The Influence of English on Afrikaans

4.4 Linguistic interference and language change

When ascertaining what constitutes linguistic change in a bilingual environment, one must attempt to distinguish between interference (taalversteuring) and change (taalverandering). Because of the gradual processes usually in force, this is not always easy to do. A bilingual society without the artificial constraints of conservative,⁷ normalising institutions such as education, academics, prescriptive works etc.⁸ will presumably experience interference phenomena more quickly entering the realm of linguistic change than is the case in all bilingual situations where European languages are involved: the third world could well have as yet undiscovered or little known examples of such a situation.

Weinreich (1964: 1), in his monumental work on languages in contact, defines interference as follows:

‘Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as interference phenomena.’

Van Wyk (1976: 142) objects that Weinreich does not distinguish clearly enough between what he calls versteuring (interference) and beïnvloeding (influence). Van Wyk defines the latter as ‘die oorname in moedertaalgebruik van aspekte van die grammatika van 'n ander taal.’ He uses

7 ‘Conservative’ is a particularly apt word here because of the connotation of conservation, i.e. of a former (often more Dutch) stage of the language.

8 Aitchison (1981: 139): ‘Although slowing down or reversals of changes are possible, ...change usually creeps in inexorably, hindered to some extent by literacy and other social factors, but not for long... it creeps in unnoticed for the most part and enmeshes the language firmly before people are aware of it.’

[p. 134]

beïnvloeding as an all encompassing term to cover what I have previously referred to as complementary and competitive phenomena (cf. 4.2); Ponelis (1979) habitually refers to Engelse inwerking which is presumably synonymous with beïnvloeding. Van Wyk then goes on to make the connection between influence and language change:

‘In die geval van beïnvloeding is aspekte van die grammatika van een taal (bv. Engels) in plaas van en naas eiegoed [my italics, BCD] oorgeneem in die grammatikas van sprekers van 'n ander taal (bv. Afrikaans). Dit geld gevolglik vir 'n hele taalgemeenskap of vir definieerbare onderdele daarvan. Dit is stabiele aspekte wat as deel van die moedertaal se grammatika en leksikon verwerp word voordat, en dikwels ook sonder dat, 'n ander taal aangeleer word. Beïnvloeding is m.a.w. 'n grammatiese verskynsel en gee soos klankverandering, analogie, ens. tot “taalverandering” aanleiding.’

Up to this point Van Wyk's opinions coincide with mine. On what constitutes interference, however, we differ markedly:

‘Daarteenoor is versteuring 'n taalgebruiksverskynsel wat eers voorkom wanneer 'n tweede taal (bv. Afrikaans) na die moedertaal (bv. Engels) aangeleer word en die direkte gevolg is van tweedetaalverwerwing. Versteuringsverskynsels is onstabiel en personaal omdat dit van persoon tot persoon en van geleentheid tot geleentheid by dieselfde persoon wissel. Egte versteuring kom juis nie in die moedertaal voor nie.’

It is curious that Van Wyk seeks to limit the use of the term interference to phenomena that occur in a second language when it is added to the repertoire of a speaker at a later stage in life; he does not apparently see, as I do, that the influence of that second language on the mother tongue - which he does acknowledge occurs - must begin as interference; the stability of influence phenomena he refers to is not present from the beginning. This is borne out by the fact that many English constructions that are now common in Afrikaans (and thus constitute beïnvloeding) are still not recognised by HAT, to name but one example, which presumably still regards them as more interference phenomena or is at least waiting for them to be so commonplace as to be worthy of the label ingeburger, i.e. as having made the transition from versteuring through beïnvoeding to taalverandering. Vogt (1954: 369) comments:

‘The majority of... interference phenomena are ephemeral and individual, others show greater regularities, being repeat-

[p. 135]

ed over and over again by many speakers. The mechanisms of the interference appear to be the same in both cases, but the linguist is of course mainly interested in those which are not entirely sporadic and individually conditioned, but which exhibit some systematic regularities. Such interference phenomena, spreading from the speech of bilinguals to the speech of monolinguals, can be expected to tell us something about the linguistic conditions of the interference phenomena, and also about the linguistic systems in contact, their similarities and congruences, and their differences.’

Vogt's remarks about the type of interference shedding light on the similarities and congruences of the two languages in contact is particularly apt in the case study under discussion here. (cf. 2.1.4)

Mackey (1972: 569) sees the distinction between interference and language change in the following terms:

‘Interference is the use of features belonging to one language while speaking or writing another. The description of interference must be distinguished from the analysis of language borrowing. The former is a feature of “parole”; the latter of “langue”. The one is individual and contingent; the other is collective and systematic. In language borrowing we have to do with integration, features of one language are used as if they were part of the other. The foreign features are used by monolingual speakers who may know nothing of the language from which such features originated.’⁹

Nowadays no Afrikaner remains monolingual of course, but Mackey's reference to monolingual speakers ultimately using foreign structures would apply to the situation that many pre-school Afrikaans children find themselves in, although these days they too can have often achieved a considerable degree of bilingualism even before receiving formal instruction in English at school.

