The Influence of English on Afrikaans

(1991)–Bruce Donaldson– rechtenstatus

7.27 Pronouns

7.27.1 Ramifications of preposition stranding for pronounsGa naar voetnoot58

Although preposition stranding as such is not unique to Afrikaans and English - in combination with R-structures it is even more common in spoken Dutch than in Afrikaans - the use of dit/wat instead of daar/waar, made possible by the separation of the pronoun from its accompanying preposition, is a distinctive feature of (spoken) Afrikaans although Ponelis (1985: 122) does quote some cases of its occurrence in Dutch. Ponelis describes the role of English in this issue as follows:

‘Hoewel Engels weliswaar nie gewone setselskeiding in Afrikaans laat ontstaan het nie, het die Engelse invloed gewone setselskeiding in Afrikaans na alle waarskynlikheid tog so

sterk gestimuleer dat gewone setselskeiding vandag in die Afrikaanse omgangstaal dié tipe setselskeiding is, en R-skeiding selfs in geskrewe Afrikaans byna heeltemal uitgesterf het.’

I support this explanation of constructions such as the following:

a)	Dit het ek nie aan gedink nie (= daar) Dit hou ek nie van nie (= daar)
b)	Wat ons nie mee tevrede is nie, is... (= waar) Wat praat jy nou van? (= waar) Die boek wat ek al van gepraat het, is... (= waar)

On the final example, where wat + preposition occurs in a relative clause, Ponelis (1985: 123) has this to say:

‘Die parallellisme tussen onveranderlike wat in Afrikaans en onveranderlike that in Engels lê voor die hand.’

One might add that not only the parallel with the English relative ‘that’ but also the alternative relative pronoun ‘which’ (like wat, a w-form) may have contributed to the frequency of this structure in Afrikaans. (cf. also ‘What is he talking about?’)

Du Plessis (1983: 60) seems to see such uses of wat as a peculiarity of JOT (Johannesburgse omgangstaal) and thus of non-standard Afrikaans, but Ponelis (1985: 119) correctly points out that ‘...watskeiding...kenmerkend is van en oorheersend is in die hedendaagse Afrikaanse spreektaal.’ It is interesting to compare Ponelis' brief treatment of relative wat + preposition in his Afrikaanse Sintaksis (1979: 467), where he makes no mention of English influence, with this more recent analysis of the concept. Du Plessis also seems to imply English influence.

7.27.2

Closely related to the above functions of dit and wat, but outside contexts where preposition stranding is being applied, is the occurrence of the same pronouns in the following constructions where English influence would seem to be undeniable.

7.27.2.1

Use of preposition + dit, for example:

Sy is nog nie heeltemal oor dit nie (= daaroor)

Ek hou van dit (= hiervan/daarvan) (cf. Ponelis 1979: 64)

Cf. Ponelis (1979: 181) for a fuller account of the phenomenon. I can find no reference in Ponelis, however, to constructions where preposition + hom/hulle with reference to an impersonal object occurs and where Dutch permits only er/hier/daar + preposition. I think this should be seen in the same light as a preposition + dit. Maintaining the original Dutch structure in Afrikaans does not enable one to distinguish between a singular and a plural prepositional object as one can and must in English, for example: Kom, neem hierdie sakke. Jy kan al jou goeters in hulle sit (= daarin).

It is equally likely that English influence has also played a role in the frequency of constructions involving preposition + hierdie/daardie (een), e.g. Ek het uit hierdie (een) gedrink. (= glas). Use of this construction in Afrikaans also enables the speaker to distinguish between ‘this’ and ‘that’ glass which uit dit does not although the Dutch/Afrikaans structure hieruit/daaruit does of course. Ponelis (1979: 90) does refer to the possible influence of English in such cases.

7.27.2.2

Use of preposition + wat in questions, for example: Vir wat wil jy dit hê? (= waarvoor)

This structure - mentioned by Ponelis (1979: 180) without reference to English influence - although it does not correspond literally with colloquial English, is a stylistic variant of Wat wil jy dit voor hê? (i.e. with preposition stranding) where wat does occur under English influence according to Ponelis (1985: 122). At least the frequency in Afrikaans of structures such as In verband met wat is dit? over waarmee constructions would seem to be the result of contact with English, even if the theoretical possibility of such forms exists in Dutch.

