paul t. roberge

the formation of afrikaans

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

spil
plus

no 23 1994
## Editorial

SPIL PLUS appears in both Afrikaans and English as a supplement to SPIL (Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics), a publication of the Department of General Linguistics of the University of Stellenbosch. The SPIL PLUS series has two aims. Firstly it serves as a vehicle for the distribution of new and relatively inaccessible information in the field of modern linguistics. Secondly it is used for in-depth critical discussion of, mainly, Afrikaans publications in the field of modern linguistics. An open invitation is extended to all authors whose work is discussed to submit their reaction for publication in a following number of SPIL PLUS. Since one of the aims of the SPIL PLUS series is to stimulate critical discussion in South African linguistics, comments by readers are welcomed. The copyright of each contribution is held by its author. The editors also wish to emphasize that they do not necessarily subscribe to the views expressed in contributions to SPIL PLUS. Contributions and comments should be submitted to:

Editors SPIL PLUS
Department of General Linguistics
University of Stellenbosch
Private Bag X5018
STELLENBOSCH 7599
SOUTH AFRICA

Editors: Rudolf P. Botha
Cecile le Roux
Mary-Ann Kemp

Cover: Sketch of Simon van der Stei by Susan Roberge McClair, after a portrait attributed to the 17th-century Dutch painter Jan Weenix. See inside of back cover for an explanation of the logo.

ISBN: 0-7972 0461-X
THE FORMATION OF AFRIKAANS

by

Paul T. Roberge

SPIL PLUS 23

1994
CONTENTS

Foreword .................................................................................... i

1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1

2. Glottogenesis ........................................................................ 2

3. On the Genetic Transmission of Dutch in Southern Africa: Major Positions and Issues .................................................................................. 12

4. From Initial Contact to Social Convergence in Cape Colonial Society, 1652 - 1795 .................................................................................. 50

5. Sociolinguistic Stratification of the Cape Colony at the End of the VOC Era (1795) .................................................................................. 58

6. Conclusion .................................................................................. 90

Notes ................................................................................................ 91

References ......................................................................................... 95

Contents of previous issues of SPIL PLUS ........................................ 114
## Foreword

The present work is a lightly revised version of my 1993 publication of the same title (=SPIL 27). I have corrected a number of minor but irritating typos and editorial infelicities. I have also made a few substantive changes to improve clarity and keep the work in line with my current thinking. Because this work is being distributed in South Africa and to a small number of fellow specialist-colleagues abroad, a basic knowledge of Dutch and/or Afrikaans is presupposed. Readers should note that I have made no attempt to normalize the spellings in the citations from Van Rensburg (ed.) 1984. Citations from this corpus are given diplomatically, and the transcriptions contained therein are assumed to be accurate in their morphosyntactic aspect.

I am grateful to Dr. Hans den Besten (Amsterdam), Dr. Mark L. Louden (Austin), and Prof. Sarah Grey Thomason (Pittsburgh) for sharing with me their thoughts on the original version. As always, acknowledgment does not necessarily imply agreement with the positions I have taken, and I bear sole responsibility for errors of fact, omission, and interpretation, and for remaining inadequacies. Finally, I am grateful to Prof. Rudolf P. Botha and the editors of SPIL, whose patience I have surely tested.

What follows remains essentially a working document that may show, I'm afraid, the hallmarks of the genre. Because this monograph is intended as a report on research in progress rather than a definitive statement, I should welcome comments and criticisms from interested readers.

28 April 1994
Chapel Hill

Paul T. Roberge
# 1. Introduction

‘If we go back in time, the problem of what Afrikaans is becomes more and more difficult’, wrote Valkhoff more than two decades ago (1972:2), and notwithstanding a far better understanding of the material facts, his words remain true today. In what follows I shall elucidate the sociolinguistic nature of the formation of Afrikaans at the Cape of Good Hope. In section 2 I explore the social bases of glottogenesis within a pantheoretical framework in the sense that the parameters I identify will hold for any theory or model of glottogenesis at the Cape. To paraphrase Woolford (1983:2): Although there are internal principles that govern the theoretically possible linguistic paths along which language may evolve in an extraterritorial setting, it is the external factors that determine how radically its linguistic structure will diverge from metropolitan norms. Section 3 is devoted to a critical overview of both current and selected older writings on how Afrikaans came into being. No one who has investigated its history would seriously dispute that the emergence of the new code was a much a social fact as it was a purely linguistic one. But not everyone has put equal emphasis on this truism. In numerous writings on our subject we find widely varying degrees of concern with sociolinguistic relations underlying the formation of Afrikaans. Section 4 explores the implications entailed by adoption of the view that periods of marked shifts in linguistic patterns are largely congruent with significant changes in culture. An eminent linguist/anthro-
pologist of another generation, Harry Hoijer, was of the opinion
that in order to understand linguistic change, one must see it as
a part of a wider process of cultural change. Naturally, this is
not to suggest a causal connection between sociocultural trends
and specific linguistic changes. Rather, changes within the
various aspects of culture cannot be regarded as distinct and
unrelated but must be seen as different realizations of a single
process (Hoijer 1948:335). In section 5 I discuss the direction-
al gradience of linguistic items across social class by the end
of the Dutch India Company (VOC) era in 1795, with a view toward
elaborating on my claim (Roberge 1994) that the Cape Colony was a
continuum speech community. More precisely, the Netherlandic
speech community at the Cape consisted of a spectrum of lects
ranging from the 'High' Dutch of the expatriate power elite to a
Cape Dutch Creole. Rather than concern myself narrowly with the
origins of these linguistic items, I focus on their social
transmission and development in a context of interacting social
groups alternating among variants in their linguistic reper-
toires. As such, this essay departs somewhat from the usual
method of historical disquisition in Afrikaans linguistics, which
concentrates on single-feature etymologies and takes for granted
the formation of a socially accepted grammar.

2. Glottogenesis.

2.0. If there is one parameter that has been regarded as central
to glottogenesis, it would surely be the continuity of language
transmission between generations (e.g., Sankoff 1979:23-25, Markey 1981, Bickerton 1984:176, Mühlhäusler 1986:94, 255-58, and especially Thomason and Kaufman 1988:9-12, *passim*). *A priori* there would appear to be only two fundamental, nontrivial classes of events whereby a new language could come into existence. These are linear development and catastrophe.

2.1. By 'linear development' I mean gradual, incremental processes of linguistic innovation (primary hybridization in the sense of Whinnom 1971) and the social mechanisms by which change diffuses throughout a speech community. There are neither sharp breaks in linguistics tradition nor radical restructuring over the short haul. Low-level rules are added to the grammar over time. The grammatical core of the language remains intact and etymologically transparent. Thus, discrepancies between succeeding generations are relatively minor; there are no quantum leaps.

Our conventional understanding of 'normal' linguistic evolution defines a genetic tree or *Stammbaum*:

(1)

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Glottogenesis occurs with the establishment of new speech communities (language spread) and the achievement of a significant degree of *Abstand* or linguistic differentiation (Kloss 1978:23-30). One group splits off from the ancestral speech community, and both varieties undergo secondary and separate
evolutive change. We can say that before approximately 874 A.D., the island on which Icelandic was going to be spoken simply was not inhabited. The raw material for what we know today as Icelandic existed in the Norse dialects of the colonists, who had been driven out of Norway and later the Scottish isles by Harald Fairhair. Modern Icelandic has retained most faithfully the structure and lexicon of Old Norse, although significant changes in phonology are concealed by a classical orthography (Haugen 1976:32). Inhabitants of the Faroe Islands are probably descendants of immigrants from Southwest Norway. According to Haugen (1976:34), '[the] form [of Faroese] is . . . intermediate between Icelandic and West Norwegian dialects, with enough distance from both to make it unintelligible, unless spoken very slowly'. Of course, whether such cases represent glottogenesis in any interesting sense is another matter entirely. The degree of *Abstand* required for recognition as a separate language is ultimately arbitrary; and any attempt to specify a *terminus post quem* separating ancestral and daughter languages leads to well-known vacuities.

Under circumstances we would consider 'ordinary', a language has but one parent. In 'normal' transmission there can be a certain amount of mixing and discontinuity. We speak of Vulgar (popular) Latin having fragmented into several Romance vernaculars that in their turn evolved into what we know today as French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Rhaeto-Romansch (e.g., Coseriù 1978:265). Yet, simplified and reduced
forms of Latin must have been utilized between Romans and non-Romans (secondary hybridization in the sense of Whinnom 1971)--especially along the frontier, in the military, in trade, and in Italy itself in the wake of the Germanic invasions. We may stipulate that Scandinavian (850-1042) and Norman hegemony in the British Isles introduced perturbations into the evolution of English. The later stages of the Danish presence were characterized by intimate bilingualism and eventual assimilation into the indigenous population. The Scandinavian legacy is represented by lexical borrowings, replacement of the Anglo-Saxon third-person plural pronouns (OE *hīe, hem, hiera*) with *they, them, and their* (ON *þeirr, þeim, þeirra*), and onomastic elements; cf. Lass 1987:50-54. Following the Norman conquest (1066-70) the English lexicon absorbed a massive influx of loanwords from medieval French. At the same time, French never dominated outside the elite spheres of society, nor was bilingualism pervasive (cf. Lass 1987:54-61, Thomason and Kaufman 1988:306-15). Notwithstanding significant contact with other languages, English and the Romance languages are conventionally seen as a direct continuations of antecedent languages (cf. Polomé 1983:132-55, Thomason and Kaufman 1988:263-342). To consider the origin of these languages possible cases of creolization would be an iconoclastic position.

Finally, mixing may occur with the migration of a largely homogeneous speech community that subsequently undergoes language shift. The first developmental phase of Yiddish commenced when
Jews speaking Loez (Judeo-Romance) crossed the Rhine into Germany from 1000 C.E. Fishman (1987) points out that the Jewish community was at no time without a genetically transmitted language for communication; they could always fall back on their original language while acquiring German. The result was presumably a xenolectal (slightly foreignized) form of German that retained Romance and Semitic lexis and varied in terms of proximity to German norms according to sphere of usage.

2.2. Nonlinear linguistic development commences with untargeted and untutored foreign language acquisition. Social conditions may require communication between people speaking mutually unintelligible and typologically very different languages. These are typically: (a) indigenous trade between social equals speaking a fairly large number of individual languages; (b) military service involving mercenaries or conscripts of diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds; (c) military or colonial occupation involving monolingual in-migrants and indigenes (the latter often speaking several languages collectively) and in which the respective groups may or may not be of equal social status (e.g., trade versus domestic service); (d) migrant (foreign-worker) labor schemes in industrialized countries; (e) indentured, impressed, or slave labor systems in colonial settings, in which workers representing a multitude of native languages must effect communication with the power elite and among themselves.

The linguistic result of such encounters is likely to be an
auxiliary contact vernacular that arises more or less spontaneously and is not the native language of any of its users. These ad hoc codes are highly impoverished (e.g., very restricted lexicon, no inflectional morphology, no morphophonemics, derivationally shallow syntactic structure, etc.), and are suitable for use only in a limited and rather specialized set of communicative domains. **Jargons** (secondary hybridization in the sense of Whinnom 1971) are ad hoc, individual solutions to the problem of intergroup communication. They are highly unstable within given individuals and nonuniform across the learning population. While jargons exist in innumerable varieties (i.e., the speech of no two speakers is ever quite identical), the aggregate is usually easily labeled and stereotyped.

When there is sufficient opportunity for improvement in the direction of the superstrate language (i.e., of the group holding socioeconomic power), we no longer speak of a jargon but rather an *interlanguage*; that is a developing system that is partially independent of both the native language (L1) and the target language. Succeeding generations may then acquire the latter natively (usually as bilinguals early on) with or without eventual language shift. However, the social situations listed above are often defined by linguistically heterogeneous substrate communities (with little or no power). There are often significant barriers to targeted second language acquisition. A *pidgin* results from the attempted use of the superstrate language by substrate speakers sharing no other language in common but under
the influence of the dominant group (tertiary hybridization in
the sense of Whinnom 1971). Like a jargon, a pidgin is a reduced
and simplified form of language; unlike a jargon it has socially
accepted norms of pronunciation, lexical meaning, and syntax.
Stability, of course, is a matter of degree, as the pidgin will
vary somewhat in the mouths of the different L1 groups that use
it. Nevertheless, pidgins (as I use the term here) are quali-
tatively different codes than either jargons or interlanguages,
both socially and linguisitically (see Mühlhäusler 1986:ch. 5).

There is a functional relationship between the exigencies of
communication, on the one hand, and a pidgin's linguistic
elaboration, on the other. If external factors remove the need
for communication outright or favor bilingualism or language
shift, the pidgin is doomed to extinction. It may also happen
that the communicative exigencies remain constant or create new
domains. The latter case requires structural expansion of the
pidgin so that it can maintain itself as a referentially adequate
vehicle of communication within these domains (see Sankoff 1979,
Mühlhäusler 1986:176-205).

More than any other sociolinguistic setting, plantation
agriculture is supposed to have been especially conducive to the
'catastrophic' development of language (cf. Reinecke 1937:57-63;
Bickerton 1979:7, 1984:176, 1989:17-19; Sankoff 1979:24-25,
Washabaugh and Greenfield 1983, Holm 1988:40-41). Regardless of
whether workers arrived by means of forced relocation (slave
labor) or indenture, they inevitably brought with them a wide
variety of languages (cf. Bickerton 1979:10-11). In the paradigm case no one language group would be dominant enough so that it could prevail by means of language shift on the part of other groups; no second language was shared by enough people so as to serve as a vehicle of intercommunication (bilingualism). For almost everyone of the slave or indentured labor class, access to the superstrate language would be tenuous.

‘Catastrophic’ glottogenesis presupposes extraordinary circumstances (Sankoff 1979:24; Bickerton 1981:3, Thomason and Kaufman 1988:ch. 6). It has been pointed out often enough that the specifics of labor organization are crucial to whether a plantation pidgin will actually develop into a *creole* language; that is, becomes a native language for most of its users, with a lexicon and syntax that are sufficiently robust to meet all communicative needs. Slave labor normally entailed the separation of speakers from their native-language groups and arguably created the most severe breaks in the transmission of language. Sankoff (1979:24) reminds us that an important distinction exists between ‘Pacific’ plantations, which used indentured labor, and ‘Atlantic’ plantations (i.e., in the Caribbean and West Africa), which used slave labor. In the former case the labor force was renewed by the continuous importation of workers on short-term contracts, many of whom stayed on as immigrants. There was a virtual absence of child language learners (at least in the early period). In the latter case the slave labor force increased continually due to natural human reproduction. This resulted in
large numbers of children, whose only means of intercommunication was to nativize the pidgin. For Bickerton (1979, 1981, 1984, 1989), the presence of children--specifically an early generation of children--is pivotal to his definition of "exogenous" (plantoation) creoles, which, ideally, arose out of a prior pidgin that had not existed for more than a generation and in a population where not more than 20% were native speakers of the superstrate language and where the remaining 80% were substrate speakers of diverse languages (1981:4). In a subsequent publication Bickerton (1984:176) writes that the ratio of superstrate to substrate speakers in a given creole community is only one of several factors that determine the severity with which language transmission could be disrupted (<u>infra</u>).

2.3. The relative continuity of language transmission implies a continuum along which individual cases of glottogenesis can be plotted, the theoretical poles of which are absolute linearity and virtual nonlinearity. According to Bickerton (1984:176-78), disruption will be most severe in cases of early nativization of a minimal pidgin or jargon. Early nativization is a hallmark of maroonage; the creation of communities of escaped slaves virtually precluded the effective transmission of preexisting languages (Saramaccan, Djuka). The early withdrawal of the original lexifier language of a planation creole due to political change cuts off further influence from native speakers of the dominant language (e.g., Sranan). The rupture in genetic transmission is somewhat less severe in the case of 'endogenous'
(fort, maritime) creoles, which, by contrast, remain in contact
with their substrate languages.

In the mid range of our continuum would be languages that
are frequently referred to as 'semicreoles' (Holm 1988:9-10) or
'convergence creoles' (Gilbert 1993a, b). The need for an
intermediate construct arose out of the empirical observation
that a number of languages exhibit many of the structural
properties of creole languages (e.g., simplification), even
though they appear not to have originated in the nativization of
a pidgin (cf. Mühlhäusler 1986:10, Holm 1988:10). Whereas 'true'
creoles develop where there is a radical break in language trans-
mission, many languages appear to have developed with only a par-
tial break (Mühlhäusler 1986:10). Scenarios that could conceiv-
ably yield results structurally similar to creole languages in-
volve multilingual societies in which a continuum of lects de-
velops between a superstrate language and several substrate lan-
guages, each lect reflecting varying degrees of substrate influ-
ence (Romaine 1988:160). Alternatively, 'next to mixing between
fully developed linguistic systems one also finds mixing between
full systems and developing systems' (Mühlhäusler 1986:10); that
is, a 'language that grew out of the close contact of a creole
with a non-creole, without itself ever having had a basilectal
stage' (Holm 1991:22). In Gilbert's model (1993a, b) members of
a colonial society have transmitted the metropolitan language
without interruption to their descendants. One or more groups of
speakers learned this language first as a pidgin and subsequently
as a creole, with varying degrees of convergence between acro-
lectal and basilectal varieties.

