The Influence of English on Afrikaans

6.2 The difficulties of distinguishing real from pseudo-anglicisms

The inherent affinity of English and Afrikaans was discussed under 2.1.4.

[p. 164]

The affinity factors deserve repetition here as they are usually at the root of the confusion about whether a given structure in Afrikaans has arisen under the influence of English or not.

First and foremost there is the vast wealth of cognate structures which the two languages still share from their common ancestry:

‘Dieselfde uitdrukking kan in verwante tale voorkom sonder dat die een aan die ander ontleen het. 'n Uitdrukking kan sowel goeie Nederlands - en, alle dinge gelyk synde, daarom ook goeie Afrikaans - as goeie Engels wees sonder dat die een taal deur die ander beïnvloed is.’ (Le Roux 1968: 169)

In this category belong also phenomena which resemble English and which may have previously occurred in standard Dutch, or in the dialects that contributed to the formation of Afrikaans, but which are no longer encountered in Holland, cf. Francken's (1912: 279-80) arguments on enig, 'n mooi een and braaf. Francken sums up his discussion of such points with the following remark, however:

‘Deze vormen behoeven dus nog geen Anglicismen te zijn. Daarmede is niet gezegd, dat ze het niet kunnen zijn.’

Smith (1962: 67) mentions the same reservation.

Secondly, both English and Dutch/Afrikaans have often borrowed structures from a third source. The so-called international vocabulary is the best but not the only example of this. But even a word such as trein, for example, which entered both English and Dutch in the nineteenth century from French, could have made its way into Afrikaans via Dutch or English. (cf. Le Roux 1952: 12)

Thirdly, there is the parallel analytical development which both English and Afrikaans have independently undergone. Only Du Toit (1897: iv) in the nineteenth century (and later Valkhoff 1972: 29) was inclined to see this as English influence on Afrikaans, but a contemporary of his, Viljoen (1896: 25) was already aware this was not the case. Interestingly enough, Suffeleers (1979: 211) mentions that a similar misunderstanding of the trend towards analysis in Holland exists in Flanders today:

‘Ook wordt in Vlaanderen het Duitse vormenstel als model van taalrykdom aanbevolen, terwyl de deflexie “verengelsing” van het Nederlands wordt genoemd.’

[p. 165]

Fourthly, there are those few phenomena which are unknown in both British English and Dutch and yet they occur in South African English and Afrikaans. Determining the source of these can pose problems.

Finally, one should mention a small category not discussed under 2.7.4 which only Schonken (1914: 191) identifies:

‘Hetzelfde [i.e. that contact with English in South Africa is not the source in Afrikaans] mag men beweren van een reeks woorden, die in het Kaapsch-Hollandsch reeds vóór den Engelschen tijd werden opgenomen, zoals het feit, dat wij ze ook in het Kreoolsche Neger-Hollandsch terugvinden, bewijst. Hier en ginds stammen zij vermoedelijk uit de achttiende-eeuwsche matrozentaal, die veel uit de taal der destijds opkomende Engelsche zeemacht had overgenomen.’

He gives roep(noem), dagbreek, perdeskoen and dip as examples.

There are numerous ingeburgerde structures in Afrikaans which have been the subject of much debate as to their origin and which are still disapproved of by some grammarians and dictionary compilers. Curiously enough there are others which resemble English and which do not occur in standard Dutch but which, to my knowledge, have never been regarded as suspect, for example: myne, joune etc. without the definite article (cf. Scholtz 1980: 69). In other instances it can be almost impossible to ascertain whether English has served as the source of certain constructions or whether it has merely acted as a contributing factor (cf. 6.3), for example:

‘As invloed van vreemde tale in rekening gebring word by die uitbreiding van die se-konstruksies, dan mag die moontlike invloed van Engels oor die afgelope honderd jaar en meer nie uitgesluit word nie. Die eenvormige patroon in Engels wat voorkom in John's hat, Mary's shoes, the children's books, last year's fashions, yesterday's meeting, today's news beantwoord aan die eenvormigheid in Afrikaans Jan se hoed, Maria se skoene, die kinders se boeke, verlede jaar se modes, gister se vergadering, vandag se nuus. Dat dikwels te ligtelik aan kreolismes in Afrikaans gedink is, blyk daaruit dat nou se dae sonder meer gelyk gestel is met Maleis-Portugees agora sua tempu, terwyl dit sonder twyfel 'n jong “barbarisme” is en as 'n verafrikaansing van Engels now-a-days moet beskou word.’ (Scholtz 1980: 71)

Another good example of the extent to which opinions on origin (and thus acceptability) can diverge as a result of the difficulty in assessing the source

[p. 166]

due to the close affinity of the two languages, is provided by the use of the auxiliaries is/was in the passive in Afrikaans. Terblanche (1980) makes no mention at all of English having anything to do with the use of was for the formation of the pluperfect passive, whereas Langenhoven (1935: 114-15), for example, rejects it outright as an anglicism. Those who do defend was in the passive regard it only as legitimate when used as a pluperfect, whereas in practice it is often heard where a perfect passive (= English imperfect passive) is required semantically. In such cases both Terblanche's and Langenhoven's points of view are correct. (cf. 7.10)