There are several cases of non-pronominal wat in Afrikaans which are at odds with Dutch usage but which correspond with English ‘what’, for example: hy is groter as wat ek gedink het (als in Dutch, cf. p. 258); wat van (= what about, cf. Le Roux 1968: 167); wat is jou naam?, wat bedoel jy? (both hoe in Dutch, although in certain contexts wat is used with bedoelen in Dutch too)). It is difficult to ascertain for sure whether English has contributed to the preference for wat in such instances.

Without intending to imply that English necessarily had any influence on the adoption of wat as an invariable relative pronoun (i.e. in contexts where there is no preposition), I find it interesting to note what Ostyn (1972: 202) observed in American Flemish:

‘Most likely under the influence of English wh-words, the distinction between the Flemish relative pronouns with or without antecedent is not always observed.’

Scholtz (1980: 76) comments on the general preference in Afrikaans for wat constructions in various contexts. Ponelis (1985: 118-9), on the other hand, refers indirectly to the preference for wat/dit structures over waar/daar (i.e. a preference for R-less forms). Ponelis (1979: 453) discusses the use of dit instead of daar in passive constructions under the influence of English, for example: Dit word beoog om 'n studie van die gebied te maak.

7.27.3 Independent use of hierdie/daardie

It is traditional to regard the independent use of hierdie/daardie as subject or object pronouns as an anglicism, although as a very well established one. HAT (cf. p. 117) only refers to their use as subject pronouns and warns against such structures. Ponelis (1979: 90) refers to versterkende Engelse invloed having played a role in hierdie/daardie replacing dit in Hierdie/daardie sal uit Suid-Afrika ingevoer moet word, Waar het jy hierdie/daardie gekry?, Vir hierdie/daardie kon ek nie die regte onderdele kry nie. (cf. 7.27.2.1 for the use of hierdie/daardie after prepositions) In the context of the same discussion he gives an example of these pronouns being used in the plural: Hierdies is beter as daardies.

I feel inclined to question whether English influence lies behind the occurrence of hierdie/daardie as singular subject and object pronouns not preceded by a preposition - in combination with prepositions the possibility would seem to be greater. This is the only possible means in Afrikaans of rendering the opposition expressed by Dutch dit/dat given that pronominal dat did not survive in South Africa. This is also implied by Ponelis (1979: 90) where he states:

‘Naas Engelse inwerking moet hier daarop gewys word dat die sistematiese onderskeid ten opsigte van “nabyheid” nie by dit bestaan nie, en dat die behoefte aan dié onderskeid baie bydra tot die vestiging van hierdie/daardie in selfstandige gebruik.’

Van der Merwe in Van der Merwe and Ponelis (1982: 79) also questions whether English influence lies at the root of the issue, but he quotes an even more probable anglicism to defend his point of view:

‘Ek twyfel egter daaraan of ons hier bloot met Engelse

invloed te make het. Dis gewone Afrikaans om te sê: Hierdie een is 'n moeilike geval; en nou vra ek my af of ons nie dalk met ellips van een te make het nie in: Hierdie is 'n moeilike geval.’ (cf. 7.27.7 for this pronominal use of een)

7.27.4 Certain functions of personal pronouns

7.27.4.1

From a Dutch point of view jy/jou are used much more indiscriminately in Afrikaans than in Dutch, even occurring in combination with each other or with other forms of address that would seem to require u, for example: nou verseker jou bank alles wat vir u belangrik is; or in combination with dame, meneer, professor etc. The artificiality of u in Afrikaans in many social contexts is commonly recognised (cf. Scholtz 1963: 52-72) and yet the traditionally Afrikaans form of polite address, the third person, now often seems too formal, giving rise to a higher frequency of jy. (cf. Ponelis 1979: 67; Odendal 1976: 108, 111) It seems highly likely that the Afrikaner's acquaintance with only one second person pronoun in English and the distinct social advantages of the simplicity of the English system, have contributed to the spread of jy/jou to contexts where the informal form of address would be unthinkable in most European languages. The precise role of English in this regard has not however yet been investigated.