Putative cases include *inter alia* Singapore English (Platt
1975), South African Indian English (Meshtrie 1992), Brazilian
Vernacular Portuguese (Holm 1989:299-303, Gilbert 1993a, b),
African-American Vernacular English (Holm 1989:498-503, 1991),
and Yiddish following the expansion of Judeo-German-speaking
Ashkenazic Jewry into Slavic Eastern Europe from the 12th century
(Louden 1993). When reading the literature in creolistics and
even lately in Afrikaans linguistics in South Africa, one is
struck by the diversity of terminology positioning Afrikaans
within the intermundia between creole and noncreole: 'rudimentary
creole' (Hancock 1971:518), 'creoloid' (Trudgill 1978:49n.,
Makhudu 1984:96), 'fusion creole' (Markey 1981:25, 1982:
201-2), 'acrolectal creole' (Ponelis 1988:126), '(nonradical)
fort creole' (Den Besten 1989:226), in addition to 'semicreole'
(Thomason and Kaufman 1988:148, 251-56; Holm 1989:339-40, 1991;
Bruyn and Veenstra 1993:30) and 'convergence creole' (Gilbert
1993a, b).

3. On the Genetic Transmission of Dutch in Southern Africa:
Major Positions and Issues

3.0. Neither the social situation nor the linguistic facts would support a claim that Afrikaans is a 'true' creole language. The circumstances that led to catastrophic breaks in the transmission of language between generations--such as were created *par*
<u>excellence</u> by plantations using slave labor--were not present at the old Cape. The slave population in the Colony never greatly exceeded that of the Europeans. Numerical parity was not reached until ca. 1730; and by 1798 the colonial population consisted of 25,754 slaves versus ca. 20,000 free settlers (Elphick and Gilio-mee 1989:524). Nor were there any large slave-holders save for the VOC itself (cf. Raidt 1983:14). The topography of the Cape was ill-suited for plantation agriculture, and in any event the VOC did not at the outset envisage colonization as an end in itself. Linguistically, Afrikaans appears more creolelike than metropolitan Dutch but in turn displays far fewer prototypical characteristics than Virgin Islands Dutch Creole, Berbice Creole Dutch or Skepi Creole Dutch of Guyana, all three 'true' creoles (cf. Markey 1982, Ponelis 1988, Bruyn and Veenstra 1993).

3.1.1. Afrikaans has maintained a fundamental typological feature of continental West Germanic languages (i.e., Dutch and German) that is virtually unknown in creoles; namely, underlying SOV word order with verb-second (V2) phenomena. Despite significant innovation in some systems (<u>infra</u>), the syntax of standard Afrikaans does not diverge radically from Dutch in essential aspects. Afrikaans has preserved the Dutch periphrastic perfect with the auxiliary <u>het</u> 'have' (Dutch <u>hebben</u>) and morphological marking on the verb (viz. <u>ge</u>+present verb stem). It is true that Afrikaans has lost <u>zijn</u> as a perfect auxiliary, but so has English. And while it is also true that Afrikaans retains only vestiges of the Dutch preterite, this particular absence is not
without precedent in other West Germanic languages (southern German dialects, Yiddish). There is case syncretism in the first- and third-person plural pronouns (Dutch wij/ons, zij/hun, beside Afrikaans ons, hulle) but the rest of the pronominal system shows the same inflectional oppositions as Dutch. Pluralization is achieved by means of suffixation rather than anaphora or reduplication. Curiously, attributive adjectives are frequently inflected in Afrikaans, the criteria for inflection being phonotactic and in part semantic. Donaldson (1993:163) is quite correct in noting that adjective inflection is one area of Afrikaans grammar where simplification has not occurred; see Lass 1990a.

The lexicon is mainly Netherlandic in origin despite the fact that Portuguese and Malay have left their mark. Khoikhoi lexis in Afrikaans obtains chiefly from adlexification for plant and animal names, expletives, and some cultural items.¹ Netherlandic patterns of word formation remain virtually unchanged (Raidt 1983:160), save for the addition of reduplication (infra).

Phonemically, standard Afrikaans is derivable in the main from vernacular and dialectal Early Modern Dutch. Theoretically, its phonotactic divergences could have resulted from metropolitan Dutch, universals of untutored second language acquisition, substratum influence, or the interaction of some, if not all of these factors. At first glance, the apocope of final /t, d/ following a tautosyllabic obstruent (Dutch nacht, hoofd, Afrikaans nag, hoof) is consistent with the kind of coda simplification that can result from intensive language contact;
cf. Hesseling 1899:152-53, 1923:126; Holm 1988:110. However, the
probativedatumofparallelphenomena in other contact situations
is diminished by the fact that cluster reduction is widely
attested in colonial Dutch before 1700 and in contemporary Dutch
dialects (Kloeke 1950:284-87, *passim*; Raidt 1974:99-101,
1983:80-82, 1991:198-200; Ponelis 1991:68-72). It is certainly
reasonable to sense some relevance in the fact that 'Khoi syl-
lables have the canonical form CV (Hagman 1973:21)' and speculate
that 'phonotactic rules of Dutch dialects converged with those of
Khoi languages to simplify final consonant clusters in Afrikaans'
(Holm 1991:9). Empirically, the question of convergent phonotac-
tic processes is moot. More difficult is Afrikaans initial [sk-]
(skryf) for Dutch initial [sx-] (*schrijven*). Replacement of a
marked syllable onset with a less marked one would be consistent
with what we should expect to find in creole languages (cf. Valk-
hoff 1966:199, Den Besten 1987a:74). It is also true that
initial sk- < WGmc. *sk- is present in many metropolitan dialects
(Hesseling 1899:152; Kloeke 1950:225; Scholtz 1972:85-86,
1980:56; Raidt 1983:87; Ponelis 1991:55-56), even though sch- and
not sk- is evidently preserved in New Netherlands Dutch in North
America, which shares the same dialectal base as Afrikaans
(Buccini 1992). The velarization of posttonic final -n (Dutch
doorn, Afr. *doring*) has eluded unified explanation. Schonken
(1914:172-74) attributed it to substrate (Malay) phonology, but
not even Hesseling (1899:150-52) was prepared to go quite that
far. Dialectal antecedents in the metropole have been argued
(Scholtz 1963:208-14, 1980:60; Raidt 1983:88-89; Ponelis 1991:38-39), though a linkage between Netherlandic and Malay tendencies is not unthinkable (Den Besten 1987a:83-84). Another salient phonological divergence from Dutch is the nasalization of nonhigh, nonfinal vowels, as in Afr. *kans* [ks] beside *kas* [*kaşs*]. Citing Hagman 1973:13, Holm (1991:8) draws attention to phonemically distinctive nasalized vowels in the phonology of the Khoikhoi language Nama. But this connection is offset by the nasalization of vowels observed in metropolitan Netherlandic dialects (Scholtz 1972:84-85, Ponelis 1991:53-54) and by its presence in New Netherlands Dutch (Buccini 1992). Whether nasalization in Afrikaans represents a generalized Netherlandic dialectism, autochthonous innovation, the influence of a substrate language, or some combination of all three forces is difficult to determine.

Although Afrikaans has not moved as far from Dutch as 'true' creoles have from their lexifier languages, the changes that distinguish it from metropolitan forms are still fairly extensive. Afrikaans has divested itself of the bulk of Dutch inflectional morphology. Case distinctions, such as they existed in spoken seventeenth-century Dutch, are nonexistent except in singular personal and anaphoric pronouns and as relics in fixed expressions (*ten slotte* 'in conclusion', *destyds* 'at that time'). With specific reference to deflexion we note the following losses: (a) grammatical gender in nouns; (b) a distinction between nominative and oblique cases in the first and third
person plural pronouns (*sunra*); (c) a separate reflexive pronoun corresponding to Dutch *zich* (German *sich*); (d) the Dutch demonstratives *deze/dit*, *die/dat*, which have been superseded by neologistic *hierdie*, *daardie*; (e) personal agreement in verbs (even in the copula) and a formal distinction between finite and nonfinite forms (save for *is/wees* and *het/hê*); (f) grammaticalized apophony (*Ablaut*) to mark categories of the verb, save for in attributive past participles, where it is strictly morphophonemic; (g) past participle suffixes (*weak -t/-d*, strong -e(n)n) in periphrastic tenses and concomitant reanalysis in attributive past participles; (h) the preterite as an inflectional category (except in modal auxiliaries, *weet*, *wees*, and *dink*) and also the pluperfect in the active voice; (i) all trace of a morphological subjunctive; (j) weak allomorphs of pronominal forms (Dutch *ik/’k*, *wij/we*, etc.) and of the adverbial *daar* (Dutch *daar/er*). There is a uniform relative pronoun for all antecedents regardless of number, definiteness, or humanity (Afrikaans *wat*, Dutch *die/dat/wat*). The possessive particle *se* (phonologically derived from the weak allomorph of *sii(n)*, Dutch *zijn/z’n*) does not vary according to gender and number of the possessor: Afrikaans *ma se hoed*, *die kinders se skool* beside Dutch *vader z’n hoed*, *moeder d’r (haar) hoed*, *de kinderen hun school*.

Significant innovations in Afrikaans grammar include reduplication (*die dokter vat-vat die swelsel*), the associative construction (*Piet-hulle*), the verbal hendiads (*hulle het ’n glas water gestaan en drink*), use of *vir* before personal objects
(hulle het vir my geslaan), conversion and unification of function (ek is honger), and the double negation with nie, in sentence-final position (die son gaan nie vroeg onder nie). If one looks to nonstandard varieties of Afrikaans, then one finds still greater divergences. Particularly noteworthy is the use of positional verbs as preverbal aspectual markers, e.g., hierie mense loop gee solke snaakse name, nou sit sing hulle virie heeldag (note SVO order).

3.1.2. Nowadays, virtually everybody agrees that the trans-
mission process was 'bent' but not broken in the early years of
the Cape Colony (cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988:253). There is
general agreement, too, that by 1740 an extraterritorial variety
of Dutch had come into existence in the Cape Colony, and that by
1775--certainly no later than 1800--we may speak of a separate
but cognate Netherlandic language (cf. Raidt 1983:6-8, 15,
27-28). There are good reasons to be skeptical of the received
termini ad quem (cf. Roberge 1994), but we shall accept them here
as a working hypothesis. Older theories generally posit the
formation of Afrikaans by the end of the seventeenth century,
although assignment of such an early date has consistently failed
to gain lasting acceptance.²

At the same time, 'the drastic inflectional simplifications
and consequent remodelling of Dutch structures in Afrikaans are
not typical, as a set of changes, of any European Dutch dialect
or dialect group' (Thomason and Kaufman 1988:255). Moreover,
they are much too extensive to have occurred solely by means of
internal evolutive change within the elapsed time (Kloss 1978: 151, Thomason and Kaufman 1988:255). Exactly how far the transmission of grammar was 'bent' has been an enduring crux in Afrikaans historical linguistics. The various positions fall into three categories, with varying degrees of overlap and difference in emphasis. They are not necessarily incompatible (cf. Kloss 1978:151); and it is important to bear in mind that the questions asked are often not the same.

3.2. Models in the first category proceed from the assumption of more or less normal transmission of language within the socially dominant European community at the old Cape. To the extent that basilectal forms of Afrikaans are considered at all, they are seen as the result of untutored second language acquisition on the part of the indigenous Khoikhoi and slaves of African and Asian origin, followed by language shift on the part of their descendants. Their varieties are seen as separate developments.

3.2.1. One early school of thought placed the genesis of Afrikaans squarely at the normal transmission end of our linearity continuum. This is the so-called 'spontaneous development' model initially proposed by Kruisinga (1906) and with which the Afrikaner linguists Boshoff (e.g., 1921:78, 1959), Bosman (1923, 1947), and Smith (1927, 1952) were in substantial agreement. Briefly, currents of change present in Dutch, Flemish, and Low German dialects rapidly became diffuse in an extraterritorial setting. Advocates of spontaneous development assumed minimal language contact and fixed the origins of Afrikaans in the late
seventeenth century. The one exception is Smith (1927:19, 1952:20), who opined that Afrikaans did not reach its modern form until the year 1750.

3.2.2. For his part, Bosman (1923, 1947) conceded that spontaneous development alone could not account for the relatively rapid transformation of Dutch into Afrikaans (1923:43), even though he appears to have had no quarrel with the prevailing *terminus post quem*. Insofar as Afrikaans is not the spontaneous development of Dutch on foreign soil, he wrote, its creolelike features (e.g., deflexion) are attributable to the influence of nonnative speakers of Dutch (1923:101-4).

This 'foreigners' Dutch' or 'adaptation' model is indeed preponderantly eclectic (Reinecke et al. 1975:323); to call it 'evasive', as Markey 1982:169 does, would hardly do justice to this writer; cf. also Zimmer 1992:355. True, Bosman made no attempt to apportion the influence of the various linguistic determinants (Reinecke 1937:572). Yet, he drew a distinction between European and creolized varieties (e.g., 1923:83), and indeed many of his views strike the alert reader as prescient in the light of subsequent research. Nienaber (1934:54, 1949:121-32) thought that Bosman was essentially on the right track even though the empirical underpinnings to his formulations did not run deep.³ As we shall see, it is but a short step to expand Bosman's notion of 'foreigners' Dutch' and recast it into contemporary second-language acquisition terms.

3.2.3. The Dutch dialectologist G. G. Kloeke (1950) is
conventionally included in the spontaneist camp (Reinecke et al. 1975:323, Combrink 1978:86, Markey 1982:169, Makhudu 1984:13), and it has perhaps been all too easy to overlook the fact that he saw his book as a reaction to some of the more fanciful assertions of both creolists and spontaneists (346). He inferred from the relative uniformity of (Euro-) Afrikaans over a vast territory of South Africa that the new language must have gained its most characteristic features before 1700--well before contact with other languages could have played any significant role. According to Kloeke, Afrikaans shows some striking affinities with dialects in the southern part of the province of South Holland. He attributed a strong 'founder effect' to the language of the outpost's first commander Jan van Riebeeck and his entourage, the bases of which must have lain in South Holland (1950:289-302). At the same time, Afrikaans is not the pure development of a single Netherlandic dialect, for one can discern compromises with the 'High' Dutch of the period. In the absence of prescriptive norms reinforced by education and with the rapid assimilation of German and French immigrants, 'the younger generation must have "murdered" the language' (1950:346, 363).

3.2.4. In an extreme revival of the spontaneist model Van der Merwe (1963, 1964, 1968, 1970) went so far as to claim that the emergence of Afrikaans took place within a scant four to six years (1656-58) after Van Riebeeck's arrival (1968:66). Glotto-genesis was essentially predetermined by latent tendencies toward change (taalneiging) inherent in the structure of sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century Dutch--in other words accelerated drift. Geographic displacement of Dutch speakers along with an influx of new European immigrants upset the equilibrium of Dutch grammar, unleashing a wave of structural readjustments in which purely internal factors governed the succession of changes. He categorically ruled out any possibility that people of color contributed significantly to the shaping of Afrikaans (e.g., 1968:29).

3.2.5. If by 'spontaneous development' we are given to understand that Afrikaans arose some time between 1658 and 1750 through a series of 'perfectly ordinary internally motivated changes from Dutch', then the time factor itself becomes an *explanandum*. After all, such a chronology 'flies in the face of everything we know about ordinary rates of internally motivated change. We do not suggest that we can specify precise rates of change, but rather that the changes from Dutch to Afrikaans, apparently during the early years of the Cape Colony, were much too extensive to have arisen solely by internal means within the elapsed time' (Thomason and Kaufman 1988:255). Contrary to the impression one might glean from an uncritical reading of Valkhoff (e.g., 1971:464, 466n.; 1972:1-2, 12-13, 34-41), the idea of spontaneous development was long obsolete even in South Africa by the mid 1960s. Kloeke's book has intrinsic value by virtue of the data that his dialect-geographical approach makes available; not surprisingly, it earned serious international attention. By contrast, Van der Merwe's views were deservedly passed over in
silence by serious students of Afrikaans historical linguistics
(cf. Raidt 1977:73).

3.2.6. The prevailing model of linguistic development at the Cape has emerged out of what Den Besten (1987a) has called the 'South African philological school', the two most prolific writers being J. du Plessis Scholtz (1963, 1965, 1972, 1980) and Edith H. Raidt (1974, 1983, 1984a, 1991, etc.). Scholars working within this paradigm have not concerned themselves with theorizing the origins of Afrikaans, which they regard as a dubious enterprise (Scholtz 1963:74, 1980:29-30; Raidt 1976b:163n.). Instead, they have concentrated on the history of specific linguistic phenomena.⁴

Underlying the philological paradigm is a developmental model that presupposes continuous and linear development within a contact situation. Accordingly, Afrikaans evolved from Early Modern Dutch by a series of internally motivated changes effected by the generalization of Netherlandic dialectisms and secondary autochthonous development. The Netherlandic tongue imported to the Cape existed in several dialects. The provinces of North and South Holland seem to have been especially well represented at the outset, although there followed speakers from Utrecht, Brabant, Flanders, Zeeland, and the eastern regions (Raidt 1983:17). After 1700 there is a discernible slope toward deflection and regularization. Our source material indicates a transition period between 1740 and 1775. Raidt (1983:15) proposes the term 'Cape Dutch' (Kaaps-Nederlands, Kapniederlân-
disch) if a designation is deemed desirable or expedient. Some changes that define Afrikaans were already in place, while others were still in progress. By 1800, however, we can assume a more or less uniform and stable vernacular (Raidt 1983:6-8, 27-28), somewhat different in the mouths of the Khoikhoi, slaves, and subsequent generations of mixed descent.

A century and a quarter is still a fairly short period for glottogenesis to occur solely by means of 'ordinary' linguistic change. According to the philologists, the large number of nonnative speakers using the Dutch target language in a multilingual society--speakers of High and Low German dialects (Grüner 1982) and French (Pheiffer 1980) as well as Khoikhoi and slaves--accelerated the pace of change, all the more so given the absence of strong normative pressures.