Linguistic change will be first attested in the spoken language and although the norm of the written language may be applied for a time to counteract it, in many instances this will fail, a fact which usage will make abundantly evident in the course of time, and then it's up to the written language to conform to the spoken language:

9 Mackey identifies the following forms of interference: cultural, grammatical, graphic, lexical and semantic as well as interference in articulation and intonation. (p. 575-6)

[p. 136]

‘Ewe min as wat een taal as norm vir 'n ander kan dien [e.g. Dutch for Afrikaans], kan die skryftaal aan die gesproke taal voorskryf; die norm van die skryftaal is 'n foutiewe norm... die spreektaal is tog steeds die oorspronkelike vorm en die geskrewe taal 'n ontoereikende en onnoukeurige weergawe van die spreektaal...’ (Odendal 1973: 72)

Language change can then be seen to definitely and undeniably have taken place but the seal of approval of the written language is not essential for one to postulate that a particular change has occurred or is occurring.

Aitchison (1981: 18) maintains that labels such as good and bad have no validity when discussing linguistic change, something Afrikaans writers on the topic have not heeded in the past. She quotes Bloomfield (1933) on the topic of linguistic change:

‘... the process of linguistic change has never been directly observed - we shall see that such observation, with our present facilities, is inconceivable.’ (p. 47)

Bloomfield is not by any means the only one to have made such a claim (e.g. Odendal 1973: 28). Aitchison takes on this challenge and goes in search of guidelines to explain language change, warning that ‘above all, anyone who attempts to study the causes of language change must be aware of the multiplicity of factors involved. It is essential to realise that language is both a social and a mental phenomenon in which sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic factors are likely to be inextricably entwined.’ (p. 169) Rousseau (1937) paid particular attention to these factors when he conducted his detailed study of the influence of English on Afrikaans although he did not see the influence English was having in terms of language change at the time. That this was definitely the case is quite evident now, fifty years later. Obviously it is usually difficult to observe language change because of it being a gradual process - what one generation sees as interference and thus wrong, the next sees as normal and correct, even to the point of the original structure sounding wrong or at least uncommon (i.e. displacement); or the two continue to coexist for a time (i.e. competitive factors). Kempen (1946: 207) sees this sort of development in the following terms:

‘Sodra immers blyk dat wat as individuele taalgebruik aangesien is by die meeste skrywers voorkom, verval natuurlik die beskouing daarvan as “individueel”. Verskil dit dan nog van wat in ons grammatikas staan, is dit eweneens duidelik dat ons ons opvattinge in hersiening sal moet neem.’

[p. 137]

The common claim that linguistic change is so gradual as to be unobservable refers essentially to internal change in a language. Change resulting from languages in contact, particularly in a situation such as in South Africa with its high degree of bilingualism, is, I would postulate, more easily observed, all the more so now that a knowledge of Dutch as a corrective norm has died out. There are those who would claim that the only sort of linguistic change is that arising out of languages in contact. Vogt (1954: 368) maintained:

‘Bilingualism is a universal phenomenon, since no languages we know have been spoken over long periods of time in complete isolation. It is even possible that bilingualism is one of the major factors in linguistic changes.’

Mackey (1972: 554) takes up the same point putting it in terms with which I can completely identify:

‘It (bilingualism) does not belong to the domain of “langue” but of “parole”... It is important not to confuse bilingualism - the use of two or more languages by the individual - with the more general concept of language contact, which deals with the direct and indirect influence of one language on another resulting in changes in “langue” which become the permanent property of monolinguals and enter into the historical development of the language.’

Aitchison (1981: 136) claims that some linguistic changes can be caused by language simply being efficient. When bilingual speakers reduce the differences that exist between the two languages - what they see as pointless variety - this could well be termed efficiency; Afrikaans scholars of the past have chosen to call it slordigheid or onagsaamheid. In effect this is simply the well-known ease theory (Jespersen 1922) of linguistic change being applied and such emotional terms are examples of contemporary reactions to this historical process taking its natural course. Aitchison (1981: 155) maintains that there can be a tendency to minimise opacity and maximise transparency, i.e. to prefer constructions which are clear and straightforward, free of anaphores, for example: ek is (daarvan) oortuig dat, and omission of the reflexive pronoun from Afrikaans where English does not require one.

Weinreich, Labov and Herzog (1968: 107) offer an update of Paul's (1880) theories of linguistic change. His interest was directed predominantly at changes in idiolect which to him was the only object that could be studied empirically. His theory is quoted as follows by Weinreich and company:

[p. 138]

‘Changes in language can be understood in two senses: (1) as changes in an idiolect, and (2) as changes in Language Custom. Changes in Language Custom, in turn, can arise in two ways: (1) through changes within the idiolects over which a given Language Custom is defined; (2) through additions or subtractions of idiolects from the set of idiolects over which a Language Custom is defined.’

Although neither these three authors nor I can agree with Paul in toto, his reference to the addition and subtraction of idiolects could be aptly applied to two specific developments in the Afrikaans speech community since the official recognition of the language that have given further impetus to the influence of English on the ‘Language Custom’: the gain is the knowledge of English that all Afrikaners now have, whereas the loss is the disappearance of even a passive knowledge of Dutch.

The English/Afrikaans contact situation is, in my opinion, one which linguists in general could learn a lot from. Because Afrikaans is in the process of setting its own norms, and those norms are unconsciously and even involuntarily becoming more English by the day, one has an opportunity here to observe a process of linguistic change resulting from a contact situation which is without parallel among the languages of Europe.¹⁰

10 Quite possibly the uniqueness of this process extends far beyond European languages but I am not qualified to generalise beyond the confines of European languages.