7.27.4.2

Ponelis (1979: 68) mentions the use of sy with reference to a car or ship as being the result of English influence but distinguishes this use from the indigenous practice of personifying concepts such as the moon and nature in this way. (cf. Scholtz 1966: 123)

7.27.4.3

Raidt (1983: 141) sees hulle as an unspecified pronoun meaning ‘one’ (where both the speaker and the listener are excluded) as a possible anglicism. Ponelis (1979: 100) does not mention English influence in his discussion of hulle in this sense and Dutch usage (cf. Geerts, i.a. 1984: 265) would seem to indicate that there is no reason to suspect English influence in this case.

7.27.4.4

Generic jy/jou (cf. Ponelis 1979: 105-6) occurs in Dutch, Afrikaans and English but the possessive pronoun is used in instances in Afrikaans and English where it is not possible to do so in Dutch, for example: Neem jou taalkundige byvoorbeeld, heel bo-op kom jou

aartappels (in a recipe). Ponelis (1979: 106) gives examples without reference to English influence, for example: Die bankkoers kan invloed hê op (jou) rentekoerse. But definition 4 under jou in WAT reads as follows: ‘Dan is daar al jou onvoorsiene uitgawes (waarsk. Angl.).’ English influence is most likely in these cases.

7.27.4.5

The English use of the possessive hulle in the expression in hulle honderde/duisende is mentioned under 7.25.7.

7.27.4.6

Subject pronouns are frequently used in passive constructions in Afrikaans, in imitation of English usage, where in Dutch an object pronoun is required. In these Afrikaans and English constructions the indirect object of the active becomes the subject of the passive, for example: Nie eenkeer is ek in Engels geantwoord nie, weet jy van die pos wat hy aangebied is, hy is drie jaar gegun om die projek te voltooi, dit (e.g. 'n skikking) moet 'n kans gegee word om te werk (with an impersonal indirect object).

If pronominal substitution were not applied and nouns were used instead of pronouns, these structures would also be grammatical in Dutch, for example: Weet jy van de post die die man aangeboden is? (where die man = aan die man); compare Weet jij van de post die hem aangeboden is? The manner of pronominal substitution constitutes the anglicism in this case because without it there is no formal difference between a nominal subject and a nominal indirect object.

7.27.5 Reflexive pronouns

There are several cases involving reflexive pronouns where there are striking similarities with English and differences from Dutch where English influence has undoubtedly contributed to the situation as it now is in Afrikaans. (cf. p. 167)

7.27.5.1

There are more reflexive verbs in Dutch and Afrikaans than in English but fewer in Afrikaans than in Dutch. There are many cases of verbs which Afrikaans prescriptive works insist are reflexive but which commonly occur without the reflexive pronoun, for example:

Milner sou in sy graf omdraai

Die maatskappy gaan nie uit Suid-Afrika onttrek nie

'n Taal lewe en ontwikkel

aanpas

aantrek, -klee

afspeel

bekommer

beweeg59

bewus wees

gereedmaak

herstel

identifiseer

inmeng

inskryf

konsentreer

omdraa60

onttrek

ontwikkel

spesialiseer

verbeter

verslaap

(tuis) voel

voortplant

There is some inconsistency in the way prescriptive works treat such cases. HAT, for example, maintains jou is optional with spesialiseer. No dictionary would prescribe a reflexive pronoun for voel but the attitude to tuisvoel is ambivalent; HAT gives it as non-reflexive whereas Bosman, Van der Merwe and Hiemstra (1984) give it as reflexive.

Raidt (1983: 112) seems reluctant to attribute this phenomenon to English influence but sees it rather as an old tendency in Cape Dutch. Ponelis (1979: 228) has the following to say, where he also avoids any reference to English: ‘Wederkerendheid gaan egter wel by 'n klompie werkwoorde, veral in die omgangstaal, verlore.’ He lists the following verbs: aanmeld, afspeel, iets op die hals haal, onttrek, oorgee, regmaak, roem, uitpraat, tuis/aangetrokke/geroepe voel. In addition he maintains that ‘aansluit en bewus wees is net in die formele skryfstyl wederkerend.’

Steyn (1976: 39) also looks at this phenomenon as one of several sintaktiese onvasthede under discussion in his article and gives examples of the following reflexive verbs being used without a reflexive pronoun: aantrek (x 2), bekommer, aanpas, klee, te pletter loop, kalmeer, vestig, aanmeld, ingrawe, verenig, regruk, hou, verslaap, assosieer (x 2), intrek, haas, lê, verseker, uittrek, skaam, kwel. He adds ‘Om misverstand te vermy, beklemtoon ek dat hierdie woorde nie altyd almal as wederkerende werkwoorde gebruik word nie. Die gevalle wat ek opgeteken het, is in uitinge waarin die spreker dit wel bedoél het om die werkwoord wederkerend te gebruik, maar die wederkerende voornaamwoord weggelaat het. Dis 'n weglating wat 'n mens, “logies gesproke”, kan begryp, want die voornaamwoord is eintlik oorbodig.’

This comment of Steyn's corresponds to Langenhoven's (1935: 109) reaction to the same phenomenon:

‘Deurdat die “hom” as onpersoonlike refleksief onnatuurlik gevoel word in Afrikaans het die taaleie langsamerhand 'n groot aantal oorspronklik terugwerkende werkwoorde onterugwerkend gemaak. So sal niemand, behalwe 'n onkundige of aanstellerige skrywer, droom om in Afrikaans te sê “die

vlakte strek hom uit” nie maar eenvoudig “die vlakte strek uit”. En daarmee is daar niks verlore nie behalwe 'n onlogiese oorbodigheid.’

Steyn (1976: 53) comes closer than either Raidt or Ponelis to admitting that English influence may be at work in this issue where he carefully states, with reference to this and other syntactical variants in Afrikaans, that these developments ‘...vind plaas in 'n rigting wat ten minste Engels lyk’ but, he adds ‘Soos ek egter betoog het, is dit nie altyd verskriklik in stryd met die “suiwer Afrikaanse” patroon nie,’ supporting Raidt's statement above.

7.27.5.2

Those verbs that are reflexive in English correspond with reflexive verbs in Afrikaans. As the English reflexive pronoun is a compound formed from an object or possessive pronoun plus -self, a form which corresponds with the emphatic reflexive pronoun in Afrikaans, such verbs commonly employ this emphatic form even when no particular emphasis is implied (cf. Ponelis 1979: 83), for example: jouself afvra, gedra, ophang, verdedig, vererg, verontskuldig, was.

This Afrikaans reflexive pronoun with -self, emphatic in form but not in meaning, also occurs in several verbal idioms which are literal translations from English, for example: geniet, oppas, tuismaak, wees, weggee as in pas jouself mooi op, maak julself tuis, sy was die dag nie haarself nie.

7.27.5.3

Sometimes the compound reflexive pronoun occurs in contexts where ‘correct’ Afrikaans requires the adverb self but where English too employs the pronoun, for example: Baie van ons onderwyskragte is dikwels nie voldoende geskoold om hulself rekenskap te kan gee van wat eintlik 'n isme is nie. (cf. Ponelis 1979: 82)

What Ponelis (1979: 82) refers to as adnominal self is commonly replaced by persoonlik in imitation of English usage, for example: Persoonlik gebruik ek hierdie uitdrukking baie.

7.27.6

Occasionally in what purports to be formal written style wie instead of wat occurs as a relative pronoun after a personal antecedent. The distinction between animate and inanimate which can be crucial for the choice of the correct relative pronoun in English, is being applied in such cases in Afrikaans which has never made such a distinction, at least not in contexts where no preposition is involved, for example: Parkering streng verbode behalwe persone wie magtiging daartoe het, Besoekers wie van hierdie kampeerterrein gebruik wil maak,...

7.27.7 The indefinite pronoun een/enetjie

Examples:

'n moeilike punt en een waaroor al baie gedebatteer is (Rousseau, 1937: 191)

jy is een om te praat

ek vir een sou dit nie doen nie

The use of een in those expressions, which is also discussed by Rousseau (p. 191), is undoubtedly of English origin, as is its use in watter een, hierdie/daardie een.

die/'n mooi een

dit is 'n skaars een (compare: dit is een van die skaarses)

die 1922-een

hierdie is 'n battery-enetjie

This is one of the most controversial constructions in Afrikaans with scholars maintaining 1) it is not English in origin, 2) it is English in origin, 3) English has simply served as a contributing factor. Changuion (1844) states:

‘Een wordt in navolging van het E. overtollig gebruikt, b.v.: dat is een mooije een, geef my een groote een enz. in plaats van dat is er een mooije, geef my een groote.’

