The Influence of English on Afrikaans

4.3 Displacement (verdringing) of indigenous structures

There is constant reference in the literature about English influence on Afrikaans to the fact that the contact between the two languages is leading to displacement of indigenous structures; the reaction is always inevitably one of concern accompanied by suggestions to stem the tide. Many scholars regard anglicisms that bots (clash) or are in stryd met die taaleie (at odds with the system) as having a negative influence on the language and what constitutes botsing or this stryd met die taaleie in the majority of cases seems to be synonymous with verdringing (displacement). There is thus a multiplicity of terms, all laden with negative connotations, for what is an inevitable repercussion of the Afrikaner's bilingualism. Even De Vooys (1925: 6), writing from the relatively secure position of a Dutchman on the influence of neighbouring languages on his native idiom, comments that a certain emotional reaction to such developments is understandable:

‘Zodra het on-eigene het eigene tracht te verdringen, voelen we dat als een aanranding, en ontwaakt een instinktief verzet, dat voor geen verstandelike redenering wijkt.’

The fact that some scholars have a different interpretation of botsing was mentioned under 2.2.2 but deserves repetition here to distinguish botsing from verdringing, a distinction which is not made by most and not made by anyone at all in these terms. Both Afrikaans and Dutch dictionary definitions (cf. 2.2.1) of an anglicism include the phrase in stryd met without additional elaboration. On further reflection, however, one wonders if the compilers of those definitions in each case had the same concept in mind. I have formed the impression that what the Dutch mean by the phrase is not what most Afrikaners mean. Van den Toorn's interpretation (quoted on p. 62-3), although he admits it is vague, is most

[p. 132]

probably representative of what is usually meant by in stryd met het taaleigen in Holland. In this work I intend to identify with his attitude that an anglicism can be said to clash (bots) in Afrikaans when it contains something - be it a phonological, morphological or syntactical characteristic - which is at odds with (in stryd met) the system of Afrikaans.⁵ This interpretation of the concepts of botsing and in stryd met die taaleie is totally separate from that of verdringing.⁶ I see the following as examples of clashing in this sense of the term: the presence of phonemes in loanwords that do not otherwise occur in that position in the language or in the language at all (e.g. wattelboompie, garage); the syntax of the phrases die Umgeni Waterraad (without -se or se) and busse alleenlik. Objection to clashing of this nature is more justified in my opinion than to phenomena which are apparently considered undesirable purely and simply because they displace older (Dutch?) structures but are not otherwise at odds with any aspect of the system of the language. Both can be seen as forms of linguistic change as a result of language contact, but they are essentially different in nature and frequency. The latter, new structures that are displacing older ones, are much more common than the former, those that contain features foreign to Afrikaans. The fact that the ‘Dutch’ constructions are gradually ceding to English inspired ones is evidence of that old adage of Langenhoven's coming true that an anglicism is often a better afrikaansism than many a hollandism. (cf. p. 77)

Boshoff (cf. p. 69), although he agrees with the traditional South African interpretation of botsing, is realistic enough to advocate not trying to oppose anglicisms which, although they may be displacing indigenous constructions, are not at odds with one's taalgevoel, i.e. resignation to a degree to displacement being inevitable. T.H. le Roux (cf. p. 58-59) is particularly opposed to any acceptance of displacement. J. Combrink (cf. p. 61) takes up a position somewhere between Boshoff and Le Roux when

5 Basson i.a. (1972: 41) gives three conditions which an anglicism must satisfy:
‘i) Dit moet na Engelse model gevorm wees;
ii) dit moet met die Afrikaanse taaleie bots; en
iii) dit moet bestaande Afrikaanse taalmateriaal verdring.’
Although the authors give no further information on what they consider constitutes botsing, they apparently see it as separate from verdringing.

6 Le Roux (1968: 162-3) contradicts himself somewhat in that in his discussion of the Lehnübertragung sypaadjie, he maintains that in its formation it contains nothing which bots (in agreement with my interpretation of the term) and thus it is acceptable but that lighuis does bots and is therefore unacceptable. In its formation, however, lighuis is no different from vuurtoring and sypaadjie - his objection to it in this instance is purely on grounds of it displacing the Dutch vuurtoring, whereas sypaadjie fills a gap which is filled by a loanword from French in Dutch (trottoir). He is thus inconsistent in his understanding of botsing and in his acceptance or rejection of it.

[p. 133]

he advocates the use of the term anglicism in future specifically for those phenomena which threaten to displace but have not yet completely succeeded, i.e. where the original structure is still competing for a permanent place in the idiom of the language. The attitudes to anglicisms discussed in chapter two are thus to a great extent attitudes to the concept of displacement.

Objection to verdringing is motivated by puristic sentiments, and purism (cf. 5.00) is essentially a subjective, sociological phenomenon that has ramifications for the language; botsing in my understanding of the term on the other hand, is entirely an objective, linguistic phenomenon.