Logo DBNL
The Influence of English on Afrikaans (1991)

The Influence of English on Afrikaans

(1991)–Bruce Donaldson–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

4.1 What constitutes standard Afrikaans and acceptability?

Most speech communities have a standard language, whether it's called the Queen's English, Schriftsprache or ABN.1 The speakers of every language feel the need for a term and use it without hesitation, happy in the knowledge that they know what it means and the listener or reader does too. Finding an acceptable definition of what precisely is meant by the standard language, even for languages which have had a recognised standard form for a much longer period than has Afrikaans, is so much more difficult, however, than the frequent use of the term would lead one to believe.

 

In Holland, both among laymen and linguists, there is far more talk of ABN than one hears of the standard language in South Africa, often with strong sociological connotations being applied to anything that is not considered ABN. This is partially due to the vast regional variation that exists in the Netherlands and the very real existence of the dialect speech.

Particularly, but not exclusively, in Belgium there is a preference for the term Algemeen Nederlands (cf. Odendal, 1973: 44), as Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands implies that anything that falls outside it is by definition onbeschaafd. As the definitions below will illustrate, Dutch scholars have had great difficulty in finding an adequate definition of what is meant by standard Dutch. Far fewer attempts seem to have been made to define standard Afrikaans and yet, because there is a greater homogeneity in the Afrikaans speech community than is the case in Holland or Belgium, a definition of standard Afrikaans should be easier to formulate, one might reason. It is precisely on the point of anglicisms, and the extent to which many of them are or are not, should or should not be recognised, that a problem arises in formulating an acceptable definition of the concept.

 

Two definitions from relatively recent Dutch publications will suffice to illustrate how vague the concept of ABN in fact is. Van den Toorn (1977: 64):

‘Men kan stellen dat hij ABN spreekt, die de woordenschat van een normaal Nederlands schoolwoordenboek over het algemeen als de zijne herkent en er zich ook actief van bedient.’

Here Van den Toorn falls back, however, on an earlier definition of Kloeke's (1951). Koelman's (1979: 36) definition is even vaguer:

‘Het ABN wordt misschien ooit een eenheid, maar is dat op het ogenblik bepaald nog niet. Eigenlijk is het een abstractie, wat duidelijk wordt zodra men probeert tot een sluitende definitie te komen.’

The two definitions of standard language by Afrikaans linguists I have chosen to discuss here are those of Odendal (1973: 44-46) and Van Rensburg (1983: 135), both members of the Taalkommissie. Odendal deals with the concept of Algemeen-Beskaaf in general without actually referring to Afrikaans, whereas Van Rensburg looks specifically at standaard versus nie-standaard Afrikaans, although the context in which he discusses the concept has nothing to do with anglicisms. Nevertheless, both definitions can be appropriately applied to this discussion.

 

Odendal defines Algemeen-Beskaaf essentially by describing what it is not:

‘Eerstens is die AB nie noodwendig die taal van die meerderheid sprekers nie; dit is eerder die taal van 'n bepaalde groep
wat om een of ander rede as die toonaangewende beskou word... Dit is ook nie die taal van 'n individu of enkele individue nie, hoe graag enkelinge dikwels juis húlle taalgebruik as normgewend wil aansien. Dit is ook nie die taal van alle toonaangewendes nie... Dit is ten slotte nie net die taalgebruik van die toonaangewendes nie; niks verhoed die laagste op die sosiale leer om die AB aan te leer nie.’

His reference to certain individuals choosing to regard their language usage as the norm is particularly appropriate to the South African situation when it comes to anglicisms: the literature abounds with people approving or disapproving of anglicisms that they personally feel have the right to exist in Afrikaans, regardless of common practice. It is significant that Odendal, as both chairman of the Taalkommissie and chief editor of HAT, should conclude his discussion of Algemeen-Beskaaf with the following words:

‘Ons moet...in gedagte hou dat alhoewel taalkundiges soms meehelp dat die AB sy oorheersende posisie bereik en handhaaf, dit in eerste instansie die sprekers self is wat dit aan hom toegeken het...’