Theoretical discussion of language contact does not play a part in the philological literature. The proffered accelerating factor would seem to resuscitate Bosman's idea of 'foreigners' Dutch' as a secondary mechanism of change (1923:56-60). Native-language (L1) interference and imperfect approximation of the superstrate resulted in 'broken language' (roughly jargons and interlanguages) but not outright pidginization, much less creolization (Raidt 1978:119, 1983:24-28, 1991:124-31, 176-77; Pheiffer 1980:1-11). At first, speech 'errors' were random and unsystematic. Eventually, they coupled with the gradual diffusion of internal linguistic change in progress, or else introduced perturbations into patterns of variation inherent to the fledg-
ling speech community. A case in point is the replacement of the
Dutch relative pronouns *die*, *dat*, etc. with *wat* in Afrikaans,
which according to Ponelis (1987:69-70) was abetted by invariant
*gue* in Creole Portuguese and to a lesser degree Malay (as
Hesseling 1923:121 speculated).

Empirically, scholarship conducted within the philological
paradigm has much to recommend it. One proceeds inductively from
a thorough investigation of the documentary evidence to a compar-
ison of Afrikaans features with what we know of Early Modern
Dutch and what we can impute to that period on the basis of
modern Netherlandic dialects. The heuristic procedure is not
precisely the one that comparatists have always applied to gen-
etically related languages. The comparative method leads to a
uniform protolanguage without any dialectal variation (except as
necessary to accommodate irreconcilable differences in the daugh-
ters). In the case of Afrikaans the relationship is quite the
opposite: synchronic uniformity has resulted from diachronic
plurality.

After a tabulation of unambiguous continuities from Dutch
(which require no explanation), one searches for forms in
metropolitan Netherlandic dialects that are similar enough to the
divergent Afrikaans features. Features that can be paired off in
terms of these correspondences are considered 'explained'. It
would be naive to think that an overseas territory settled
originally from one area of the metropole should always and
exclusively show dialect features from that area. Lass (1990b)
has stressed that when a cluster of related but markedly differ-
ent dialects move into an extraterritorial setting, there are two
developmental options. Either one particular input type will
dominate; or there will be varying degrees of mixture and re-
codification, with compromise outputs stemming from a variety of
inputs. Since Kloeke 1950, there has been nearly unanimous
agreement that South Holland occupied a special position in the
early days of the Cape colony, but immigrants from that region
never constituted an absolute majority (Kloeke 1950:229-88). We
should therefore hardly expect all defining features to be trace-
able to South Holland.

The development of Afrikaans is complicated by the fact that
as a general rule it did not entail multiple migrations in which
the component waves had a distinctly regional character. It is
not possible to separate 'archaic' from 'advanced' linguistic
patterns stemming from successive layers of continental Dutch
dialects. Invoking dialectal substrata in order to account for
the unexplained residue requires that two conditions be
satisfied. First, there must be a metropolitan dialect that
provides a plausible linguistic model. Second, there must be
independent evidence for the presence of speakers of the dialect
in question 'at the relevant time and in sufficient numbers'
(Thomason and Kaufman 1988:255). The replacement of nominative
wii by oblique ons in the function of subject has been recorded
in the Dutch province of Zeeland (Raidt 1983:155). We also know
that there was significant emigration from Zeeland between
roughly 1685 and 1700 (Katzen 1982:198). So what at first blush
appears to be an obvious creolism (Valkhoff 1966:222, 1972:45-47)
may find its origin in an old dialectism. To infer from these
facts a Netherlandic origin for subjectival <ins>ons</ins> is a defensible
(but not necessarily unchallengeable) position. That there is no
neutralization of the nominative/ oblique distinction in the
singular (<ins>ek</ins>/<ins>my</ins>, <ins>jy</ins>/<ins>jou</ins>, etc.) would lend some slight support.

Mühlhäusler (1986:123) has warned that as regards the
determination of substratum influences in creoles, nothing is
more misleading than a simple static comparison between two
languages in their synchronic states. This caveat applies
*mutatis mutandis* to a comparison of metropolitan and Cape
varieties of Dutch. Problems arise when one or neither condition
is met for a specific feature, and they become acute when that
feature is not attested until fairly late in our Cape corpora.
The etymologically opaque Afrikaans double negation shows a
superficially striking resemblance to a negation pattern that
Pauwels (1958) found in the modern dialect of Aarschot in
Brabant. Yet, Den Besten (1985:13-30, 1986:199-206) has shown
that the Aarschot pattern is structurally and pragmatically quite
different than what we find today in Afrikaans. One cannot in
any event draw a connection here unless one can show on in-
dependent grounds that the Cape settlement included a significant
dialectal substratum with this kind of negation. As it happens,
there were Flemish speakers in the service of the VOC during the
seventeenth century. But they were very much in the minority and
interspersed among the Hollanders; their linguistic influence was otherwise marginal. In the case of the double negation, only the first condition is met, and even at that very imperfectly.

It is certainly not enough to suppose that if a linguistic feature can be Netherlandic, it must be Netherlandic (cf. Den Besten 1986:191, Thomason and Kaufman 1988:255), although such kneejerk opinions hardly characterize the scholarship cited in the present section (§3.2.6). Reduplication and the object particle *vir* do not find clear cognates in any continental variety of Dutch, and Raidt has fixed their origins (respectively) in Malay (1980, 1981) and Creole Portuguese (1976a). More usually, linguistic data from the formative periods attesting to the usage of slaves and Khoikhoi is at best scanty, and one simply cannot do adequate philology. Nonetheless, only in the last resort does one look to the substrate contact languages. From the philologists' point of view, a remotely plausible Netherlandic prototype must prevail when the evidence is in equipoise. To my mind, the conspicuous absence of double negation in the Afrikaans pattern from our Cape Dutch source material before the early nineteenth century flatly contradicts the received opinion that some facultative or discourse-dependent dialectism imported from the metropole became grammaticalized at the Cape. If the Afrikaans double negation is a Netherlandicism, where has it been lurking during 150 years of Dutch hegemony? True, avoidance of highly stigmatized variants in writing could explain the absence. But that explanation invites tautology and
raises the awkward question of why a supposedly diffusing feature
of dialectal Early Modern Dutch should command such a negative
sociolinguistic evaluation among a rural, insular, and semiliter-
ate settler population. Not without interest is the fact that an
Afrikaans-like double negation is entirely unknown in another
former territory of the Dutch colonial empire; namely, New
Netherlands Dutch in North America (Buccini 1992).

It should be obvious by now that the perspective adopted by
the 'philological school' is preponderantly Eurocentric. It
seems to me that what the philologists have posited by ca. 1775-
1800 is an idealized Euro-Cape Dutch, a composite of all defining
features. Contemporaneous forms of basilectal Cape Dutch are
seen basically as ancillary and epiphenomenal. Note how the
philological approach spreads the 'interference' factor more or
less equally among several groups of European and non-European
learners of Dutch. Raidt (1983:155-56) is too astute a linguist
to claim that Zeelanders with subjectival <ons> in their dialect
simply imposed this feature on everybody else, and so she allows
that subjectival <ons> advanced at the Cape in part 'durch den
Einfluß der Fremdlinge'. That is as far as she takes us.
Idealization of Euro-Cape Dutch and the separation of basilectal
forms represent a useful diachronic abstraction, but it could
hardly have been sociolinguistic reality (see Roberge 1994).

3.3. Glottogenetic models of the second type proceed from
the same postulates as those in the foregoing discussion, except
that they stress the leveling of grammatical systems between
closely related West Germanic dialects in contact (rather than
internal linguistic change). Early proponents of this model were
Wittmann (1928) and Louw (1948). Wittmann's contention (1928:43,
57) that a variety strongly divergent from Dutch had come into
existence already by 1685 is antiquated and untenable. Louw
(1948:87) saw convergence as a far slower process, and he allowed
a century for leveling to run its course. It seems gratuitous to
add that like proponents of the older spontaneous development
model, both writers reserve the mechanisms of change exclusively
for the European settler community.

The basic principle is that when genetically closely related
dialects come into contact in a foreign environment, they will
coalesce into a uniform code (koine), often with a greatly
simplified morphology (Mühlhäusler 1986:12, Holm 1988:10). Kotzé
(1991) has stressed that the history of Euro-Afrikaans satisfies
all of Siegel's (1985) requirements for koineization: (i) mixing
of mutually intelligible codes; (ii) the gradual nature of this
simplification; and (iii) sustained intensive contacts and
gradual assimilation of social groups.
In a similar vein Combrink (1978:72-77) explains the demise of personal agreement in the Afrikaans verb as the linguistic consequence of mixing between similar but nonidentical inflectional systems. The Netherlandic and Low German dialects imported to the Cape were structurally and lexically so similar as to be mutually intelligible. The main barrier to communication lay in the interdialectal 'channel noise' created by inflectional disparities. Because the exigencies of efficient communication implied greater reliance on syntax and lexical roots, verbal inflections became completely redundant and thus disposable. In this way Cape Dutch could be morphologically stripped even while preserving intact its continental West Germanic syntactic typology.

3.3.1. For Van Rensburg (1983:138-39, 1985, 1989), the history of Euro-Afrikaans represents a continuous process of koineization; namely, leveling of inherent variation (taalvervanging) coupled with the generalization of erstwhile variable rules (reëluitbreiding). The language of the Dutch rank and file at the Cape (viz. uneducated peasants and ordinary VOC employees) is equatable with nonstandard varieties already spoken on the continent and in the Dutch colonies (1984:514). Oosgrens-Afrikaans represents a convergent form that can be historically identified as the language of settlers who established themselves along the eastern frontier. The northern varieties of Afrikaans, as spoken in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, are based on this.
As before, the accelerating factor is seen as developing
second languages among the colony's non-Dutch adult population,
for whom nonstandard Netherlandic varieties imported to the Cape
served as the target. Whenever such cases can be observed
directly, nonnative varieties of a target language are typically
characterized by reduction, simplification, overgeneralization,
and transference of structure from the native language. Creole-
like features in the contemporary varieties of their descendants
are in the main attributable to the interlanguages of adults
mastering a foreign language in the conventional way vis-à-vis
the creations of children.

Within the Afro-Asian substrate, language shift was preceded
by imperfect code switching on the part of adult language
learners in the early years of the colony, with succeeding
generations acquiring Cape Dutch natively (as bilinguals for an
indeterminate period of time). The contemporary Afrikaans of
people of color still bear the imprint of the interlanguages of
their forebears but are not sensu stricto creole languages
(cf. Van Rensburg 1985:138-54, 1989:137-38, 1994; Webb 1993; Van
der Merwe 1993). Kaapse Afrikaans (i.e., of the Cape Malay and
Cape 'Coloureds') is based on the varieties of the early slaves
and Khoikhoi communities in the Western Cape. Oranierivier-Af-
rikaans (i.e., spoken by the Griquas, in the Richtersveld, and by
people of color in Namibia) represents a form of Afrikaans that
shows a greater influence of Khoikhoi languages and was spoken in
the regions along the Orange River.⁵
Standard Afrikaans is a relatively late developmental phase (roughly 1870-1930) in which the settler vernacular spoken along the eastern frontier (Oosqrens-Afrikaans) provided the dialectal base and which proceeded under the influence of Dutch prestige norms (vernederlandsing); cf. Van Rensburg 1983:139-41. During the standardization process, East Cape Afrikaans made several inroads into the other varieties, whereas the latter had no measurable involvement in the overall process.

3.3.2. According to Van Rensburg, it is the convergence of preexisting variants rather than evolutive change in the neo-grammarian sense that was the 'driver' in the formation of Euro-Afrikaans. As such, this postulate qualifies merely as a shift in perspective, for traditional diachronic formulations are easily translatable into variationist terms. One generally looks in vain for explicit statements on how specific variables coalesced over time, space, and social class. It is one thing to offer programmatic allusions to a kind of linguistic stew during the early VOC period that somehow managed to sort itself out; it is quite another to reconstruct sociostylistic variation or early koine, difficult though this will be.⁶

3.3.3. In what proportion language contact combined with dialect leveling to produce Euro-Cape Dutch can of course be debated (see Hesseling 1923:112-13; Ponelis 1993:29). That disagreement aside, Ponelis (1988, 1993:27-30) proceeds from essentially the same fundamental theses as the variationists: (i) The Cape Colony was a heterogeneous, multilingual society in
which Dutch was a minority first language in the early years and was approximated in a haphazard, untutored way on account of its extensive use as a lingua franca. Furthermore, the colony continually received new interlectal speakers (basically a cocoliche situation). (ii) There was no withdrawal of the superstrate language. Dutch continued as the first language of a significant portion of VOC personnel and of the free settler population. (iii) There was a spectrum between '(spoken) matri- lectal Dutch and . . . a whole range of interlectal varieties'. The interlectal codes within this continuum were characterized by varying degrees of substrate transfer, simplification, and hy- bridization, 'depending on closeness of contact' (1993:30). (iv) Afrikaans today exhibits many structural properties attributed to creole languages generally due to interlectal modification.

3.3.4. It is easy to get the impression from the views just summarized that the explanatory power of interlanguage is supposed to finesse the question of pidginization/creolization by rendering these concepts derivative and ultimately dispensable (cf. Van Rensburg 1989:142). For Ponelis (1993:27, 30) re- structuring due to secondary proficiency is creolization. Central to the 'interlectalist' position is the claim that the developing second languages of adult Khoikhoi and slaves in the initial contact generation ($G_0$) became a viable primary lan- guage. The disruption of language transmission would have been minimal, for the substrate populations could avail themselves of their native languages (e.g., Khoikhoi) and/or on imported lingue
franche (Creole Portuguese, Pasar Malay). This brings up the problem of stabilization; that is, how to account for the elimination of individual solutions to intergroup communication and the establishment of social norms (Whinnom 1971:99, Mühlhäuser 1986:125).

Collectively, interlanguages would have represented a very open system, having neither shared norms nor stability in given individuals. Theoretically, the interlanguage continuum in the Cape Colony between 1652-1700 could have ranged from the most rudimentary jargon to fluent, nonnative Dutch. With regard to Orange River Afrikaans, Van Rensburg explicitly rules children out as agents of innovation: 'It does not seem that the children who learnt this . . . language from their parents (next to their mother tongues in the beginning) affected the original version in a substantial way' (1989:138). He seems to presuppose that adult interlanguages in G₀ developed at roughly the same rate--and further that fossilization (the point where learning in second language acquisition permanently ceases) set in more or less simultaneously in given individuals. That innumerable varieties could have been reduced to comparative uniformity within G₀ is inherently implausible.

By definition, the existence of an interlanguage continuum implies that second language acquisition in G₀ was targeted toward superstrate Dutch. With continuing improvement in performance in achieving communication with Europeans, highly individualized L1-transfer and spontaneous interlingual hybrid-
ization would have become increasingly ephemeral over time.
True, social distance between superstratum and substratum would
have perpetuated bilingualism and prevented total convergence.
Yet, the end result could only have been a somewhat indigenized
variety of Cape Dutch and surely not one that 'is widely recog-
nized as a pidgin or creole, or a language with distinct pidgin
or creole characteristics' (Van Rensburg 1989:136).

If the requisite measure of stability came about through the
nativization of intermediate forms of language by a succeeding
generation of children (G₁), then it is unclear to what extent
the difference between the positions of Van Rensburg (loc. cit.),
Ponelis (1988, 1993:27-30), and Den Besten (e.g., 1989) is not
merely one of terminology. The only remaining avenues to
stabilization are the fusion of speech communities (which nobody
has claimed) or withdrawal of superstrate Dutch as the target
language of G₁. A compelling sociolinguistic reason for indi-
genes and slaves to maintain and netivize Dutch in the latter
circumstance is not obvious. Nor is the stabilization issue even
apprehended. As concerns the genesis of nonstandard varieties of
Afrikaans, many interlectalist ideas (which seem drawn from
simple bilingual situations) conflict with their own presup-
positions and so cancel themselves.

3.4. Glottogenetic models in the third category assume
still greater 'bending' in the transmission of language.

3.4.1. For the Dutch linguist D. C. Hesseling (1899,
²¹92³:59), the transmission of language was disrupted by the
sudden encounter of two completely different peoples and lan-
guages.⁷ With the introduction of slavery in 1658, Creole
Portuguese with an admixture of Malay is supposed to have become
so widely spoken in the Cape Colony during the period 1658-85 as
to leave a very strong impression on the Dutch language. Slaves
spoke this 'Malayo-Portuguese' (as Hesseling called it) among
themselves; it was for some a native language, for others a
previously acquired language. Colonists used it with them and
with other Europeans who did not know Dutch. Sailors and
officials were conversant in the lingua franca as well, for it
was in widespread use in the Dutch East Indies and in various
ports of call. The slaves at the Cape learned Dutch from their
masters, albeit defectively under the influence of their 'Malayo-
Portuguese'. European interlocutors were unable to avoid
absorbing a number of their linguistic patterns into their own
speech.⁸ Miscegenation was also a factor, as the emergence of a
half-caste population is supposed to have greatly accelerated the
erosion of the Dutch inflectional system and introduced a number
of creolisms into the syntax and lexicon. Hesseling (1923:ch. 1)
thought that the 'breaking down' of Dutch into Afrikaans was
largely completed by the end of the seventeenth century.
Ultimately, however, creolization was only partial due to regular
arrivals of VOC officials and new immigrants from the Nether-
lands, and also to the conserving influence of the Dutch church
and Bible (1923:59-60, 128).

3.4.2. In essential respects this was also the position of
Du Toit (1905), who sought to elaborate on Hesseling's views, and
Van Ginneken (1913:210-13), who regarded Afrikaans as essentially
creolized. Though primarily of antiquarian interest today,
Hesseling's views on Afrikaans have been most influential. They
are discernible in such widely disparate linguistic writings as
Kainz 1943:571-72 on reduced languages and Lockwood's thumbnail
history (1965:205-6).

3.4.3. For Franken (1927-31, collected 1953), the proto-
typical Afrikaans is that which has evolved as the spoken
language of the 'Coloureds' (1953:202-3). He concluded from his
study of early archival materials that Afrikaans evolved from
'broken' forms of Dutch that emerged already during the first
fifty years of Dutch occupation as the vernacular of slaves,
Khoikhoi, and their descendants of mixed race. It was during
this time also that the speech of European children came under
the influence of these varieties (1953:26, 95). Thus, Franken
followed Hesseling in favoring the late seventeenth century as
pivotal and stressing contact with people of color (even while
deemphasizing somewhat the latter's construct of a mixed 'Malayo-
Portuguese' lingua franca; cf. 1953:43).

3.4.4. Bosman (1923:53-60) rejected Hesseling's theory on
the grounds that the number of Asian slaves was insignificant
before 1715. Weighing both sides of their debate, Reinecke
(1937:568) commented that the argument in favor of the influence
of some adstratal 'Malayo-Portuguese' might have been stronger if
Hesseling had allowed that the transformation of Dutch continued
after 1685. Valkhoff (1966, 1972) appears to have recognized
this fact when reasserting the 'quick birth' of Afrikaans under
the influence of Dutch spoken by 'foreign peoples, namely Indon-
esians, Malayans, Indians, Hottentots, Bushmen . . . , Malagasy,
Negroes, and White foreigners' (1966:206). According to him,
Cape society from the second half of the seventeenth century and
still in the first half of the eighteenth century was so much
integrated that there was a very close intercourse between
Europeans, indigenes, and slaves. Valkhoff assumed the emergence
of a 'proto-Afrikaans' among the latter groups during the first
fifty years of Dutch occupation (1966:204-7; 1972:48-49). During
these 'linguistic encounters' Creole Portuguese provided the flux
in the semicreolization of Dutch, though Malay, the other lingua
franca of the East Indies, gradually overtook it as a slave
language in Southern Africa in the eighteenth century and left
its mark as well (1972:72, 83). For Valkhoff, then, the process
of transformation 'was started at an early date in the bosom of
the Coloured community, for whom Afrikaans is still the mother
tongue. As a matter of fact the situation was more complex than
it appears at first sight, and the Whites, too, had their share
in the transformation of the language . . . ; and so did the
Dutch-speaking slaves and Hottentots' (1966:206-7). By the mid-
dle of the eighteenth century this proto-Afrikaans 'had probably
developed into a dialect so different from "Hollands" Dutch that
most people would regard it as a new language' (1972:72; cf. also
pp. 48-49, 83). Thus, Valkhoff followed Hesseling, Bosman, and
Franken in dating the 'actual origin' of Afrikaans from the late seventeenth century (roughly 1685-1710). But he clearly hedged his position by making allowance for a subsequent period of development and convergence lasting several more decennia. Thus, 'pure' Afrikaans--the one truest to type--was the language *par excellence* of the 'Coloureds' in the first half of the nineteenth century, a little different according to whether it was spoken by the Cape Malay or the 'Coloureds' proper (1972:7). The Boers must have used a more or less similar language, but one that was somewhat nearer to 'High' Dutch.

Valkhoff's first book (1966) provoked a heated quarrel with old-guard spontaneists (e.g., Van der Merwe 1966) that did nothing to advance the field. Valkhoff 1972 is a deeply reactive monograph that offers little in the way of direct engagement with existing historical research programs. For their part, the philologists tend to dismiss Valkhoff's work as unscientific, speculative, preoccupied with social conditions to the exclusion of 'hard' linguistic analysis, and generally uninformed with regard to the history of Netherlandic (Lubbe 1974:94-98; Raidt 1975, 1976b, 1977, 1983:42-46). As a Romance specialist, Valkhoff was by his own admission out of his element with respect to Early Modern Dutch, Netherlandic dialectology, and Afrikaans philology (1966:217). One may grant Valkhoff's claim that Portuguese Creole and to lesser extent (Pasar) Malay were used as lingue franche among slaves, as also between Europeans and slaves. However, Raidt (*loc. cit*..) has argued that he greatly
overestimated the impact of these languages on Cape Dutch.
Furthermore, Valkhoff staked much of his case on circumstantial
evidence involving the social setting in which Afrikaans em-
erged. It is not enough to suppose that if a feature can be a
creolism, it must be a creolism. Although simplification and
reduction are hallmarks of prior pidginization, their appearance
in Afrikaans is misleading. The continuity of our textual
sources militates rather strongly against regarding Afrikaans as
a creole. Nearly 200 years had elapsed before all of the
defining variables were fully in place. The abrupt and simulta-
neous structural changes typical of pidgins and creoles is
generally absent (Raidt 1983:191).

Mühlhäusler (1974:13) correctly observes that Valkhoff seems
to treat pidginization and creolization as the same process. The
latter's vaguely formulated notion of the 'breaking down' of the
original Cape Dutch (e.g., 1971:456) with miscegenation as a
causal factor was anachronistic and totally inadequate by the
late 1960s (cf. Mühlhäusler 1974:43). Yet even if nothing else
in Valkhoff's work turns out to be of lasting value, his insis-
tence that from the outset Afrikaans was subject to the continuum
principle (that is, we should speak of more and less 'advanced'
forms of Afrikaans) ought to be a serious consideration for any
student of its history.

3.4.5. One simple alternative to reconstructing actual
sociolinguistic processes is a comparison of Afrikaans with
recognized creoles having Early Modern Dutch as their lexifier
language. Markey (1982) proffers a gradient evaluation of
Afrikaans in terms of a roster of features that are supposed to
be universally present (or nearly so) in creole languages. As an
'unmistakably creole form of Dutch that is well recorded in the
literature' (175), Virgin Islands Dutch Creole serves as the
standard of comparison. Whereas Virgin Islands Dutch Creole has
all eleven diagnostic features, Afrikaans tests positively for
only two, with two other features being weakly present. This
leads Markey to conclude that 'in typology . . . as throughout
human language there are no absolutes. Afrikaans, for whatever
inexplicable reasons of environment and structure, is a transi-
tional language located on a continuum somewhere between creole
and non-creole' (204).

At one level, it is impossible to disagree with either
aspect of this conclusion as far as it goes, even if one does not
fully endorse the efficacy of his diagnostic features (cf. Bender
1987:44-45), or the very idea of characterizing creoles in terms
of selected features (cf. Le Page 1987:115). Markey's finding--
again as far as it goes--is entirely consistent with the emerging
recognition among creolists that Euro-Afrikaans is linguistically
much closer to Dutch than either Hesseling or Valkhoff averred;
cf. Mühlhäusler 1974:18; Makhudu 1984:57; Thomason and Kaufman
1988:256, Den Besten 1989:227, Holm 1989:339. At another level,
it is vacuous, amounting essentially to a mere restatement of the
problem it seeks to address; cf. also Zimmer 1992:352.

Makhudu (1984:3-4, 54-59) is rightly critical of Markey for
having culled his information chiefly from a normative grammar of
standard Afrikaans and for factual inaccuracies.⁹ His determination (1984:60-95) that 'coloured' Afrikaans and Flytaal show significantly higher indices of creolicity provides a necessary corrective to the woefully incomplete picture that the unwary reader will adduce from Markey's article (or from its mostly uncritical summary in Romaine 1988:55-62, although this author does alert her readers to Makhudu's principal objection, p. 62). By utilizing a modified version of Markey's checklist to test nonstandard varieties of Afrikaans in addition to the standard language, Makhudu carries on with the enterprise of typological classification grounded in the contrastive analysis of syncrhonic states--even while offering a far more revealing examination of the continuum of lects that are constitutive of Afrikaans. At one level, Makhudu's general conclusion is (p. 9) entirely in line with current thinking among those who adopt the creolist perspective: 'It now seems likely that pidginization and creolization did indeed occur in the non-native Dutch communities of the early Cape'. Racial separation preserved creolisms in the 'coloured' community, while the Afrikaans of Europeans developed under the 'conserving influences of Dutch immigration and the promotion of the High or standard variety of Dutch until the early 20th Century' (1984:96-97). At another level, the 'creoloid nature of the Afrikaans lectal continuum' is only suggestive; apparent creolisms in synchronic grammar do not explain themselves. While I am entirely sympathetic to Makhudu's
conclusion, I do not agree fully with the argumentation by which
he reaches it.

Well-informed comparison of the endpoints of glottogenesis
can be instructive to the extent that it shows what developments
are possible as the result of intensive language contact (see
more recently Ponelis 1988:132-42; also Bruyn and Veenstra 1993,
who explicitly limit their discussion to standard Afrikaans).
Though often forced upon us by a lack of reliable documentation,
inference of prior processes of linguistic hybridization on the
basis of static comparison is methodologically suspect (cf. Mühl-
häusler 1986:206). Moreover, 'there is considerable disagreement
as to the world-wide similarities of creole structures' (Mühl-
häusler 1986:222). Yet, all this has done little to discourage
attempts to classify Afrikaans--or specific varieties thereof
(e.g., Kotzé 1989, Van der Merwe 1993)--on typological grounds:
How creolelike is it? Is it a postcreole? A fort creole? A
semicreole or creoloid? The decisionistic and asocial foundation
upon which such classifications rest undermines their usefulness
and leads me to view them with increasing skepticism. The end
result of this exercise is virtually guaranteed by its own pre-
suppositions ('in typology as throughout human language there are
no absolutes'); Afrikaans will inevitably fall somewhere within
the mid range of any reasonable scale of creolicity.

3.4.6. Today, most linguists who take a creolist view
concerning the genesis of Afrikaans will readily stipulate that
Dutch colonists at the Cape can reasonably have been expected to
Pass their language on to their descendants in a continuous and
broken process of 'normal' transmission (Makhudu 1984:95;
Thomason and Kaufman 1988:252; Den Besten 1989:226; Holm
1989:343, Gilbert 1993a, b). Pidginization and subsequent
creolization took place within the Afro-Asian substrate. The
Afrikaans of Whites--particularly their colloquial speech--bears
the imprint of this former creole, but the antecedent vernacular
of European settlers was only peripherally involved in the
creolization process.

According to Den Besten (1978, 1986:224 et passim, 1987b,
1988, 1989), the Khoikhoi were the primary substrate community
during the early years of the Cape Colony. From as early as
1590, when the Dutch and English started calling at the Cape of
Good Hope, there came into existence a jargon used between
Europeans and indigenous Khoikhoi. From 1658 slaves were brought
in from West Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, India, Ceylon, and
Indonesia. The slaves acquired this trade language in their en-
counters with the Khoikhoi and contributed their own modifica-
tions; it became stabilized as a pidgin during the last decennia
of the seventeenth century (Franken 1953; Valkhoff 1972:50; Den
Besten 1986:192-201, 1989:217-24). Creolization occurred first
in the Western Cape around 1700 following the withdrawal of
Khoikhoi into the interior to escape European domination and in
the wake of the smallpox epidemic of 1713 that decimated their
population. Nativization of the Cape Dutch Pidgin was effected
by slaves, the mixed offspring of Khoikhoi who remained behind,
and other free people of color. Modern Cape Afrikaans (supra) is
traceable to the pidgin and creole Dutch formerly spoken widely
in the Western Cape and now almost completely decreolized.
According to Kotzé (1984:42), the nonstandard characteristics
that are typically associated with Cape Afrikaans are quantitatively most prevalent in the speech of the Cape Muslim community. The retreating Khoikhoi took with them their own variety of Cape Dutch Pidgin (possibly itself on the fringes of creolization), which they later deployed in their encounters with trekboeren along the eastern frontier. The expansion of Cape Dutch along the northern frontier coincided with the migration of mixed Khoikhoi, slave, and European populations. Its synchronic reflex, Orange River Afrikaans, is widely thought to have descended from a creole ancestor (cf. Van Rensburg 1989:135), though its prehistory remains poorly understood.

Den Besten (1989:226) regards Afrikaans as a 'fort creole'
in the taxonomy of Bickerton (1989), which differs less radically
from its lexifier language than a plantation creole.¹⁰ That
Afrikaans has remained linguistically close to Dutch is attributable to three factors: (i) The population of the Cape Colony was comprised of a high percentage of Europeans, who accepted individual features from the Cape Dutch Pidgin/Creole but did not adopt it in its entirety; in fact the European superstrate exerted reciprocal influences of its own on hybridized forms of Dutch; see further Ponelis 1988 on this point. (ii) The Cape Dutch Pidgin/Creole was a second or third language for the many
slaves who could avail themselves of Creole Portuguese and/or
Pasar Malay. The availability of these lingue franche mitigated
ruptures in the overall transmission of language and limited
somewhat the importance of Cape Dutch Pidgin for intragroup
communication. (iii) The legally free Khoikhoi were in a better
position than the slaves to improve their performance in the
direction of the superstrate by virtue of their greater access to
that language (cf. Den Besten 1989:227).

The creolists are certainly correct to assert that simpli-
fied, reduced, and restructured forms of Dutch must have arisen
among the Khoikhoi and other Africans dealing with the Europeans,
as also among the slaves. Den Besten (1987, 1988, 1989:229-234)
has marshalled evidence for a Cape Dutch pidgin (or pidgins) from
the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries. He
has attributed the instantiation of certain Afrikaans features to
substratum influence. This means the direct transfer of struc-
tures belonging to the speaker's first language (implemented by
Netherlandic exponents) or the creation of new structures on the
basis of L1 interference. Examples of direct transfer would
include the associative construction in -hulle, -goed (Den Besten
1993) and the uniform possessive particle se, which is phono-
logically derivable from Early Modern Dutch sij(n) but syntactic-
ally patterned after possessives in Khoikhoi (Nama/!Ora di),
Creole Portuguese (sua) and Pasar Malay (punya) (Den Besten
1978:28-38).¹¹ The Afrikaans double negation exemplifies the
grammaticalization of an interference neologism (Den Besten
1978:40-42, 1985:32-35, 1986:210-24). Den Besten ascribes other
Afrikaans features to universal strategies for the encoding of
meaning, examples of which are the neologistic demonstrative
pronouns *hierdie*, *daardie* (1988:26-27).

I do not wish to deal generally here with the substance of
Den Besten's claims; many of the phenomena he examines have been
massively discussed in the literature and are long-standing
etymological cruxes. My point is that all such hybrids would
also be characteristic of haphazard approximations of the Dutch
target language (Mühlhäusler 1974:17-18), or 'rapid and drastic
linguistic change due to imperfect learning' (Ponelis 1988:119).
There are important structural parallels between pidginization
and the interlanguage stage of language shift 'because both
reflect cognitive and linguistic universals at play in the
acquisition of another language' (Holm 1991:21). At increasing
time depths, their results may become indistinguishable. In
principle, then, the issue that divides the creolist and intelec-
talist positions is not so much one of the actual mechanisms of
hybridization, but rather what type of code was nativized within
the Afro-Asian substrate: a stable pidgin or unstable, transient
interlanguages emanating from gradient degrees of multilingualism
and language shift. Ponelis (1993:28) believes the likelihood of
a stable Cape Dutch pidgin having existed to be rather small, and
he challenges Den Besten's assertion that Khoikhoi pidgin Dutch
supplied the foundation for subsequent developments: 'He con-
siders no sociohistorical evidence . . . [and] his position is
based entirely on shaky linguistic evidence' (1993:33-34).

Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, the prevailing
occupation with identifying the source of individual features
(substratum transfer, universal strategies) does not reveal the
full story. It does not tell us whether suspected pidgin
features observable in our early source material reflected
socially accepted norms of syntax and lexical meaning or were ad
hoc, individual solutions to the problem of interethnic communi-
cation. The stabilization question presents itself as usual.

In order to sustain Den Besten's hypothesis, one will first
have to demonstrate the existence of a stable Dutch pidgin within
the Afro-Asian substrate (or a relexified 'Malayo-Portuguese',
improbable though this may be) and the subsequent addition of
grammatical rules and lexis (cf. Mühlhäusler 1974:18). To
consider nonstandard Afrikaans a postcreole would by definition
imply the existence of an erstwhile basilectal creole that is now
extinct but has nonetheless left its imprint. But so far nobody
has been able to show by the dint of direct evidence or con-
vincing argumentation that this is in fact what happened. We
have no linguistic documentation whatsoever of a first-generation
Cape Dutch Creole.
### 4. From Initial Contact to Social Convergence in Cape Colonial Society, 1652-1795

The three groups primarily responsible for the formation of Afrikaans--European settlers, Khoikhoi, and slaves--were quite distinct during the first decades of the Cape Colony. This distinctness was defined by physical appearance, culture, religion, and language. By the end of Dutch East India Company era in 1795, a number of processes had eroded these boundaries: (1) the incorporation of the Khoikhoi into the European-dominated society as wage labourers subject to Dutch law, (2) the conversion of slaves and free blacks to Christianity or Islam, (3) miscegenation and intermarriage among groups, (4) the manumission of slaves and the consequent emergence of an important new group--the free blacks, (5) cultural exchanges among groups' (Elphick and Shell 1989:184). The present section briefly examines the sociolinguistic implications of these processes.

In 1652 Jan van Riebeeck and his party landed at the Cape of Good Hope with the limited objective of establishing a refreshment station on behalf of the Dutch East India Company. At the outset, the population of the outpost consisted almost entirely of the 100 or so Europeans in the original expedition. The presence of VOC officials, ordinary servants, soldiers, and sailors afforded some social stratification. Beyond this, social and racial divisions were ill-defined and fluid during this initial period. After 1657 the VOC allowed 'free burghers'
(vrijburger) to settle at the Cape to produce commodities needed by the station. This group of European arrivals was comprised of many Dutch, as also some 200 Huguenots, who had fled France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), and large number of Germans in the service of the VOC. The Huguenots, who arrived in the Cape Colony from ca. 1688, assimilated into the existing Dutch-speaking population with little in the way of a direct linguistic legacy. Within a generation, their French language had disappeared (cf. Pheiffer 1980). In the main German free burghers were able to achieve fluency in Dutch within a decade of their arrival. Typically, they married Dutch-speaking women; children of their issue were brought up to speak Dutch (cf. Grù-ner 1982). These new immigrants merged with the existing Dutch population to constitute the core of the Afrikaner community.

Buccini (1992) has demonstrated that the colonial Dutch dialects (Cape Dutch and New Netherlands Dutch) reflect in all general respects the spoken Dutch of the lower and middle classes in the provinces of Holland and Utrecht during the early and mid seventeenth century. Because of the founder effect, the tinge of South Holland is perhaps more prominent in the Cape Colony than the number of immigrants from that region might otherwise predict (Kloeke 1950). Traces of other Netherlandic dialects may be discerned (Raidt 1983:16-17), but they are in the main relatively superficial (chiefly lexical). The prestige variety of Dutch imported to the Cape was the educated speech of the urban upper class of Amsterdam and The Hague (Raidt 1983:16). But it was
spoken by a minority of the population (the commander and transient officials of the VOC), an elite to which the rank and file--particularly migrant farmers along the frontier--would not aspire.

Already by the end of the seventeenth century, there had emerged a distinction between *Africaanders*, people of European descent who regarded the Cape Colony as their permanent home, and expatriate VOC officials and other personnel in temporary residence there. (In the eighteenth century *Africaander* did not bear the semantic burden of its modern cognate, but that is a topic for a separate essay.) By the eighteenth century, the settler population was no longer an undifferentiated community. The most salient socioeconomic division arose between the colonists in the southwestern Cape and the migrant farmers (*trekboeren*) in the interior. The former were dominant politically. They consisted of a 'small and fairly prosperous bourgeoisie' (Du Toit and Giliomee 1983:5); namely, civil servants (some of whom were born at the Cape), prosperous burghers in Cape Town, and a few wealthy wine, grain, and vegetable farmers in the Boland. Beneath this group were the majority of Capetonians and smaller farmers in the surrounding areas, who lived respectably but enjoyed no great wealth. After 1717, a growing number of individuals moved inland to join the few free burghers who, since the turn of the century, had established themselves as migrant farmers on land leased from the VOC. This migration was due in no small measure to lack of opportunities in the monopolistic official economy. Many colon-
slaves could not afford to become entrepreneurs in Cape Town or farmers in the southwestern Cape. They were not sufficiently educated to enter the limited ranks of the Dutch colonial administration or professions. Reliance on slaves and an indigenous labor force precluded the development of a white working class (cf. Du Toit and Giliomee 1983:7-10). As these people migrated further away from Cape Town, the authority of the government and cultural influence of the city (such as it was) receded.

Prior to 1658, there was only a handful of personal slaves at the Cape, including a few in Van Riebeeck's household. The first significant numbers arrived in that year from Angola and Dahomey. Excepting a few individuals, they were the only West African slaves who were brought to the Cape during the VOC period (Armstrong and Worden 1989:111-12). Slaves were thereafter imported from Madagascar, from Mozambique and entrepôts along the East African coast, as well as from the Indonesian archipelago, India, and Ceylon. The slave population also increased naturally by procreation. The children of liaisons between slave women and European or Khoikhoi men were *de iure* slaves (Elphick and Shell 1989:202). By 1834, when the institution was abolished at the Cape, as in other British colonies, the slave population had risen to 36,169 (Armstrong and Worden 1989:109).

The diversity of the languages represented in the Cape slave community guaranteed the deployment of extraterritorial lingue franche. Valkhoff (1966:146-91) was certainly correct in his
assertion that Pasar Malay and especially Creole Portuguese were readily available as means of interlingual communication among slaves. Merchants, officials, sailors, magistrates, and other VOC personnel who had lived in the East Indies could be expected to be proficient to some degree in Portuguese. This has never been a matter of controversy; see Franken 1953:15-27, 41-79, 116-43; Raidt 1983:20; Den Besten 1989:224; Davids 1991:44-46. At the same time, Raidt (1983:20) is no less correct in her assertion that these languages could not have been in general use as lingue franche throughout the entire colony because too few rank-and-file colonists knew them. The emergence of a Dutch jargon to effect communication between slaves and master can scarcely be open to doubt; see Den Besten 1987b, 1989.

The Khoikhoi were the first South Africans to confront the Europeans at the Cape of Good Hope. Within 60 years of Dutch occupation, the traditional Khoikhoi economy, social structure, and political order had almost entirely collapsed in the south-western Cape (Elphick 1977:ch. 11, Elphick and Giliomee 1989:18-21). Smallpox, stock disease, and the advance of European settlement during the eighteenth century destroyed some inland Khoikhoi groups, realigned other groups, and drove still others deeper into the interior. Many destitute Khoikhoi became hunters and robbers; others became servants to the trekboers, living in
virtual serfdom. By 1800, there were few Khoisan in the colony who were not in the service of the Europeans as laborers, herdsmen, and nursemaids (Elphick and Giliomee 1989:35-43).

VOC policy was formulated with a view toward preserving the Dutch character of the settlement. Europeans appear to have placed little value on knowledge of the languages of groups that were subordinate in status. Irrespective of official constraints and attitudinal barriers, Khoikhoi languages were considered impossibly difficult and all but unlearnable. Aside from two officials who evidently had a working knowledge, 'it is not until 1711 that we hear of a few white children picking up Khoikhoi, and not until the isolated frontier conditions of the mid-eighteenth century that such skills were common among settlers' (Elphick 1977:210; cf. also Elphick and Shell 1989:229). The upshot of all this is that in general if Khoikhoi wanted to understand the settlers and be understood themselves, they had to acquire Dutch. Fluency was rare before the early eighteenth century. Elphick (1977:211) infers from fragments of Khoikhoi Dutch recorded by Wilhelm ten Rhyne (1673), the German astronomer Peter Kolbe (1705-12), and in judical records (1706-8) that 'even those Khoikhoi who had regular dealings with the Dutch spoke in broken dialects'. The historian may of course be excused for writing in a general way of 'broken dialects' and shunting over to the linguist the problem of whether the Khoikhoi Dutch jargon developed in the direction of an interlanguage continuum or a stable pidgin. That jargonized Dutch arose among the Khoikhoi
can also scarcely be open to doubt (cf. Den Besten 1986:193-99, 1987a:85-89, 1987b). The Khoikhoi learned languages other than Dutch--among them French, English, and Portuguese (Franken 1953:28-40), and there is no reason to think that with few exceptions, these, too, were jargonized.

The decline of Khoikhoi identity as it had existed prior to 1652 was exacerbated by attendant language shift. To be sure, cultural change was more gradual than structural change. The Khoikhoi continued to speak their own language among themselves until the mid eighteenth century, at which time their dialects began to disappear from the western Cape. One can envisage a generational continuum in which fully fluent L1 speakers of Khoikhoi were limited to the oldest members of the population of the colony proper or those living on its fringes. Semispeakers with varying degrees of fluency probably occupied the middle-age group, none of whom transmitted Khoikhoi as a first language to their own offspring.

Social differentiation of the Cape society was furthered by emergent groups of people of color. The so-called 'free blacks' (vrijzwarten) were of wholly or partially African (but not Khoikhoi) and Asian descent. This group came into being primarily in Cape Town through the manumission of slaves, although a sizeable number of free blacks traced their origins to miscegenation and to Asian settlers, political exiles and convict laborers (Elphick and Shell 1989:216). In the course of the eighteenth century miscegenation between European men and Khoikhoi women produced
another new group, the Bastaards. This took place mainly in the
remote outlying districts (especially along the northern fron-
tier), where European women were few and where because of their
comparative poverty, trekboers relied less on slaves than on
Khoikhoi labor. The term Bastaard (or Bastaard-Hottentot) could
also denote the offspring of unions between Khoikhoi and slaves
(cf. Elphick and Shell 1989:202, 231; Armstrong and Worden
1989:159).

Elphick and Shell (1989:225-30) make the very important
point that the direction of cultural history during the VOC
period was towards convergence. By 1795, the various European
and slave cultures were merging with one another and with the
culture of the Khoikhoi.

In Cape Town a mixed European and Asian culture was
shared by Company officials, some burghers, and slaves,
though some of the latter managed to retain more
traditionally Asian traits, especially through con-
version to Islam. In the agrarian southwestern Cape,
slaves and Europeans seem to have shared in a culture
which was predominantly of European origin. In the
trekboer regions . . . the culture of slaves and
colonists was a composite of European and Khoikhoi
influences, appropriate to a livestock economy (Elphick
and Shell 1989:230).

While there were demonstrably strong pressures toward cultural
merger, there were clearly ecological and ethological barriers to
total convergence: 'Slaves had comparatively little opportunity
to become free, even in Cape Town. Khoikhoi never enjoyed the
rights of burghers, and free blacks and baptised Bastaards
gradually lost the privileges they once had' (Elphick and Shell
1989:232). Notwithstanding mutual poverty, free people of color
and poor landless Whites did not form a coherent class. The
latter tended to identify rather strongly with more prosperous
colonists, who often accepted them as tenant farmers (bijwoner).
Though legally free, the former remained proletarian (Du Toit and
Giliomee (1983:6-7).

There was always a need for communication between the
various segments of a polyglot society: between Dutch, Germans,
and French; between Europeans and indigenes; between Europeans
and their slaves; between slaves of varying ethnolinguistic back-
grounds; and between slaves of whatever background, the Khoikhoi,
and free Blacks. Dutch was the dominant language within the
limits of the Cape Colony between 1652-1795 (cf. Ponelis 1988),
though by no means the sole means of interethnic communication.
Given European hegemony and cultural convergence, it was in-
evitable that the descendants of the various groups would
eventually come to share in a common Cape Dutch vernacular.
Individual speakers would not be uniform in their experience of
this vernacular. That experience would vary according to the
socioeconomic relations outlined above.

5. Sociolinguistic Stratification of the Cape Colony at the End of the VOC Era. (1795)

5.1. It has long been the practice of Afrikaans historical linguistics to divide the Cape Dutch speech community into discrete compartments. The distribution of linguistic variants is assumed to be roughly isomorphic with ethnic or status groups
(Europeans, Khoikhoi, slaves). Accordingly, linguistic forms assumed whatever social valuations that were associated with the respective groups by other members of the speech community. Since Nienaber 1950, the literature has given the impression of a speech community consisting of four or five Cape Dutch varieties during the eighteenth century: the 'High' Dutch of the power elite, the Cape Dutch of the settlers (slightly different in the mouths of Capetonians vis-à-vis rural white speakers), plus the Cape Dutch vernaculars of slaves and Khoikhoi. However, such *compartimentage* is artificially static. Responsible Afrikaans language historians have always acknowledged this, if only fleetingly. Lectal boundaries were fluid and in flux in response to dynamic social forces. Like anywhere else, the use of linguistic variants at the Cape was determined by patterns of social and stylistic norms (cf. Nienaber 1953:163, Loubser 1961:2, Scholtz 1965:101, Raidt 1984b:265-66).

5.2. I have argued elsewhere (Roberge 1994) that what the philologists have posited in their studies as 'Afrikaans' was by the turn of the nineteenth century an abstract and ideal type--a composite of all features--that was probably spoken by few (if any) South Africans during the period in question. In other words there was no clear separation at some particular point of the superposed standard and the vernacular. There were instead any number of lects intermediate between the superstrate and the most extreme form of the Cape Dutch vernacular. Let me il-lustrate this point with data from what I consider 'acrolectal'
Cape Dutch (i.e., the variety of Cape Dutch closest to the metropolitan language) from the end of the VOC era. This is represented by the diary fragment of a prosperous Cape Town resident, Johanna Duminy (née Nöthling) from 1797, which can be shown to be extremely close to metropolitan Dutch even while containing many extraterritorial features. Because her diary is a personal document kept for her own private purpose, its language cannot be regarded as pure orthographic fiction. In other words we cannot make the simplistic assumption that the diary is merely a failed attempt to write 'correct' Dutch in which her true spoken language (more or less the same as what we know as Afrikaans today) leaks through; cf. Roberge 1994.

Duminy uses the first person plural pronoun *wij* throughout; subjectival *ons* is unattested. *Sij* and *sulle* alternate as the nominative third-person plural pronoun; the oblique case forms are *haarluij* (which can also serves as a possessive pronoun), *sulle*, and the weak allomorph *se* (Modern Dutch *ze*). Gender in the noun has virtually disappeared (*de huijs*, Dutch *het huis*). *De* and *die* appear to be free variation as the definite article, with *het* preserved only vestigially in the function of an anaphoric (2a) or dummy pronoun (2b):

(2) a. ik wilt *het* [een boulte vee] niet enkelt verkopen (Franken, ed., 1938:83).

b. *het* was vraaij weer (idem, 88).

The demonstrative pronouns are *deese* (proximal) and *die* (distal); *dit* is unattested. The relative pronoun is uniformly *die*; *dat* occurs only anaphorically with a sentential antecedent:
(3) tou was rijnoo genootsaak om de varkens op de wage te laaden
dat hat ook versuijmt (86)

postnominal possessive forms show no sign of simplification:

(4) a. en een groote c(er)misbet lee redelikhuyse siin vrouw
(85)

b. in die ouwers haar droufhijt (109)

Finally, Duminy makes frequent use of the weak form of the
adverbial daar, e.g., er was ook een mooie bastert bul (88).

The pluperfect tense is intact, as is the usage of both
hebben and zijn as auxiliary verbs in periphrastic construc-
tions. Duminy appears to have captured even a subtle distinction
with regard to vergeten in (5e):

(5) a. hij see niet minder als die ander man heeft gekreegen
(Franken, ed., 1938:83)

b. ik bin buyte geweest (86)

c. ik hat ook een groote caatel gekogt (86)

d. sij ware de voorige dagt al na de vandiesie gereeden
(82)

e. ik heeft vergeeten om te sege (85)

Cf. Modern Dutch:

e', ik heb vergeten te schrijven (i.e., did not think of)

e'', ik ben je naam vergeten (i.e., gone from memory)

For the relation of anterior events, the preterite is Duminy's
tense of choice. The distinction between 'strong' (ablauting)
and 'weak' (dental suffixal) inflection is preserved in preter-
ital conjugation: kwam, liet, gong/qing, koqt, schreefte,
bestelde, etc. (Modern Dutch komen, laten, gaan, kopen, schreeu-
wen, bestellen); similarly, in the past participle gekreegen
(kriigen), opgebragt (opbrengen), etc.

Duminy consistently maintains a distinction between finite and nonfinite forms of the verb, but her usage vacillates between inflected and endless forms: *wij sliep* beside *wij sliepe* (Modern Dutch *wij sliepen*). Cluster reduction is evident in the diary (*direk*, Dutch *direct*), and one would think that it would have brought additional pressure to bear on second- and third-person singular verb forms and on the weak past participle (*gewerk* for *gewerkt*). However, cluster reduction may not have been as general in acrolectal Cape Dutch as one might suppose. Several idiosyncrasies of Duminy's usage are hardly consonant with the usual assumption of a fully diffuse cluster reduction rule by the end of the eighteenth century: the presence of a paragogic dental stop after a tautosyllabic velar obstruent in other categories of words (*daqt* for *dag*, *nodigt* for *nodig*); ahistorical *-t* in the present-tense first-person singular (*ik heeft*, *ik komt*) and plural (*wij komt*, *sulle heeft*), and in the strong preterite (*wij saqt* 'we saw', *ik gaf/gaft*); the fact that a *t*-less variant of the auxiliary *hebben* (*heef*) does not occur at all. The direction of change in acrolectal Cape Dutch seems to be toward an invariant inflectional opposition: finite versus nonfinite. As concerns personal agreement, it is the singular (the exponents of which could be either zero or -t) that is in the process of supplanting the plural termination -en. Note that the weak preterite has already attained a stable state of uniform finite inflection through the apocope of final nasals (*ik maakte*,
pl. *wij maakte*, Dutch *wij maakten*); the rest of the verb system
has not yet progressed this far. It is surely no coincidence
that Duminy writes *wij sal* (Dutch *zullen*; *aan hem vraagt* (81),
but never *zulle(n)* where a singular form would be called for;
that she utilizes *ik wilt* (cf. Dutch *ik wil*, *jij wilt*), *ik bin
buyt geweest en is in de verkeerde caamer gekomen* (86), but
never *wille(n)* or *sijn*. Nor does she introduce ex crescent *-t*'s
into the more suppletive paradigms (viz. *zalt*, *ist*). The ex-
crescent -t's in the strong preterite (*krijgen*, *kreegt*) reflect
the same kind of analogical projection as the nonce form *kreegte*
(strong preterite *kreeg* reinflected with the weak preterite
ending -te). As such, they have nothing to do with either
phonology or with hypercorrection but reflect instead the kind of
phonomorphological indeterminacy that foreshadows paradigmatic
leveling (cf. Roberge 1985, 1987).

The Duminy diary is no less important for the hallmark
Afrikaans features (§3.1) that it does *not* show: the double
negation, the demonstratives *hierdie/daardie*, reduplication, the
verbal hendiadys, subjectival *ons*, *hulle* etc. Nevertheless, the
features just summarized—together with divergences in pronunci-
ation, pluralization, and lexis (cf. Franken 1953:169-74)--would
be more than sufficient to mark the speech of even upper-class
Capetonians as an extraterritorial variety of language, albeit
one that is still recognizably Dutch.

5.3. For their part, interlectalists and creolists have
focused on the instantiation of jargons in a single generation of
speakers but have given little attention to subsequent developments over a number of generations. As we have already seen (§4), social conditions did not remain constant during the VOC era. At some point in the process of cultural convergence, a socially accepted (stable) grammar of the Cape Dutch vernacular had to have emerged in the substratum among succeeding generations. That jargonized Dutch became a stable pidgin by virtue of its expansion into the heterogeneous slave community and then later creolized (Den Besten 1989:226, Davids 1991:44, 1994) is entirely plausible in principle but exceedingly difficult to ascertain. The degree to which a Khoikhoi Dutch jargon would have stabilized into a pidgin would accordingly depend on the intimacy of their linguistic encounters with slaves, about which Mentzel (1785 [1921:49]) has left to posterity a tantalizing clue: 'Since the arrival of the Europeans the inhabitants of these kraals [the Khoikhoi] that were near the new settlement greatly enriched their vocabulary by contact with the newcomers; *they learned still more from the slaves*, and borrowed *some* [my emphasis] of the so-called Portuguese, or more accurately, of the lingua franca, common among all Eastern slaves'.

I proceed on the assumption that Mentzel's observation, is fundamentally correct at face value; that is, the slaves and Khoikhoi, sharing no common language, used Dutch as their primary medium of intercommunication augmented by adlexification from Creole Portuguese. By the early eighteenth century, stabilization of Khoikhoi and slave jargons into a Cape Dutch
pidgin occurred in the colonial service community, albeit with
regional and ethnic variation. In the trekboer regions Portu-
guese and Malay elements in the pidgin became diluted. One
should bear in mind that the Creole Portuguese of the slaves had
to have been rejargonized (i.e., subject to individual language
acquisition strategies) in the mouths of the Khoikhoi, for whom
it would have been entirely novel and more foreign than Dutch.
Traditional Khoikhoi with very restricted contact with slaves
probably did not speak the Pidgin but instead retained their
jargonized Dutch, whence the greater Khoikhoi element in modern
Orange River Afrikaans. This Cape Dutch Pidgin was transmitted
as a native language to the children of interethnic unions--most
notably the Bastaards and Free Blacks at opposite ends of the
colony, but surely within the slave population as well. The
first generations of creole speakers came into existence during
the period 1680-1750. The superstrate community did not speak
this Cape Dutch Pidgin, except possibly in the frontier areas.
The transient population of officials, sailors, and soldiers in
Cape Town could avail themselves of Portuguese, as could perhaps
other Company personnel with prior service in the Far East, many
of whom took their discharges at the Cape. Outside Cape Town
Europeans addressed their interlocutors of color in the dominant
language--Dutch--doubtless in foreigner talk registers.

The Cape Dutch Creole did not diverge as radically from
superstrate Dutch as 'true' creoles do from their lexifier
languages. The rate of dilution of Dutch across the entire
colony was far less extreme than in the case of Virgin Islands Dutch Creole, where the language of slave masters was vastly more remote from the majority of enslaved Africans. In the Cape Colony continuous interaction between the inchoate social strata afforded more opportunities for targeted language learning on the part of individual slaves and acculturated Khoikhoi. This fact alone all but assured an end product that would be much closer to the metropolitan language than what we find in the Caribbean.

I am writing as if basilectal forms of Cape Dutch (those furthest removed from the superstrate) were directly observable for the period in question. The reality is that Dutch in the mouths of slaves, Khoikhoi, and other people of color are very sparsely attested before the mid nineteenth century. Den Besten (1978, 1987b, 1988, 1993) has culled the evidence from the early periods and has attributed the source for a number of Afrikaans features to the erstwhile Cape Dutch jargons. Limitations of space do not permit me to review his findings here. What I shall do instead is supplement them by reconsidering the linguistic variables examined in the Duminy diary and showing how they might have been realized in the Cape Dutch Creole.

The only other access to the Cape Dutch Creole ca. 1795 is through internal reconstruction on the basis of contemporary nonstandard varieties. To that end I should like to consider some exemplary data from Orange River Afrikaans. Our point of departure is the Afrikaans of the Griquas in the 1980s. The Griquas are descendants of 'early Boer frontiersmen; of the
remnants of Khoisan tribes . . . ; of escaped slaves from the
wine and wheat farms of the south-west Cape; of free blacks from
the colony who could find no acceptable place for themselves in
it; and of African tribesmen' (Ross 1976:1); in short, their
Bastaard forebears were a creole community. Two methodological
precepts long accepted in traditional historical linguistics and
dialect geography are: (i) Older forms of language are preserved
in and are retrievable from its nonstandard varieties; and (ii)
the speech of nonmobile, less-well-educated, and especially older
speakers of these varieties will be conservative and least
affected by the normative influence of the standard language. I
shall assume that the Griqua form of Orange River Afrikaans has
been in a gradual but inexorable state of decreolization over the
course of the past two centuries. Nevertheless, a creole element
should be traceable in the speech of its oldest speakers as
recorded in the invaluable *Afrikaans van die Griekwas van die
tagtigerjare* (Van Rensburg, ed., 1984, hereinafter GA).

Among the first casualties during jargonization were gender
distinctions, personal agreement in the verb, the preterite,
periphrastic tenses with *hebben* and *zijn*, the weak forms of the
pronouns and *daar*, and the demonstratives *deze*, *dit*, and *dat*.

Possession was signalled by means of invariant *se*, which
could also be used to indicate close relationships other than
possession in the strict sense. The particle was juxtaposed to
the right of nouns, adjectives, and adverbs of time and place:
(6) a. En nou nou sal ik vir baas sê, die grootste ding ook nog wat daar is, nou *dié se* Griekwas, nie die ou Griekwase, die jong Griekwa, hulle is meer in die Hollands (*GA*, 2.333).

b. *Daai tyd se grootmense* (*GA*, 2.306)

c. *daarie se tyt* (*GA*, 2.102)

d. Sôs *die vroeêr se* noois gedra het (*GA*, 2.276)

e. *die nou se* kjêners is slim (*GA*, 2.81).

f. Die perskebome, die druiwebome--is maar goete wat *later se* tyd eers ingekom het (*GA*, 2.321).

g. Watsie plek se nam, meneer, hierso, hier oner hierso *hierse* skool? 'Nabeni', 'n kaffernam. 'n Groot skool, (*GA*, 2.136)

Of course *hierse* in (6g) could be *hierso*. However, reduction of the vowel in *so* would seem unusual, to say nothing of a possessive function of the adverbial. The use of *se* in (6) is demonstrably old, and we may impute it to the earlier Cape Dutch Creole. Wikar (1779 [Mossop (ed.) 1935:66]) reported that the Khoikhoi along the Orange River referred to the baboon as *de oude tyden zijn mens*, which would be quite infelicitous in Dutch (Scholtz 1963:108).

As regards the personal pronouns, the form *hy* could refer not only to masculine singular antecedents, but also to feminine, inanimate, and plural entities.

(7) Die Gift al gedaan dood, wie kan *hy* meer wat schaden? (Khoikhoi speaker, cited from Kolbe 1727:2.114) 'This/that poison has died, whom can it harm any more even a little?'

Consider the following patterns in contemporary Orange River Afrikaans:
(8) a. En dan kaptein Kok se vrou. *Hv*'s mos nou ook 'n Griekwa (*GA*, 2.334).

b. Daar is saad gewees wat die plant mee gesaai is, en as *hv* groei, dan kom hulle lote, nou die blaaie (*GA*, 2.328).

c. *Hv* [piesangs] kom baie skaars (*GA*, 2.322)

d. Hier's nie piesangs nie, baas. . . . Maar 'n mens kan hom darem in die winkel koop, nè (*GA*, 2.321).

See further Links 1989:78-80. Overt pronominal marking for plural referents was made possible by the expansion of the Dutch pronoun *hulle* (etymologically oblique *hun* + *lui*) for both subject and object. The pronominal system of the Cape Dutch Creole had no formal means of distinguishing between subjective and oblique cases in the first person plural. This was arguably the state of affairs already in the stabilized Cape Dutch Pidgin:

(9) a. . . waar om ons die goeds niet weder beitum en op vretum (Khoikhoi speaker, cited from Kolbe 1727:2.66). ' . . . why don't we bite these/those things [lice] back and eat [them] up?'

b. Ons soek kost hier, ons al gedaan wegloopen (slave, ca. 1706, cited from Franken 1953:89). 'We seek food here; we have run away'.

Den Besten (1987b:*passim*) has culled the relevant data on this feature from the eighteenth-century source material, and I refer the interested reader to his study for a full discussion.

At first blush, it would appear that Cape Dutch Creole possessive pronouns were formed by the placement of *se* to the right of the corresponding personal pronoun (10). Upon closer scrutiny, the history of this pattern is somewhat opaque.

(10) a. Maar daarie tyd toe *hv se* vader mos nou daai jare in die Boere-oorlog gegaan het (*GA*, 2.294).
b. Nou dis nou <u>ons se</u> speletjie wat ons geleer speel het (<u>GA</u>, 2.309).

c. Hulle <u>se</u> rokke dra hulle hiersê wys (<u>GA</u>, 2.275). The emergence of a gender distinction in the third-person singular pronoun is arguably secondary and due to the influence of Euro-Cape Dutch. Rademeyer (1938:66) reported that 'onder die Rehoboth-Basters word die bestilike <u>sy</u> en <u>haar</u> nou en dan gehoor, dog die meer gebruiklike vorm is <u>hy se</u>' for both masculine and feminine singular antecedents. A half century later, Links (1989:82) would call attention to the existence of <u>sy se</u> for 'her' in Namaqualand (<u>Sy se [=haar] man is aan die bloeg</u>); but this must be a late development given the absence of a parallel form in other varieties of Orange River Afrikaans (cf. Rademeyer 1938:66).¹²

Le Roux (1923:98) pointed out a syntactic parallelism between the Orange River Afrikaans personal pronouns with <u>se</u> and a Khoikhoi construction exemplified by <u>ti di khóin</u> = lit. 'ek se vriende', <u>sa di háb</u> = lit. 'jy se perd'. Standing alone, however, substratum transfer is inadequate as an explanation in light of the fact that neither Rademeyer (1938:66) nor Links (1989:82) found instances of <u>ek se</u> and <u>jy/jou se</u>. Sparse as they are, our eighteenth-century attestations of pidginized Cape Dutch do not flatly contradict Le Roux's hypothesis; but they do little to support it, either. We should expect a developing system to have considerable variation in forms standing for the same concept. The second-person singular pronoun 'you' could appear as <u>jii, gii, je</u>, and even the oblique form <u>joj</u>.
(11) a. ... ik zoo lang zal by u blyven, tot *jou* Husing de dubbeltjes betaalt hemme (Kolbe 1727:1.121-22).
'I shall remain with you [in your service] until you have paid Husing the silver coins [i.e., money]'<sup>13</sup>

b. ons denk *jou ook soo* (slave, 1706, cited from Franken 1953:93) 'we think [if you (are), too]'<sup>14</sup>

Only *jou* is attested as the second-person singular possessive pronoun; see example (19c), *infra*. In our older source material the first-person singular pronoun 'I' is often the emphatic form *ikke*, which would seem attributable to holophrastic speech during the jargon phase; *ik* occurs, too, and both types are preserved in Orange River Afrikaans (*ik/ek, ekke*). We find no direct evidence at all for 'I' being expressed by oblique *mij*. In contrast to the singular, the first-person plural form *wij* is unknown in the fragments of pidginized Dutch that have come down to us from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; 'we' is consistently rendered by oblique *ons*. These same materials suggest that both nonneuter and neuter forms of the first-person plural possessive pronoun (respectively *onze, ons*) were available in pidginized Dutch during this same period: *onse groote Kapiteyn* (Ten Rhyne 1673 [1933:140]) beside *ons bloed* (Kolbe 1727:2.66). Although their usage in these sentences is superficially consistent with the rules of Dutch grammar, this is surely coincidence. The loss of nominal gender can only mean that they were free variants.

My sense is that the use of *se* with personal pronouns was originally limited to the anaphora (*hy se, hulle se*). This innovation was creatively generated on analogy with the possessive/associative construction for nouns (*supra*), to which
anaphora refer. The first-person plural possessive <onze>, (which occurred alongside of <ons>), was decomposed (ahistorically) into two unbound morphemes, whence <ons se>. At some point in the history of the Cape Dutch Creole, the plural paradigm was filled out by the addition of a second-plural pronoun. As with the first and third persons plural, <julle> is formally identical in subjective and oblique environments. Projection of <se> into the possessive of this pronoun, as we see in Orange River Afrikaans (12) <julle se skool het nôu gesluit (GA, 2.271)>, produced a symmetrical and transparent plural inflection in the Cape Dutch Creole pronominal system. A further step in the expansion of <se> would be the first person plural possessive <ons se> having become a <forme de fondation> for a first person singular <my se>. However, Griqua Afrikaans offers but one very marginal possibility of such a 'founded form':

(13) Dis hierie hierie boetie van <my se> oorle vrou se skoonpa gewees (<GA>, 2.345).

i.e., if not [<boetie van my] se vrou.

<Die> was both the definite article and the sole demonstrative pronoun ('this, that') in the Cape Dutch Creole. The focus of the article could be sharpened by means of a preceding deictic adverb (viz. <hier>, <daar>, and <doer>) if a given discourse called for narrower specification of (respectively) proximal, distal, or far distal location of the referent in relation to the speaker. Eventually, this pragmatic combination would lexicalize into the demonstratives we know today: <hierdie>, <daardie>, and nonstandard <doerdie> (Roberge 1992). It is quite probable that the adverb
alone could function as an adnominal deictic element in the early
stages of the Cape Dutch Creole:

(14) a. <u>doer</u> onderste draad (lit. 'yonder lowest wire')
(GA, 2.161).

b. Dáár tyd toe't hy die skrywe, toe skryf sit my
Vader (GA, 2.39)

In his *Travels in Southern Africa* of 1815, Hinrich Lichten-
stein made the following cryptic comment on the Dutch of Khoikhoi
along the frontier: 'Farther, there are no auxiliary verbs; and
the Hottentots, even in speaking Dutch, do not know how to make
use of them. . . . The want of auxiliaries to express the time,
is often transferred by the Hottentots into the Dutch language'
(1815 [1930:2.467]). The accuracy of this observation for
Khoikhoi is of far less interest than the allusion to the omis-
sion of the tense auxiliaries *hebben* and *zijn* in their Dutch. In
the Cape Dutch Pidgin a preverbal particle *ge*, together with a
phonological variant *ga*, marked events that are situated in the
past. The fact that Afrikaans developed in a multilingual
contact situation raises the possibility of multilevel syn-
cretism, in which phonological, syntactic, and semantic proper-
ties of morphemes can be traced to multiple sources. The use of
*ge/ga* as a past tense marker, closely corresponds to the Dutch
past participle prefix *ge-*. There is also evidence to suggest
that Khoikhoi preverbal preterital particles with a similar
canonical shape may have reinforced the observed usage; *Nama gve*,
*ga* (Kroenlein 1889:101, 106); *kò* (recent past), *kè* (remote past)
(Hagman 1977:62). One cannot help but wonder whether Lichten-
stein stumbled onto precisely this feature, construing it as L1
transference.

We can be reasonably confident in this reconstruction on the
basis of what we find sporadically in Orange River Afrikaans:

(15) a. Nee, e, speel mos mar met hierie bal en sô an, mit die voetbal en sô an en krieket ok gespeel (GA, 2.213)

b. Baas hulle hom <u>geroep</u> die galsbêom (GA, 2.267)

Although this morpheme is joined to the verb in standard ortho-
graphic practice, it appears to have been an unbound grammatical
formative in the Cape Dutch Creole. In (16a) the <u>ge</u> particle
precedes the lexical verb while the modal in the V2 position
remains in the present tense; in (16b), by contrast, <u>ge</u> is
attracted to the modal auxiliary.

(16) a. Ou Paul Krieêr my bas, Paul Krieêr. Dankie my bas.
Bas ek kjen hom nie gasiene, mar sy kop, ek had hom
oppe kop gasien (GA, 2.274)

b. **Interviewer:** Dan't julle, julle het seker mooi gelyk?
**Informant:** Ons het mooi gelyk, mooi gelyk. Ons het
sommer mooi gelyk, want dit was mooi gewerk ook. Die
ou Griekwatantes het mooi gewerk, en mammase en
oumase, wat nou gekjen daai broeke werk (GA, 2.306).

As a sidebar to the discussion of the Cape Dutch Creole past
tense form, it is worth recalling adjectives frequently become
creole verbs (Holm 1988:85). The use of the adjective <u>dood</u>
'dead' to mean 'die' is well known from the fragments of Khoikhoi
Pidgin Dutch recorded by Ten Rhyne (<u>Mashy doot</u> 'when I die', 1673
[1933:140]) and Kolbe (<u>Die Gift al qedaan dood</u>, 'this/that poison
has died', 1727:2.114)). That contemporary Orange River
Afrikaans also shows <u>dood</u> in place of <u>sterf/sterwe</u> suggests that
such conversions may have been at least marginally present in the
prior Cape Dutch Creole:

(17) Hierie plek Bultfontein sal ik nooi:t afgan nie.
As ek moet hier weggan, da dood ek (GA, 2.168).

This usage of *dood* is of course by no means unique to Orange
River Afrikaans (cf. *WAT* 2.245), but it cannot be a Netherland-
icism. It can hardly represent Dutch *doden* 'kill', which
requires a patient and is unknown in Afrikaans; see Den Besten
1987b:17-18 on its replacement with *doodmaak*. Note how the tense
particle *ge/qa* attaches itself to *dood* in (18):

(18) Die Griekwas het twintagduizend vee gehat, . . . En baie van
die vee het gevrék. Die Basoetoes het baie vannie vee
gesteel want hulle het oorie Drakensberg gekom. En toe't
hulle hier kom, die land s' gras dieselfde grás vannie
Vnrýstaat nie, toe dôod die vee, baie van die vee, beeste is
gadôod (GA, 2.40)

From the outset, all events in (18) occur at a single point in
time prior to the time of utterance. Their relation by means of
the narrative past is consistent with superstrate usage and is
what we should expect in a decreolizing variety. The qualitative
difference in grazing land between the Orange Free State and
Kokstad establishes a new time center. The tense nucleus
implied by the particle qa in gadood signals that the process of
dying occurred in the past; the copula refers to a complete
action by the time of speaking.

As concerns modality, I believe the irrealis marker of the
Cape Dutch Pidgin was kamma, which Nienaber (1963:373) has
derived from Khoikhoi //kamûh or ḫkamûh (cf. Nama ḫhomí 'lie').
I take this to be the kam(m)e recorded by Kolbe (19) and Mentzel
(20) during the eighteenth century. Den Besten (e.g., 1986:217-
18, 223-24) thinks *kam(m)e* represents pidgin or creole Dutch, and I am in agreement with him on this point. What I do not concur with is his resolution of the form as 'be able to' (supposedly from a Khoikhoi verb--cf. Nama //xáá--or a nasalless variant of *kan*) plus a postvocalic variant -*me* of a 'Hottentot Dutch' ending -*um/-om/-me* that is affixed chiefly to verbs but also adjectives and nouns (1986:213-14, 1987a:88, 1987b:33-37 *et passim*). Problems arise with the second constituent -*me*, for which there is no clear semantic motivation. Our source material neither affirms nor denies Den Besten's interpretation of *kam(m)e*. Nonepistemic modality involving ability does make sense in glossing the utterances that Mentzel and Kolbe have preserved for posterity; but so too does expression of unrealized action or lack of certainty.

(19) *kam(m)e* attributed to Khoikhoi:

a. *Kamme* niet verstaan (Kolbe 1727:1.504)
'won't/would not understand'

b. Ey Vrouw die Tovergoeds ja zoo bytum, ons ik *kame* niet verdragen (Kolbe 1727:1.528).
'Ayee, woman, the medicine stings so, we [click] shall not endure it'

c. Vrouw, jou Tovergoeds bra bytum, dat is waar, maar jou Tovergoeds ook weer gezond makum, dat is ook waar.
Ons Tovermanns *kame* niet helpen, maar die Duits Tovervrouw ja bra, die *kame* helpe (Kolbe 1727:1.528)
'Woman, your medicines sting very much, that is true, but your medicines also make healthy again, that is also true. Our medicine men will not help, but the Dutch medicine woman is good, she will help'
(20) **kam(m)e** attributed to slaves:

a: : **Kammene** Kumi, **Kammene** Kuli (Mentzel 1787 [1944:99])
Mentzel: 'If I have nothing to eat, I cannot work'
Analyzed: 'IRREALIS food-not, IRREALIS work-not'

b. **Kammene** Kas, **Kammene** Kunte (Mentzel 1787 [1944:99])
Mentzel: 'If you have no money, I have no --'.
Analyzed: 'IRREALIS money-not, IRREALIS sex-not'

The use of **kamma** to give a nuance of pretense or ostensibility in
Orange River Afrikaans (21) and in other forms of spoken Afri-
kaans favors the irrealis interpretation of the **kam(m)e** attested
in our source material from the eighteenth century.¹⁵

(21) a. Die klippe is bontes, wittes, dis **kamma** onse veêens.
Nou maak ons kraletjies, kraletjies, kraletjies. Nou
so maak ons dis **kamma** onse veêns wat ons inja in die
krale (GA, 2.310).

'The stones are colored ones, white ones, they are
our cattle. Now we make little kraals, kraals,
kraals. Now we do as if they were our cattle that
we herd into the kraals'

b. Dis maar sommer 'n klein poppie. . . . Maak hulle maar net sit hulle **kamma** ook nou 'n kappietjie. . . . Hulle maak hom **kamma** ook 'n kappietjie, so (GA, 2.311). 'But it is just a little doll. They just do as if they were putting a little bonnet on. They also make for it [the doll] a pretend bonnet'.

In the Cape Dutch Pidgin the basic--in the sense of prototypi-
cal--meaning of the irrealis marker is that the action of the
predicate is not (yet) part of reality (cf. Holm 1988:164-66).
The semantic range of this particle subsumed counterfactuality,
future time reference, and prediction.

Completion of an action in the Cape Dutch Pidgin appears to
have been expressed by **al) gedaan** lit. '(already) done, finish-
ed' within the middle field before the main verb or adjective
(**gedaan** being the past participle of the Dutch verb **doen** 'do').
Den Besten (1987b:19-20, 22; 1989:238) cites (22a-c) in support
of this reconstruction, to which we can add (22d-e) in Orange
River Afrikaans:

(22) a. Ons soek kost hier, ons al gedaan wegloopen . . .
(slave, 1706, cited from Franken 1953:89)
'We seek food here, we have run away'

b. de Clercq heeft gesegt jij mijn Cameraat gedaan vast
maken . . . (slave, 1720, cited from Franken 1953:50)
'De Klerk said you have tied up my comrade'

c. Die Gift al gedaan dood, wie kan hy meer wat schaden
(Khoikhoi speaker, cited from Kolbe 1727 2.114).
'This/that poison has died, whom can it harm any more
even a little?'

d. Klaar gesaai het, nou om-, nou as dit klaar omgeploe is
(GA, 2.320)

e. en lôp sê vir hulle . . . lat hulle hom regmak want
hulle-t al klaar gebetaal (GA, 2.222).

Expression of completive aspect by words meaning 'already',
'finished', or 'done' should hardly surprise us, given the
linguistic scene at the old Cape and what we find in pidgins
generally (cf. Tok Pisin <pinis> < English <finish>). As Den Besten
(1989:238) points out, Creole Portuguese ja 'already' and Malay
sudah 'finished' could indicate completion of an action in the
respective languages. In (22e), for example, a completed action
(payment) has resulted in a state (someone being made whole).

Durative aspect in the Cape Dutch Creole was marked by a
preverbal element derivable from the Dutch verb leggen 'lay', its
contrast with liggen having been neutralized (Afrikaans lê).

(23) Maar orwaat sou vullekie vanaand so lê hardloop?
(Rademeyer 1938:86)
'But why would the little foal be running so this evening?'
So far as I have been able to determine, this marker has largely
disappeared in contemporary Griqua Afrikaans. Preverbal *loop*
signalled the beginning stages of events, as we see in (24):

(24) As hy [die grond] eers loop nat word
(GA, 2.320).

In Orange River Afrikaans the verb-form *loop* shows a spectrum of
finely graded shades of meaning, ranging from its etymological
lexical meaning of 'go, walk' to a punctual, purely inchoative
function (cf. Du Plessis 1984:132-41).

Finally, another possible creolism sparsely attested in
contemporary Orange River Afrikaans is verb topicalization:

(25) *Sit*, ik *sit* lekker, lekker, lekker
(GA, 2.336).

It is not clear to me at this point whether (25) is a nonce form,
the result of general pragmatic principles (topic-comment order)
or is a vestige of some earlier grammaticalized pattern.

5.4. The linguistic items that defined Cape Dutch did not fall into nonoverlapping domains. Rather, they were organized into a continuum of lects in which the speech of individuals took on superstrate or Cape Dutch Creole features--or avoided them--to varying degrees. One group may have used one particular variant, and another group the other. But we should expect to find mutual exclusivity only when comparing the extremes of the sociolin- guistic continuum. Between acrolectal Cape Dutch (Duminy) and the basilect (Cape Dutch Creole) we should expect to find linguistic forms that were subject to both social and stylistic variation. The rise of a composite culture implied a convergence of variables leading to compromise (mesolectal) varieties that
underlie today's forms of Afrikaans. These mesolects were partially independent to the extent that the defining variables have hybridized leading to new structures not found in either acrolectal or basilectal Cape Dutch. Thus, mesolects cannot be considered simply as composita of variants selected from the end points of the continuum. I have elsewhere investigated two cases of convergence leading to hybridization: the Afrikaans double negation (Roberge 1991) and the verbal hendiadys (Roberge 1993). I shall now very briefly discuss three additional cases that I intend to treat elsewhere in detail.

### 5.4.1. During the process of convergence, the tense auxiliaries *hebben* and *zijn* were reintroduced. But as the Cape Dutch Creole moved closer to the superstrate, not all inflectional categories were fully restored, even though their exponents managed to survive. The result is a residue of allomorphs that are used more or less interchangeably in Orange River Afrikaans:

het, 't (< Dutch *heeft*), had (< Dutch *had*):

(26) Die goue pondtjie bas? Ja, ek *had* hulle *gakjen* bas. Ek *het* die tiensielings ok *gakjen*. (GA, 2.275)

Vestiges of *zijn* as a perfect auxiliary are also to be discerned in Orange River Afrikaans:

(27) a. Die boere was báie laat hier gakom (GA, 2.40)

b. Ek moet so sê want êk is maar op hom [=plaas] grôotgeword (GA, 2.219)

Merger of the semantic import of the creole temporal marker *ge/ga* with that of the Netherlandic periphrastic perfect facilitated additional hybridization. We find in Orange River Afrikaans the
use of both 'have' and 'be' as tense auxiliaries with the copula

(28) and in the expression 'to be born' (29):

(28) a. war dit baie gras <u>gewees het</u>, baie (<u>GA</u>, 2.138)

b. my anner seester se nam <u>is gewees</u> Fytjie (<u>GA</u>, 2.248).

(29) a. Ek <u>het</u> eintlik daar gabore (<u>GA</u>, 2.232).

b. die Van der Westhuise <u>is</u> mos hier in die Griekeland gebore (<u>GA</u>, 2.282).

With the restoration of tense auxiliaries, the <u>ge/qa</u> particle became omissible:

(30) a. En toe't hulle hier <u>kom</u> (<u>GA</u>, 2.40).

b. Nee bas, my ôupa kan ek'ie, wan dis toet ek <u>bore was</u>, toe't my ôupa al voortsoorg gemak, toe's hy weg (<u>GA</u>, 2.248).

Interesting, too, are pairings of the temporal particle <u>ge/qa</u>
with etymologically finite forms of the lexical verbs 'have'
(<u>het</u>) and 'be' (<u>was</u>) (31). These hybrids, which are manifesta-
tions of the creole pattern just described, also show up in
Orange River Afrikaans with one or both tense auxiliaries:

(31) a. mar oupa se pá <u>was</u> 'n leraart <u>gawas</u> (<u>GA</u>, 2.79)

b. Ennie oumênse <u>het</u> mos nou jaaare siek <u>gawas</u>
(<u>GA</u>, 2.120)

c. Ons <u>het</u> intlik 'n plek da:r <u>gehet</u> (<u>GA</u>, 2.189)

In (31a, b) <u>gewas</u> (<u>ge</u> + preterital <u>was</u>) cannot be a phonological-
ly conditioned variant of standard past participle <u>gewees</u>. Were
this so, we should expect to find other instances of lowering,
monopthongization, and shortening, say *<u>bas(te)</u> for <u>bees(te)</u>.

Given that convergence involved the progressive acquisition
of noncreole features by substrate speakers, and metropolitan
prestige norms were inaccessible to them, it follows that the
language of the permanent European settler community from the
late eighteenth century provided the linguistic model. Remnants
of a metropolitan feature such as the tense auxiliary zijn
alongside salient creolisms in Orange River Afrikaans strongly
indicate that the Cape Dutch of European speakers occupying the
same geographical space displayed greater affinity with the
language of the Duminy diary than with modern Afrikaans. This
would render untenable the conventional view that a more or less
uniform Cape Dutch vernacular strongly resembling modern Afri-
kaans had come into being between 1770 and 1800.

5.4.2. Save for some diachronic speculations in Slomanson's
(1993) analysis of infinitival complements in Orange River
Afrikaans, very little has been said about complementation in the
Cape Dutch Creole in current creolist literature. This may well
reflect the genuine paucity of data in our source material.
However, in the Orange River Afrikaans corpus complied by Van
Rensburg and his collaborators (1984), variation in the formal
signalling of complements provides some basis for internal
reconstruction.

In colloquial forms of Afrikaans the conjunction lat can
introduce a sentential complement that would begin with dat in
the standard language. Le Roux (1910:107-8) took the former to
be an allegro variant resulting from different releases (lateral
versus oral) from a common point of occlusion. Since then, few
scholars have seriously questioned this view, even though are
reasonable grounds to do so; cf. Rademeyer 1938:53. Paardekooper (1990) is rightly skeptical of an autochthonous phonological development *d- > l-* in a single lexical item, but his own suggestion of a Netherlandic dialectism is no less unlikely. First, *dat* is unique in Afrikaans in showing an alternation between dental and lateral onsets. Second and even more puzzling is the existence of covariant *laat*; that is, with both the lateral onset and a long vowel. This additional allomorph is first reported in Le Roux (1910:107) but has generally slipped beneath the radar, even though it can be heard in nonstandard Afrikaans as late as 1965:

(32) a. *laat* di kaffers fer my moet fermoor
(S. J. du Toit, *Di Koningin fan Skeba*, 1898, p. 15, cited from Le Roux 1910:107)

b. elke keer laat Poena die geld gekom haal het (Adam Small, *Kanna hy kò hystoe*, 1965)

Le Roux (*loc. cit.*.) attributed the long vowel to confusion with the verb form *laat* (Dutch *laten*) 'cause (to be done), have (done), let, allow'. From a purely synchronic viewpoint there is no obvious grammatical or semantic motivation for secondary con-tamination of the complementizer *lat* from an auxiliary verb. Diachronically, however, in the context of intensive language contact, Le Roux's intuition may not have been unfounded.

Let us begin with one of Le Roux's example sentences illustrating the usage of *laat* in place of *dat*.

(33) hoe kom het julle ni *laat* ons die goue goed uit
di klip uithaal ni (S. J. du Toit, *Di Koningin fan Skeba*,
1898, cited from Le Roux 1910:107).
'Why didn't you [pl.] have us remove the gold from the
stone?'
If the matrix verb *het* is equivalent to *wil hê (dat)* 'want something done', then a 'true' complementizer would be called for. However, the *WAT* subentry for *wil hê* (4.119) does not indicate the existence of a bare-stem variant. Yet, *het* in (33) cannot be the tense auxiliary, which would preclude a complementizer. Under these circumstances *laat* would be interpretable only as the causative verb, and its leftward dislocation would be inexplicable. Ruling out these possibilities leaves 'to have/ order somebody to do something' as the only reasonable interpretation of *het* in (33). If this reading makes sense, then *laat* must again be seen as introducing a subordinate clause.

I want to make a case that this *laat* is the causative verb functioning in a way somewhat comparable to serial 'say' meaning 'that' in Caribbean creoles (cf. Holm 1988:185-88). So far as I have been able to determine, substrate influence does not seem to have been a factor. I suspect this structure emerged during the transition from less to more complex systems, when barriers to mixing are greatest (Mühlhäusler 1986:127) and independent modes of syntactic innovation come to the fore.

I proceed on the assumption that complementation in the early Cape Dutch Pidgin was effected proponderantly by means of the simple juxtaposition of sentences. Consider example (34) from contemporary Orange River Afrikaans. Note in particular the word order:

(34) Klaas, tel gou vir ons.

Ek het gehoor, baas, die die ou grootmense gesê het: [informant counts in the Griqua language] (GA, 2.295)
The omissibility of the complementizer was doubtless retained in
the subsequent creole and from there percolated into acrolectal
forms of Cape Dutch. As structure was added to the convergent
creole grammar, a modal verb could be used to introduce a
quotation or a complement clause after matrix verbs the meaning
of which was epistemic, involving modes of knowledge or belief:

(35) Nou, kan hy Griekwa praat?
Ik weet nie sal hy kan praat nie (GA, 2.336).
'Now, can he speak Griqua? I don't know whether he
can speak [it] (lit. 'he will be able to')'.

If the matrix predicate involved either an imperative or deontic
modality (modes of obligation, necessity, commission), the modal
verb signalling the subordinate status of the following string
was laat. Thus, sentences of the type in (36) are taken to be
prototypical:

(36) a. nee, meneer du Toit moet nou fluks fertaal,
    laat ons ferder kan hoor, en di Boesmans moet werk,
    laat ons di gat ope grawe (S. J. du Toit, Di Koningin
    fan Skeba, 1898, cited from Le Roux 1910:107).
    'No, Mr. Du Toit must now translate energetically,
    (so) that we can hear further, and the Bushmen must
    work (so) that we can dig the hole open'.

b. Broer, jy moet *laat* ons lê troei hoeistoe want daar kom 'n verskriklike weer aan, opdat die weer ons nie beseet nie (Rademeyer 1938:125). 'Brother, you must allow [that] we head back home because a dreadful storm is coming, so that the weather does not possess us'.

The sentences in (37) demonstrate the semantic proximity between
clauses introduced by hortative *laat* and etymological complement-
izers following an imperative or deontic modal in the matrix
clause:
(37) a. Wag dan, ou broer, <u>laat</u> ek hom eers betrag
(Rademeyer 1938:125).
'Wait, old brother, let me first look at it [the storm
in (36b)]'.

b. Bring daai skaap <u>lat</u> ik hom slag (GA, 2.362).
'Bring that sheep (so) that I (can) slaughter it'.

Both (37a) and (37b) are purposive. Put another way, the
semantics of hortative <u>laat</u> 'let' and of a 'true' complementizer
'(so) that' share in common the speaker's expectation that the
following proposition will become reality.

