The Influence of English on Afrikaans

[p. 143]

Chapter Five

5.0 Purism

5.1 The reasons for purism

A desire to preserve the ‘purity’ of the language is common to most communities where the language is perceived to be under threat, at least as far as the standard languages of the western world are concerned. Icelandic is one such example where, although English is not the mother tongue of any of its indigenous population, the Icelanders are so few in number and so close to North America that they apparently fear for the survival of their language. They are fervently proud of their Viking past and the antiquity of their language. The Jews of Israel are another example of a people with a long tradition and a language that is integral to their relatively new identity as Israelis. Hebrew was of course for quite some time in the unique position that it was not the mother tongue of anyone who spoke it, which possibly made the need for purism all the more urgent. These are but two examples of peoples and languages that continue to survive in circumstances that in some respects resemble those with which Afrikaans has to contend. Above all, in South Africa the language has been closely associated with the emancipation of the Afrikaner and his struggle to attain complete economic and political parity with his English speaking compatriots:¹

‘Wanneer men spreekt van “onzuiverheid”, van “besmetting”, dan schuilt daarachter meestal een afkeer van de vreemde natie, als gevolg van historiese herinneringen of politieke bedoelingen of gevoeligheden... We [kunnen] dan het purisme een begeleidingsverschijnsel noemen van groeiend zelfbeself, van politieke ontvoogding.’ (De Vooys 1925: 18-19)

Visagie (Die Brandwag, 27/9/46) even goes so far as to see the struggle to purify Afrikaans and retain that purity as a third language movement:

‘Waar die Eerste en die Tweede Taalbewegings hoofsaaklik op die erkenning van Afrikaans toegespits was, daar wil die Derde Taalbeweging die Dietse karakter van ons taal onge-

1 This symbiosis of goals also explains why the Coloured population was excluded from all deliberations on Afrikaans; the Afrikaner completely appropriated the language during his struggle for emancipation.

[p. 144]

skonde bewaar en ontwikkel. Hierdie beweging is dus 'n puristiese beweging, met suiwer Afrikaans as slagspreuk.’²

Protecting the purity of his language from English influence is not entirely unconnected with the Afrikaner's desire to protect the purity of the White race in South Africa. Since the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act, the latter may in the course of time prove to be the failure the former has already shown itself to be, but this is not to say the Afrikaner has not been successful in stemming the tide in both instances. Coalescence of the English and Afrikaans cultures, the product of the inseparability of the two peoples that has been consolidated this century, finds a counterreaction in the attitude of Afrikaners to their language and provides support for puristic tendencies in the speech community; as Coetzee (1939: 35) suggests

‘... die enigste teken van die ander geaardheid van ons strewinge en opvattings, is dikwels slegs die suiwerheid van ons taal.’

Purism has had, and still has, many supporters in South Africa, but unfortunately many of them have done more harm than good because of well intended ignorance. This prompted Odendal (1973: 77), in his discussion on ‘die norm van suiwerheid’ to state:

‘Die goeie taalkundige sal nie, soos reeds so dikwels gebeur het, wendinge en woorde vir Anglisismes aansien terwyl hul suiwer Diets is nie, soos “die trein mis” of “uitvind waar iemand woon” (en dan in eersgenoemde se plek die onafrikaanse verpas stel). Hy sal ook nie in elke Romaanse vorm wat in Afrikaans opgeneem word, soos eksellensie, evokasie, teologie, opinie, telefoon en televisie, 'n Engelse woord sien en dit dus probeer verban nie, maar hy sal die nodige kennis hê om te weet dat sulke vorme òf deur Nederlands na ons gekom het, òf internasionaal is. (Hy sal dus ook nie, soos so baie skoolgrammatikas, probeer om hul te vervang deur die “suiwer Afrikaanse vorm” nie. Maar die taalkundige sal natuurlik ook die nodige kennis hê om te weet dat nie alle Romaanse vorme kritiekloos oorgeneem kan word nie, dat sommige wel deeglik Engelse invloed weerspieël.)’

He then comments:

2 It is interesting to note in this context that the word Diets is seldom used in Holland these days because of the National Socialist connotations it acquired under German occupation; the Germans of that era were also keen language purifiers.

[p. 145]

‘... dit is jammer dat die taalkundige nie meer dikwels die rol van taalpuris op hom geneem het, en gevolglik die veld vry gelaat het aan die onkundige, negatiewe kwasie-taalkundige.’

The same complaint was made by De Vooys (1925: 71) with reference to Dutch in 1925:

‘De Duitse en Engelse taalinvloeden zijn nog niet voldoende onderzocht. Germanismen en Anglicismen trokken meer de aandacht van taalzuiweraars dan van taalgeleerden.’

Little has changed since, even in Holland.

Combrink (1984: 99) says of linguistic purism:

‘Teoreties-taalwetenskaplik is daar geen rede hoegenaamd waarom mens purisme kan aanbeveel nie. Die hoofdoel van taalgebruik is immers kommunikasie, nie die gebruik van suiwer taal nie.’

Combrink is but one of many who have laboured this point; nevertheless, purism exists and feelings towards it often run very high. Purity of language, but then chiefly in vocabulary because the common man is usually unable to recognise any other form of interference, is often regarded in South Africa as an admirable virtue of which one can be proud. In fact ‘suiwerheid’ is even regarded as a demigod in some circles, as the following statement indicates:

‘Inderdaad kan ons sê dat... purisme... daarvoor gesorg het dat Afrikaans in sy woordeskat en die aanwending daarvan, die suiwerste Dietse taal gebly het.’ (Hiemstra 1963: 8)

Such exaggerated ideas of the importance of linguistic purity - after all, what is absolute purity in language anyway? - are described by Aitchison (1981: 26) as follows:

‘In brief, the puristic attitude towards language the idea that there is an absolute standard of correctness which should be maintained has its origin in a natural nostalgic tendency in man, supplemented and intensified by social pressures. It is illogical, and impossible to pin down to any firm base.’

De Villiers (Die Huisgenoot, 18/11/49) describes the Afrikaner's attitude to purism in these terms:

[p. 146]

‘... dit gaan hier om die taal as kenteken van die volk, dws. elke Engelse woord kan beskou word as 'n vlaggie van Engelsheid eerder as 'n simbool of naam vir 'n bepaalde begrip of ding. Vandaar die emosionele houding teenoor die saak.’

He admits, however, that the ultimate decision lies with the speech community, not academics:

‘Dit is vir die gewone sprekers om te besluit of hulle vir hulle wil skrap sit teen die indringing van buite en of hulle die vreemde element as buit wil beskou.’

His opinion is a sensible one where he states:

‘... die stryd vir die suiwerheid van ons taal hang saam met 'n nasionale strewe wat ek nóg wil ontken nóg kritiseer.’