Due to the lack of true dialect variation in South Africa as yet,2 although some might be inclined to label Coloured and Griqua Afrikaans as such, or even that spoken by Whites in Namaqualand or South West Africa, standard Afrikaans is based on what Odendal calls a ‘groeptaal’, rather than on a given dialect, as is the case in most European countries.3

 

Van Rensburg gives a positive definition of standard Afrikaans and avoids the term Algemeen-Beskaaf. In my opinion it has too strong a Dutch flavour to it, and, as there is even criticism in the Low Countries of the connotation of beskaaf, the term is better not transposed to the South African situation. The term substandard, nowadays not uncommonly heard in Holland, is better also avoided because it too implies a value judgement. Van Rensburg favours the neutral term nie-standaard. His definition of standard Afrikaans is as follows:

‘Die standaardvorm van Afrikaans is 'n idealisering van hoe Afrikaans deur sy toonaangewende sprekers gepraat behoort
te word. Dit is die Afrikaans wat aan geïnstitusionaliseerde instellings gekoppel word - die Afrikaans wat in die Kerk en Skool gehoor behoort te word, van verhoë af, in Staatsdienskantore, in Kultuurliggame, ens. Dit is ook die Afrikaans wat in goedversorgde koerante behoort te staan, en in die meeste van die boeke wat Afrikaanslesers toegelaat word om te lees.’

Before continuing with the discussion of Van Rensburg's definition, it is appropriate at this point to add the following comment by De Villiers (Die Huisgenoot, 2/12/49):

‘Ek moes waarsku teen die wanbegrip dat daar net een standaardtaal is, 'n standaardtaal wat geen afwykings of wisselvorme ken nie.’

The emphasis Van Rensburg puts on behoort is a reflection of the fact that this is often not the case, particularly with regard to the use of anglicisms. With this definition, however, the question arises as to who determines what behoort (gepraat/gehoor/geskryf te word). That question is perhaps answered in a roundabout fashion by Odendal's definition of the standard language. (cf. p. 121) (See also Steyn's comments on another connotation of behoort te wees, p. 78) The delineation of standard Afrikaans, as opposed to that of the standard languages of Western Europe, is much more concerned with social factors and far less with dialectal considerations. Integral to this, although it does not seem to have been foremost in the minds of the two scholars quoted, is the degree to which English influence is tolerated in the language.4 Integral to this in turn is whether the speaker, whether a toonaangewende or not, is even aware of many of the anglicisms he uses. As De Bruto (1970: 36) remarked:

‘Watter bousel is in Afrikaans 'n Anglisisme?, vir wie? (vir watter spreker, hoorder, taalgebruiker, taalbeskouer?).’

Both Odendal and Van Rensburg use the term toonaangewendes, whereas Le Roux (1968: 165, but written in 1947) refers to beskaafde en ontwikkelde Afrikaners and Rousseau (1937: 72) to opgevoede Afrikaners, for

example. Presumably all authors are referring to the same concept, the more modern toonaangewende now being a more acceptable term than what the older scholars apparently considered appropriate when their works were published.

 

Le Roux (1952: 9-10) posed the question Wat is suiwer Afrikaans? and offered the following answer:

‘As u daaraan twyfel of 'n bepaalde uitdrukking suiwer Afrikaans is, vergelyk dit dan met Hollands, sal party sê. Maar ons het dan Afrikaans aanvaar as skryf- en kultuurtaal, en dit beteken tog in wese dat Afrikaans tot sy eie norm gemaak is. Buitendien het die intieme kennis van Nederlands sedertdien so agteruitgegaan dat dit 'n onbillike eis sou wees om aan die algemene publiek te stel. Gaan na die platteland, sal 'n ander sê, daar sal u die suiwerste Afrikaans hoor [maar] Engelse vakterme skiet nêrens so maklik wortel as by die boerebevolking nie. Nee, die norm vir goeie taal moet in Suid-Afrika, net soos in alle ander lande, aangegee word deur die mees beskaafde en ontwikkelde sprekers en skrywers.’

De Bruto (1970: 37) questions whether authors should be included on the grounds that their language is usually not representative of a given speech community. Coetzee (1948: 2) is more cautious in what he says than Le Roux and emphasises the intangibility of the factors concerned:

‘Jy moet jou proheer rekenskap gee van die begrip “algemeen beskaafde omgangstaal”, van die wedersydse verhouding van die gesproke en die geskrewe vorm daarvan, van hoe dit ontstaan en bestaan, wie dit praat, die woordeskat en sinsbou en die uitspraak daarvan. En boweal moet mens jou afvra waar die algemeen beskaafde omgangstaal sy gesag van algemeenheid en van beskaafdheid vandaan haal.’

Such cautiousness is criticised by De Villiers (1977: 3):

‘Maar die gevaar dreig wel van die kant van die taalkundige dat hy geen standpunt wil stel nie, bloot waarnemer wil wees.’

He takes Steyn (1976) to task, for example, for regarding all his material as variante, without distinguishing between norme and afwykings.

 

If the standard language is an abstract concept, as Koelmans suggests it is in Dutch and as the repeated use of behoort by Van Rensburg implies it is in Afrikaans too, clearly ‘opinions will differ greatly as to what might or

might not be an anglicism in each specific case, firstly, because of disagreement about the concept “Afrikaans” and secondly, because of different subjective motives... Sekere Anglisismes [sal] deur 'n groter groep sprekers as sodanig erken en herken word en sommige Anglisismes [sal] soms weer deur 'n kleiner groep as sodanig aangevoel word.’ (De Bruto 1970: 36 & 38)

 

Exclusive thus to Afrikaans is the close correlation between determining on the one hand what constitutes the standard language, and on the other hand firstly, what is or is not an anglicism and secondly, whether a given anglicism is ‘permissible.’ If I were to limit my corpus exclusively to what some people regard as the standard language, for example textbook and dictionary compilers, there would be far fewer examples. But as Combrink (1968: 8) defines Afrikaans in general, that is the object of investigation here:

‘Afrikaans is die taal soos hy daagliks gebruik word deur ál die mense wat “Afrikaans” praat. Soos die mense praat, so ís Afrikaans.’

That Afrikaans is riddled with anglicisms, many of which either are already, or undoubtedly will be, regarded by many native-speakers as belonging to standard Afrikaans, assuming that they are even recognised by such people as anglicisms to begin with, which is often not the case. (Of course the reverse, hypercorrection, is also not uncommon in South Africa, cf. 5.3)

 

Kloeke (1951: 3) points out one practical difficulty of confining one's investigations to that one limited circle of so-called educated or cultured speakers:

‘Beperkt men zich bij de beschrijving uitsluitend tot de taal der volopbeschaafden, dan nòg dient rekening te worden gehouden met het feit, dat bij de levende taal van het ogenblik op zijn minst drie generaties tegelijkertijd actief betrokken zijn.’

This comment is particularly appropriate in the case of anglicisms in Afrikaans, especially with regard to their acceptability. It would seem to be unavoidable that up and coming generations, so more perfectly bilingual than previous generations and reared in an age of television and home videos, will be more tolerant of anglicisms in their Afrikaans if for no other reason than that they are even less aware of, or concerned about, what constitutes an anglicism. Kloeke goes on to describe the limitations of

modern prescriptive grammars in a way that is of even more general application to Afrikaans than it is to Dutch, the object of his interest:

‘Het gesloten systeem van de “moderne” grammatica is dunkt me een fictie en wie het toch als realiteit wil handhaven, loopt gevaar een Prinzipienreiter te worden. Ik ben trouwens van mening, dat een werkelijk bevredigende beschrijving van de taal der beschaafden alleen mogelijk is, wanneer men haar voortdurend beschouwt tegen de achtergrond van de taal der niet-beschaafden (met al hun oude en nieuwe spreekmodes).’

His warning against regarding AB as an unassailable holy cow should also be taken all the more to heart in South Africa:

‘Die tijd ligt niet zo heel ver achter ons, dat men “algemeen” geneigd was, zich te richten naar een andere “norm”, die van de geschrevan taal. Niemand zal die doctrinaire tijd terug begeren, maar zou het ook kunnen zijn, dat het dogma van het primaat van de schrijftaal ongemerkt door een ander dogma is vervangen: dat van de absolute autonomie van het “Algemeen Beschaafd”?’ (p. 13)

In making these comments, Kloeke is leading up to the importance he places on the attitude of the spraakmakende gemeente, a term which occurs quite frequently in Afrikaans writing too. Even Smith (1962: 62), who is quite strongly prescriptive in what he writes, concedes:

‘As ons nou met redelike sekerheid vasgestel het dat 'n uitdrukking 'n anglicisme is, dan kom ons verder voor die gewigtige vraag te staan of ons dit moet aanneem of moet verwerp. Dit is natuurlik 'n onloënbare feit dat die eindbeslissing nie by die indiwidu nie, maar wel by die spraakmakende gemeente berus...’

He puts up an argument for the use of tentoonstelling instead of skou, for example, but concludes:

‘Natuurlik kan die spraakmakende gemeente teen my sienswyse besluit en tog die nuwe “skou” in sy woordeskat opneem. Maar die sal desnietemin strydig wees teen die Nederlands-Afrikaanse taalgees...’ (p. 17)

And indeed that is what the speech community has since done in this case, vague ideals such as the Nederlands-Afrikaanse taalgees having very little meaning for the common man. The spraakmakende gemeente in the case

of Afrikaans is that group which exists between the two extremes mentioned by Le Roux (1926: 362):

‘Tussen die taal van die puristiese professor en die stedeling wat 'n Afrikaans-Engelse mengeltaal praat, is die grade van verengelste Afrikaans by indiwiduele sprekers oneindig veel.’

Weinreich, Labov and Herzog (1968: 106), paraphrasing the Junggrammatiker Hermann Paul, see the matter in the following terms:

‘A comparison of individual languages (which we may, at the risk of terminological anachronism but with little fear of distortion, relabel “idiolects”) yields a certain “average”, which determines what is actually normal in the language - the Language Custom.’

Although the emphasis must be put on the practices and perceptions of the speech community, this is not to say that the written language has no influence at all on the formation of the standard language:

‘Formele standaardisasie geld vir vorme wat vir die taal voorgeskryf word deur die grammatikaboeke, woordeboeke en taalakademies. Die belangrike rol wat die skryftaal by standaardisasie speel, kan ook nie onderskat word nie.’ (Coetzee 1982: 276)

As numerous examples in both Dutch and Afrikaans indicate, ‘De geschiedenis leert dat purismen, door toongevende geleerden of dichters ingevoerd, tot op onze tijd in gebruik bleven.’ (De Vooys 1925: 27)

 

Cluver (1982: 79), although looking at the issue from the point of view of a terminologist, makes a point which is of general validity to the fixing of norms from above in Afrikaans:

‘Termnormering vind plaas binne die parameters van die grammatika van 'n taal maar ook binne sekere sosiale parameters van die betrokke samelewing [thus English loanwords are avoided in Afrikaans]... 'n ...implikasie van hierdie aanname is dat die terminoloog oor sekere sosiologiese insigte sal beskik. In Engeland kan 'n terminologiewese nie baie ver vorder nie, want taaldekrete (of taalnorme) sal baie moeilik deur die Britte aanvaar word. Termnormering sal deur 'n spontane proses van konsensus moet geskied eerder as deur termvoorskrifte. Hierteenoor sal termnormering juis
maklik plaasvind in die meer gereglementeerde samelewings van die Duitssprekende lande. Die terminoloog moet onthou dat Suid-Afrika uit verskillende kultuurgroepe bestaan wat elk op sy manier op taalnorme reageer.’

In his willingness to accept authority and not to question directives from above in general, the Afrikaner differs little from the German example Cluver quotes. Perhaps this is the reason that puristic trends in Afrikaans have had the success they have so far.

 

The literature on anglicisms in Afrikaans abounds with judgements as to whether certain structures are or should be regarded as goeie Afrikaans, korrek, toelaatbaar, erken, ingeburgerd or whether they have obtained or should obtain burgerreg. Presumably these terms are all more or less synonymous. The subjective attitudes influencing the individual writers' decisions to award linguistic phenomena such a label or not were discussed under 2.3. The literature proves that what in many instances was formerly considered ingeburger, has since disappeared from the language. One man's (e.g. Terblanche 1972) or one generation's idea of regte Afrikaans is not necessarily another's:

‘Die Ingeburgerdheid van die eenheid is moeilik vas te stel, alleen in uitsondelike gevalle kan die toekoms voorspel word. Wat by die een geslag ingeburgerd is, verdwyn in die volgende tydperk.’ (Rousseau 1937: 206)

Combrink (1984: 101) apparently considers the label erken is warranted if it is recognised by the Akademie, presumably by its inclusion in the AWS. For purposes of this work, however, and for practical purposes, I will often regard the presence or absence of phenomena in HAT as evidence of official recognition, while keeping in mind that decisions made by the speech community today will not be in HAT till tomorrow and thus there will often be a (large) discrepancy between what one hears, or even reads, and what HAT is prepared at this stage to give sanction to. (cf. 3.4.2 for a treatment of HAT's attitude to anglicisms.) For such is undoubtedly the nature of this form of linguistic change in Afrikaans: a structure must first enter the language, usually at the spoken level, and after a prolonged period of residence, during which time it becomes so frequent as to be ultimately considered so indispensable that prescriptive and normalising bodies are forced by common usage to recognise it and even finally advocate its use. This qualifying period does nevertheless often seem to be excessively long in the case of many anglicisms found in Afrikaans.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

taalkunde