Changuion thus belongs to group two. Mansvelt (1844: 41) states:

‘Een wordt als voornaamwoord ter vervanging van 't zelfstandige naamwoord na een bijvoeglike naamwoord gebruikt, evenals in 't Friesch en 't Engels, b.v. das 'n mooie eene (iene).’

Mansvelt may belong to group 2 but his mention of the presence of the construction in Frisian implies he may belong to group three. Tromp (1879: 174) seems to accept Du Toit's (1876) opinion without question, namely that ‘Uitdrukkens so's die een, die ander een, ens. kom weer uit Engels.’ They thus both belong to group two. Schonken (1914: 90) unequivocally puts himself in group one when he quotes this construction, together with others, which according to him occurred in seventeenth century Dutch. Rousseau (1937: 190-191) discusses the phenomenon in some detail, mentioning Middle Dutch, various dialects and Frisian (as does Mansvelt) but places himself ultimately in group three. Le Roux (1952: 44) belongs to group two, as do Botha and Van Aardt (1978: 38) who advise that the use of 'n bloue etc. is preferable to 'n blou een.

I would say that all the above scholars, with the exception of Rousseau, see the issue far too simplistically. Rousseau distinguishes various pronominal uses of een which escaped the notice of most scholars but even as far as article + adjective + een/enetjie constructions are concerned, he sees some as indigenous and others as English, for example: Hy het die kleinste appel geneem en die grootste een aan my gegee; 'n dom seun en 'n slim een. He does not, however, explain what the distinction he makes here is based on.

As both Rousseau and Mansvelt mention, the construction occurs in Frisian but with a difference from the examples provided (a difference that they do not comment on): although both in readen ien ('n rooi een) and in readen ('n rooie) occur in that language, ien is only used when the adjective is preceded by the indefinite article, ‘with de or it the adjective alone (without ien) suffices: de reade...’. (Tiersma 1985: 52) This may be an indication that the extent of the use of een in such constructions in Afrikaans has been influenced by English although the phenomenon itself may well have been inherited from Dutch dialect. The fact that Changuion observed this morphological difference from Dutch as early as 1844 may also indicate that there were more factors at work than merely contact with English.

In Frisian, where influence of the adjective is grammatically determined (as in Dutch), the attributive adjective takes an -e after the definite articles de and it; after the neuter indefinite article it remains uninflected (once again as in Dutch) and precisely then the combination with ien (in lieu of an ending on the adjective?) is used, although adjectives referring to common gender nouns also occur in combination with ien. Even in Dutch there is an avoidance in speech of een wit, een groen where one often hears een witje, een groentje if the semantics of the situation permit the use of the diminutive.

In Afrikaans, where adjectival inflection is phonologically determined, adjectives such as wit and groen would not normally be inflected before a noun, but when used independently with reference to a previously mentioned noun, they do, for example: 'n witte, 'n groene or alternatively 'n wit een, 'n groen een. The fact that use of the plural enes (cf. Ponelis 1979: 575) after an adjective in such cases is still regarded very much as a colloquial (sub-standard?) form, which is not the case with the singular, may be an indication that although a construction like mooi enes may be modelled on ‘pretty ones’, 'n mooi een may not simply be in imitation of ‘a pretty one’, or that at most English may merely have served as a contributing factor.

voetnoot58: This issue is looked at in detail from a syntactical point of view by Ponelis (1985) where the author postulates the possibility of English having functioned at least as a contributing factor (p. 121-2). Steyn (1976: 51) also broaches the topic briefly and mentions the possible role of English (p. 53).

voetnoot59: There is a subtle semantic distinction in Dutch between bewegen and zich bewegen.

voetnoot60: Cf. Hiemstra (1980: 99) on the subtle distinction between omdraai and jou omdraai.

Vorige Volgende