ (p. 126)

Rousseau concludes that:

‘Die sterkste bewys van die Eng. invloed word deur die klanke van die basterwoorde gelewer. Dit blyk des te opvallender as ons eers nagaan hoe min invloed by die Germaanse woorde te bespeur is.’ (p. 134)

His conclusion that the pronunciation of Germanic words, the indigenous phonemic stock of Afrikaans, has been little affected by English is still the case, despite increased influence of English on other aspects of the language, but many would now disagree with some of his theories concerning the pronunciation of vowels in the unstressed syllables of international words. Nevertheless, the author's treatment of these ‘basterwoorde’, which includes an extremely detailed discussion of the phonology of such words (p. 139-169), is in my opinion the most important contribution Rousseau's work makes to the literature on anglicisms in Afrikaans. (cf. p. 287)

Because of his great attention to detail, so as not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, which is easily done when reading his book, Rousseau regularly follows up his arguments with summaries of the issues discussed (e.g. p. 99, 131, 170). These assist in clarifying the points he has made, although in at least one instance the resumé he offers is of little practical use and is also one which, certainly in the light of subsequent developments, I would contest: ‘Die invloed van Engels op Afrikaans: Raak die puntjies van alles maar die kern van niks.’ (p. 206), a claim which has been made by scholars on several occasions since.11

 

Chapter 3 concludes with a lengthy discussion of anglicisms in the narrower sense of the word where the author classifies his material according to traditional parts of speech, an approach which I too have chosen to apply to my corpus, although hopefully with a greater degree of oorsigtelikheid than is the case in Rousseau's work.

 

In chapter 4, ‘Slot’, he sums up his attitude to this topic which he has devoted so much time and thought to. One of his main conclusions is identical to that which I have also inevitably reached:

‘Die volksmassa praat “soos hy lekker kry”; g'n poging om 'n taal te suiwer het nog ooit geslaag tensy dit 'n gloeiende volksaak was, tensy die taal werklik gans die volk was en met Afr. is dit vandag nie die geval nie. “Liewer die gebruiklike Eng. as die ongebruiklike Diets” - dit vertolk die standpunt van bv. Langenhoven, allersuiwerste verpersoonliking van die Afr. volksmaak.’ (p. 213)

Although Rousseau does not anywhere in his dissertation look at anglicisms from the point of view of language change as such, with the benefit of hindsight it is now certainly possible to start seeing the concept in that light.12 In this respect Rousseau's work, however out of date his corpus may be and his views of the social forces at work at the time, forms an invaluable record of the situation in South Africa with regard to the influence of English on Afrikaans in the 1930's. Rousseau was so thorough in his treatment of the topic, I would not be surprised if no other

dissertation or monograph has been written on it since because of a general feeling of ‘what is there left to say?’ It is really only the passage of time, rather than any serious omission or error on Rousseau's part, that has rendered the topic worthy of re-analysis.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs