The Influence of English on Afrikaans

4.5 English influence and linguistic change in Afrikaans

Afrikaans has been subjected to influence from English over such a prolonged period of time, and the contact has been so intense and of such an intimate nature, that it has given rise to language change in many instances. Because of the diglossia situation with regard to English that existed in the nineteenth century, English can be said to have functioned as a superstratum for Afrikaans at that time, as did Dutch; nowadays English still plays an important, although different role - now it can be better termed an adstratum. I think it is appropriate to regard English as an adstratum in this context because of the symbiosis that exists between the two languages and the fact that ‘Engels die Afrikaanssprekendes se kontaktaal met die buitewêreld is. Dit is meesal deur Engels dat nuwe kennis, nuwe prosesse, nuwe artikels, nuwe dienste en nuwe uitvindsels na die Afrikaanssprekendes toe kom.’ (Combrink 1984: 100) What C.B. van Haeringen said of so-called Algemeen Beschaafd Zuidnederlands, i.e. that it ‘kennelijk uit een andere bron wordt gevoed’ than the standard language of the north

[p. 139]

(Suffeleers, 1979: 192), can be applied with equal validity to Afrikaans where that source is English instead of French.

It is traditional in many circles in South Africa to talk of the ontstaan of Afrikaans, but I prefer the word ontwikkeling. The former suggests it was born, by circa 1750 according to one school of thought, and was then passed down by word of mouth until the latter half of the nineteenth century when it began to be committed to paper. Ontwikkeling suggests a gradual development from 1652, but above all an ongoing process which, as with all languages, has not and will not stop. If one adopts this view of the origin of Afrikaans, English can be regarded as yet another foreign influence on the language, arriving relatively late on the scene, but one whose role in the development of Afrikaans has been considerable and is likely to increase in future.

The so-called ontstaan of Afrikaans, from here on referred to as its development, has been a continuum since 1652; to emphasise the development as a continuum also better accommodates those who see Afrikaans as a continuance of the earlier substandard vernacular of the Dutch settlers. (Van Rensburg 1982: 253-267) To date not enough attention has been paid to the role English has played, and is playing, in the development of the language; most studies have not looked beyond loanwords and ‘correcting’ English influence on other aspects of the language. No-one has attempted to identify what has irrevocably changed in Afrikaans as a result of the contact with English or what, on the basis of the current spoken language, seems likely to change in future.

All the languages of the world are in a continual state of change - language does not stand still (cf. p. 13) (unless completely isolated, or even then?) - and particularly these days with technological advances and the increased mobility of people in an ever shrinking world, few people live in complete isolation. With the confrontation of cultures comes a linguistic confrontation which must give rise to a certain amount of borrowing and/or interference. On the other hand, with the possible exception of the lexis of the language, language change in the languages of the industrialised world, with its mass media and educational programmes, is probably occurring at a slower rate than in the past in the period prior to standardisation. Afrikaans may well be an exception in this regard because of its unique relationship with English (cf. 2.1 - 2.1.4) and because the concept of standard Afrikaans is somewhat vaguer than is the case with other European languages. (cf. 4.1) Boshoff and Nienaber (1967: 18) talk of ‘AB in wording’ in seventeenth century Holland; can we not talk of ‘AB in wording’ in twentieth century South Africa? (cf. the many wisselvorme in the AWS)

[p. 140]

Raidt (1975: 52) maintains ‘Die invloed van Engels wat eers van die negentiende eeu 'n rol speel, dus nadat die Afrikaanse taalstruktuur alreeds ontwikkel het, het nog die morfologiese nog die sintaktiese struktuur van Afrikaans aangetas.’ I would question this statement as it stands. English does seem to have had very little influence on the phonological structure of Afrikaans (cf. 7.18) - not mentioned by Raidt - but the effect it is having on the syntactical structure and to a much lesser extent on the morphological structure is undeniable.¹¹ I feel Raidt's statement has only a limited validity, i.e. in as far as it can be applied to Afrikaans soos dit behoort te wees. (cf. Steyn, p. 78) The role which English began to play in the shaping of Afrikaans from the first half of the nineteenth century went parallel with the role that standard Dutch played over the same period; to a certain extent it could be said that the normalising influence of standard Dutch on Afrikaans up to World War II was diametrically opposed to the influence English was having.¹² Since the 1930's Dutch has been discarded as a norm, thus removing a traditional barrier to English influence.

It is relevant at this point to draw the reader's attention to a point mentioned earlier in this book (p. 25, 50), namely the misconception in the late nineteenth century that even what I have previously referred to as the classic traits of Afrikaans, were the result of contact with English. Nienaber (1950: 99) maintains that this was commonly believed at the time.

The opposite extreme to this point of view is to regard the influence of English as having gone no further than ontlening, a rather vague term that is usually used specifically with regard to borrowed vocabulary, although it could have a wider application (e.g. loan translations of words or phrases are also a form of ontlening). Bosman (1923: 38), in his classic work Oor die ontstaan van Afrikaans, was one who regarded English influence as being very superficial, which was undoubtedly more the case then than now:

‘Ontlening kom in alle tale voor, maar is vir die wese van die taal van weinig betekenis.’

More or less pre-empting what H.J. Rousseau was working on, Du Toit (1965: 134, but written in 1934), as opposed to Bosman, recognised what was occurring, despite the somewhat romantic phraseology he used to put his point:

11 If Raidt uses ‘syntactical’ here in the narrower sense of word order, her statement holds more water than if she uses it as a synonym for ‘grammatical’, as I think she does. Cf. Ponelis (1985: 122) for the opposite opinion.

12 The parallel between English and Dutch can be extended further: both existed on a diglossia basis vis-à-vis Afrikaans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

[p. 141]

‘Wie hom die moeite sou wil getroos om op elk van die terreine deur my aangedui, die Anglisismes in groter hoeveelhede te versamel, sou 'n deursneebeeld kry van die hele taalvermengingsproses wat momenteel besig is om hom in ons land te voltrek. Hy sal die twee tale hul ranke in mekaar sien strengel soos slingerplante in 'n bos, 'n omarming wat terselfdertyd 'n stryd om die bestaan beteken; tussenin is daar baie dooie hout, Afrikaanse woorde veral wat verdring word en afsterwend is,¹³ maar ook nuwe botsels wat die stryd om die voorrang sal voortsit. Hy sal ook opmerk hoe in die sustertaal, Nederlands, in presies dieselfde omstandighede dikwels presies dieselfde ontleninge uit Engels of 'n ander taal gemaak word, wat tot die gevolgtrekking voer dat die Afrikaners soms op hierdie wyse in eie kring besig is om in 'n algemeen Dietse behoefte te voorsien en grond lewer vir die veldwinnende opvatting dat baie van ons Anglisismes onmisbaar is, dat hulle 'n leemte aanvul en nie maar sonder meer kan verban word nie.’

There is to be found in many works on anglicisms a consistent refusal to recognise that certain developments in Afrikaans are precisely that, and the view that the speech community does not realise the error of its ways must be exposed for the folly that it is. A good example of such a standpoint is provided by Smith (1962: 64):

‘... hoeveel van ons gebruik nie die Engelse klem in artillerie, cypres, grammofoon, kongres, telefoon, telegraaf en telegram nie? Ja, baie Afrikaners skyn nie eens te weet dat die Nederlands-Afrikaanse klem by al hierdie woorde altyd op die laaste lettergreep val nie.’

In my opinion this is a blatant example of language change in progress (or is it not now complete?) which even scholars today refuse to recognise as such; the speech community has decided what the stress in such words is to be, whatever the Dutch oriented past may have felt about the matter.

Odendal (1973: 30), following a similar line of argument to Aitchison (cf. p. 136), maintains:

‘'n Laaste aspek van taalverandering waarby ons kortliks moet stilstaan, is die foutiewe opvatting dat taalverandering gelykgestel moet word met taalkorrupsie of taalverval. Daar is geen

13 The same can be said of many older English loans in Afrikaans that have been replaced by neologisms.

[p. 142]

rede om hierdie natuurlike verandering as verslegting te beskou nie, ewe min as wat dit weer as 'n vooruitgang gesien hoef te word, soos ander wou.’

Although Odendal is talking of language change in general here, it is a very valid point which can and should be applied to the specific case of English influence on Afrikaans where there is still often enormous resistance to recognising this influence as a factor in the ongoing development of Afrikaans:

‘Bij de taalontwikkeling gaat het er niet altijd om, wat sommige taalgeleerden nuttig of wenselijk achten, maar wat de (beschaafde) spraakmakende gemeente doet.’ (Kloeke 1951: 17-18)

Finally, Boshoff (1963: 88-89), an adamant opponent of anglicisms in Afrikaans, made the following statement which sums up my own attitude perfectly, but unfortunately Boshoff himself usually failed to practise what he preaches here: after discussing what he considers the unnecessary influence of Dutch on Afrikaans spelling, he says:

‘Dit word 'n veel ernstiger saak wanneer ons die innerlike van Afrikaans, byvoorbeeld sy uitspraak, sy woordwendinge, sy woordorde, ens., in 'n Nederlandse keurslyf wil indwing. Dan wil ons ons eie taalgeskiedenis ongedaan maak, dan wil ons, in plaas van die ontwikkelingsweg van ons taal met vertroue die toekoms in te volg, vreesbevange terugloop op die paadjie waarlangs ons tot hiertoe gekom het. Ons wil foutiewe Nederlands weer korrekte Nederlands maak.’