Whether shortening of the vowel in serial *laat* was due to
lexical realignment with acrolectal *dat* or was part of a more
general phonological trend cannot be considered here. Whatever
the case, the weakened allomorph occurs for the first time in
1830, not coincidentally in the mouth of a person of color;
namely, C. E. Boniface's 'Hottentot' character Hendrik Kok:

(38) Probeer <u>lat</u> hy maar voor my een soopie geeuw
(De Zuid-Afrikaan, 13 August 1830)
'try let/that he gives me a tot (glass of liquor)'
i.e., 'Just have him offer me a tot (and I won't drink it)'
The nineteenth century saw an ongoing merger between serial
<u>laat/lat</u> and the acrolectal complementizer <u>dat</u>. By the 1880s,
there is syntactic evidence that serial <u>laat/lat</u>, which in the
stable Cape Dutch Pidgin was conditioned by imperatives and
deontic modals has gained acceptance in Euro-Afrikaans, where it
has become fully grammaticalized and associated with <u>dat</u>:

(39) Ek is jammer, <u>lat</u> hij ni kom ni (Mansvelt 1884 [1971:156]).
In Orange River Afrikaans <u>lat</u> is fully grammaticalized as a
conjunctive element and functionally on par with <u>dat</u>.
(40) En die manne het met 'n nuus angekom <u>dat</u> hulle verbas is om kom vind <u>lat</u> hier nog ê Griekwa-kjerk is (<u>GA</u>, 2.68).

Whether the earliest forms of Cape Dutch Creole maintained a
distinction between infinitival and sentential complements lies
beyond reconstruction. We do know that there must have been
considerable variability in infinitival complementation, all of
which is preserved in Orange River Afrikaans. At some point in
time, basilectal Cape Dutch Creole acquired a complementizer <u>om</u>
that corresponds to <u>om</u> . . . <u>te</u> in standard Afrikaans and in
Dutch.

(41) a. <u>om</u> die warheit sê (<u>GA</u>, 2.72)

b. Die daarop wôon en ok maar 'n plekkie het <u>om</u> sit (<u>GA</u>, 2.121)

c. Cf. (40), <u>supra</u>:

hulle verbas is om kom vind . . .

<u>Om</u> was not available to introduce sentential complements,
incidentally, for it functioned as a causal conjunction in both
acrolectal and creolized forms of Cape Dutch. We can ascertain
these facts respectively from the usage of Duminy (42a) and from
that of the slave in Teenstra's <u>zamenspraak</u> (42b).

(42) a. <u>om</u> het een caapschee bul was
(Duminy diary, Franken [ed.] 1938:88)

b. hij niet spreek, om hij geen boodschap doen wil nie (Teenstra 1830 [1943:240]).

cf. Modern Afrikaans:

c. Ek verlaat jou om jy niks vir my oorhet nie (<u>HAT</u>, 748)

Mesolectal forms of Cape Dutch added the particle <u>te</u> in various
configurations under the influence of acrolectal Cape Dutch. One
such configuration positions the particle *te* immediately to the right of the complementizer *om*:

(43) a. Hulle was vorbas om tê Griekwa-mênse kry (GA, 2.68)

b. en pa vra vir oorlede oupa om te die pert dar die berg in sit lat hy bietjie groei (GA, 2.138)

The question arises as to whether this type of complementation involves attraction of the particle to om (generated in SPEC, CP; cf. Slomanson 1993), or the actual fusion of morphemes into an unanalyzable whole, as Rademeyer (1938:71) seemed to think; see further the remarks of Du Plessis 1984:159-62. One factor that lends support to the latter position is that infinitival complements introduced by om te in Orange River Afrikaans often show a the particle *te* before the infinitive as well.

(44) Orange River Afrikaans:

a. Jy moes rontval om te pakkie kjers voor te betaal (GA, 2.137)

b. Ai meneer, wee jy, om te jou die waarheid te sê (GA, 2.229)

c. Die oumase en die mammase het ook die kappies so geleer werk vir hulle om te op te sit (GA, 2.307)

Standard Afrikaans:

a'. . . . om vir 'n pakkie kerse te betaal

b'. . . . om die waarheid vir jou te sê

c'. . . . om op te sit

If I am correct in the above reconstruction, convergence between acrolectal Cape Dutch and the Cape Dutch Creole resulted in two hybridizations. Basilectal complementation with om was made formally more similar to its acrolectal counterpart through the
introduction of *te* first in tandem with *om* and then secondarily
into the position directly before the infinitive itself.

5.4.3. The distinction between predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives was much less obvious in the Cape Dutch Creole than in the acrolect. It is not clear whether the prior pidgin possessed a verb corresponding to Dutch *zijn* in its equative function. The evidence, such as it exists, is in equipoise:

(45) a. *Dat is doet* (Ten Rhyne 1673 [1933:140])
‘that is good (?)’

a. Ons denkum, ons altyd Baas, maar ons ja zienom,
Duytsman meer Baas (Kolbe 1727:1.477)
lit. ‘We think we always master, but we indeed see
Dutchman greater master’.

However one interprets *doet* in the well-known datum from Ten Rhyne (cf. Den Besten 1987b:17-18), the copula status of *is* would seem unambiguous. Ignoring what is at present a moot issue in regard to the pidgin, I tentatively impute to the Cape Dutch Creole an equative construction with ‘be’ joining a subject and a complement. The complement could be filled by adjectival constituents, of course, and also by a presumably unrestricted set of noun phrases.

(46) a. 'n Kleurling is darie lang hare (GA, 2.266)

b. Interviewer: En u is in die metodiste kerk?
Informant: Nee meneer, ek is ee Griekwa
Independente kerk. Di[t] is wat ek is (GA, 2.1047)

The mesolectal forms of Cape Dutch that gave rise to Afrikaans lexicalized individual patterns (*ek is jammer*, *ek is honger*, *ek is dors*, *ek is spyt*, *ek is lus*; see Donaldson 1993:188-89) but did not adopt this usage wholesale.
6. Conclusion

In the course of the eighteenth century creolizing generations drew on the resources of a fully developed Cape Dutch acrolect as well as those of a stable Cape Dutch Pidgin. Creolization did not proceed according to the textbook scenario described above (§2), whereby a pidgin provides the input for L1 acquisition, with minimal influence from (if not actual withdrawal of) the superstrate language. Rather, sociolinguistic conditions at the Cape were such that the input consisted of the superstrate in close proximity of a coterritorial pidgin variety. In this way, the resulting Cape Dutch Creole could show both strong metropoli- tan characteristics alongside significant hybridization.

The interaction between social factors and glottogenesis are much more complex than philological, variationist, interlect-alist, and some creolist positions would have us believe. And there seems to lurk the danger in renascent models of semicreoli-zation that simplistic hypotheses are replaced by even simpler and empirically less robust ones. If I may close by again quoting Valkhoff (1966:231): 'It is not always *either* one thing *or* another in the evolution of such a delicate social phenomenon as speech or language'. In the history of Afrikaans it was not always Dutch *or* substratum grammar, but three linguistic tradi-tions--European, African (Khoikhoi), and Asian--that have met and converged with one another to produce a new whole that is truly more than the sum of its parts.
NOTES

1. Only a handful of German and French loanwords in Afrikaans are directly attributable to language contact at the Cape during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Raidt 1983:66-69). Lexical borrowing from Bantu languages and English is secondary.

2. It is not my intention to resuscitate old controversies here. I would refer the reader interested in historiography to Reinecke 1937:563-81 and Nienaber 1949:96-141 for excellent discussions of the early literature, and to the annotated bibliography of Reinecke et al. (1975:322-77). Valkhoff (1971:462-70), Scholtz (1980:29-34), Raidt (1983:41-46, 1991:23-36), and Makhudu (1984:11-25) all survey previous literature, albeit through the filter of each author's particular point of view. Happily, the old enthnocentrisms have largely subsided, and few will mourn their passing; on the ideological dimension of our subject see Roberge 1990.

The anglophone reader will find critical discussions of the philological approach in Roberge 1986, Den Besten 1987a.

3. A few year later, Nienaber himself (1955) would attribute the Afrikaans double negation to a 'foreigner' hybridization on the part of Khoikhoi speakers of Cape Dutch. Though received sympathetically by Combrink (1978:83-85), Nienaber's hypothesis has consistently failed to win acceptance by the philologists (cf. Raidt 1983:189-90) because it is beyond direct empirical verification. Den Besten (1978:40-42, 1985:32-35,
1986:210-24) has greatly revised and elaborated on the notion of
a Khoikhoi substratum origin for the Afrikaans double negation,
an idea that has always found favor among creolists (Valkhoff
1966:17; Holm 1988:174; 1989:343, 346; 1991).

4. One could naturally expand this list to include lin-
guists either influenced by Scholtz and/or Raidt or who have
conducted their diachronic investiations within a comparable
framework (e.g., Loubser 1961, Smuts 1969, Pheiffer 1980,
Conradie 1981-82).

5. The variationist research program has resulted in the
compilation of an invaluable data base for Afrikaans of the
Griquas and the Richtersveld (Van Rensburg, ed., 1984, 1987). On
the Afrikaans of the Cape Malay, see Kotzé 1984 and Davids 1991.

6. I am aware of only one attempt at the latter, viz. Pone-
lis's (1991) history of Afrikaans phonology: 'Die uitgangspunt
vir die sosiostilistiese kontekstualisierung is dat Afrikaans uit
'n Hollandse koine stam (Scholtz 1980): 'n vorm van versorgde
(Amsterdamse) Hollands wat afgewyk het van sowel vernekulêre
Hollands as formele Vroeë Nuwe Nederlands' (p. 1).

7. The anglophone reader will find a *précis* of Hesseling's
views in Markey and Roberge (eds.) 1979.

8. In the first edition of his book Hesseling (1899:54-55) alluded to the possibility of European children being exposed to creolized Dutch through their *aïas* (nursemaids). Years later others would continue this thread; viz. Franken (1953:36-38), Valkhoff (1966:176-77), and Van Marle (1978:61-63).
9. Makhudu (1984:3) absolves Markey of the charge of Eurocentrism, and it is clear that the inadequacies of Markey's paper are in part due to its programmatic nature and in part to a superficial knowledge of Afrikaans. Compare the egregiously misleading chapter on Afrikaans in Hutterer 1975:278-87, which makes no mention of the 'Coloured' community and claims that Afrikaans evolved solely from the nonstandard varieties of Dutch imported to the Cape.

10. Den Besten (1989:228) is unconcerned with the specific label (i.e., 'semicreole', 'creoloid', etc. versus his 'fort creole') as it is 'nonsensical to occupy oneself with such nitpicking discussions in the absence of a theoretically sound typology of "new languages"'.

11. Similarly, Hesseling 1923:118-19, Le Roux 1923:88-98, Rademeyer 1938:66-67, Valkhoff 1966:227-29, Links 1989:83. See further Ponelis 1992 and 1993:225-47.

12. Ponelis (1993:230) reports that 'Western varieties of Afrikaans have preserved the remnants of what must have been a full set of periphrastic pronominal possessives', including *ek se, my se, jou se, sy se* 'his/her', *hom se*. With the exception of *sy se* 'her', these forms are not recorded in the descriptions of either Rademeyer or Links (*loc. cit.*).

13. Ponelis (1993:32) reads *Husing* as the subject, *jou* as an object.

14. I see the utterance in (11b) as a case of shallow embedding and thus structurally different from *jouw siecken hond*
ghij die brood tecken (slave, 1671, cited from Franken 1953:47),
in which the first clause is comparable to Afrikaans jou ver-
brande skurk! (HAT, 494).

15. According to Den Besten (1987b:17-18), the temporal adverbs **strack** (Dutch **straks/strakjes** 'presently, just now') and **soon** function as future markers in the following sentence from Ten Rhyne: *Icke strack nae onse grote Kapiteyn toe, die man my soon witte Boeba geme* (1673 [1933:140]); consider also *ik ja strakjes voort lopum zoo* (Kolbe 1727:1.121-22). This interpretation is supported by Franken's (1953:47) observation that **logo** 'soon' could similarly indicate the future in South African Creole Portuguese. Whether the Cape Dutch Creole continued this usage is another matter. If it did, I am inclined to think at this point that it distinguished proximate (**strack**) from remote future (**kanna**).
REFERENCES

Armstrong, James C. and Nigel A. Worden. 1989. 'The slaves, 1652-1834', in Elphick and Giliomee (eds.), 109-83.

Bender, M. Lionel. 1987. 'Some possible African creoles: A pilot study', in Gilbert (ed.), 37-60.

Bickerton, Derek. 1979. 'Beginnings', in Hill (ed.), 1-22.

--------. 1981. *Roots of Language*. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

--------. 1984. 'The language bioprogram hypothesis', *The Behavioral and Brain Sciences* 7: 173-88.

--------. 1989. 'The lexical learning hypothesis and the pidgin-creole cycle', in Pûtz and Dirven (eds.), 11-31.

Boshoff, S. P. E. 1921. *Volk en taal van Suid-Afrika*. Pretoria: De Bussy.

--------. 1959. 'Die wonder van die ontstaan van Afrikaans', in M. S. du Buisson (ed.), *Die wonder van Afrikaans*. Johannesburg: Voortrekkerpers, 25-35.

Bosman, D. B. 1923. *Oor die ontstaan van Afrikaans*. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

--------. 1947. 'Die ontstaan van Afrikaans', in C. M. van den Heever and P. de Villiers Pienaar (eds.), *Kultuurgeskiedenis van die Afrikaner*. Cape Town, Bloemfontein, and Port Elizabeth: Nasionale Pers, 2: 1-22.

Bruyn, Adrienne and Tonjes Veenstra. 1993. 'The creolization of Dutch', *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages*, 8: 29-80.

Buccini, Anthony F. 1992. 'The colonial Dutch dialects: New evidence for the origin of Afrikaans and the development of
Standard Dutch in seventeenth-century Holland'. Paper presented to the Berkeley-Michigan Germanic Linguistics Roundtable, University of California at Berkeley, 10-11 April 1992.

Combrink, J. G. H. 1978. 'Afrikaans: Its origin and development', in L. W. Lanham and K. P. Prinsloo (eds.), *Language and Communication Studies in South Africa*. Oxford and Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 69-95.

Conradie, C. J. 1981-82. 'Die ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse voltooide deelwoord'. *Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe*, 21: 275-84, 22: 96-126.

Coseriù, Eugenio. 1978. *Zur Entstehung der romanischen Sprachen*. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Davids, Achmat. 1991. 'The Afrikaans of the Cape Muslims from 1815 to 1915'. M.A. thesis, University of Natal, Durban.

------. 1994. 'Afrikaans--die produk van akkulturasie', in Olivier and Coetzee (eds.), 110-19.

den Besten, Hans. 1978. 'Cases of possible syntactic interference in the development of Afrikaans', in Muysken (ed.), 5-56.

------. 1985. 'Die doppelte Negation im Afrikaans und ihre Herkunft', in Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, and Thomas Stolz (eds.), *Akten des 1. Essener Kolloquiums über 'Kreol-sprachen und Sprachkontakte' vom 26.1.1985 an der Universität Essen*. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 9-42.
-----, 1986. 'Double negation and the genesis of Afrikaans', in Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith (eds.) *Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis*. (Creole Language Library, 1.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 185-230.

-----, 1987a. Review article of Raidt 1983. *Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages* 2: 67-92.

-----, 1987b. 'Die niederländischen Pidgins der alten Kapkolonie', in Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, and Thomas Stolz (eds.), *Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren*. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 9-40.

-----, 1988. 'Universal-Grammatik und/oder Zweitsprachen-erwerb: Der Fall Afrikaans', in Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, and Thomas Stolz (eds.), *Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über 'Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachwechsel, Sprachtod'.* Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 11-44.

-----, 1989. 'From Khoekhoe foreignertalk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans: The creation of a novel grammar', in Pùtz and Dirven (eds.), 207-54.

-----, 1993. 'The Khoekhoe basis for the Afrikaans associative construction'. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Amsterdam, 10-12 June 1993.
Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. *A Grammar of Afrikaans*. (Mouton Grammar Library, 8.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

du Plessis, H. G. W. 1984. 'Sintaktiese variasie in die Afrikaans van die Griekwas', in Van Rensburg (ed.), 1: 37-195.

------. 1994. 'Taalkontakvariasie in Afrikaans', in Olivier and Coetzee (eds.), 120-29.

du Toit, André and Hermann Giliomee. 1983. *Afrikaner Political Thought: Analysis and Documents*. Vol. 1. (Perspectives in Southern Africa, 22.) Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.

du Toit, P. J. 1905. *Afrikaansche studies*. (Diss. Ghent.) Ghent: A. Siffer.

Elphick, Richard. 1977. *Kraal and Castle, Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa*. (Yale Historical Publications, Miscellany, 116.) New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Elphick, Richard and Hermann Giliomee. 1989. 'The origins and entrenchment of European dominance at the Cape, 1652--c. 1840', in Elphick and Giliomee (eds.), 521-66.

Elphick, Richard and V. C. Malherbe. 1989. 'The Khoisan to 1828', in Elphick and Giliomee (eds.), 3-65.

Elphick, Richard and Robert Shell. 1989. 'Intergroup relations: Khoikhoi, settlers, slaves and free blacks, 1652-1795', in Elphick and Giliomee (eds.), 184-239.
Elphick, Richard and Hermann Giliomee (eds.). 1989. *The Shaping of South African Society, 1652-1840*. 2nd. ed. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1987. 'Post-exilic Jewish languages and pidgins/creoles: Two mutually clarifying perspectives', *Multilingua* 6: 7-24.

Franken, J. L. M. 1953. *Taalhistoriese bydraes*. Amsterdam and Cape Town: Balkema.

Franken, J. L. M. (ed.). 1938. *Duminy-daqboeke*. (Van Riebeeck Society, 19.) Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.

Gilbert, Glenn G. 1993a. 'Popular Brazilian Portuguese: A convergence creole, derived from a dual source'. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, Los Angeles, 10-12 January 1993.

------. 1993b. 'Adverbial placement in acrolectal convergence creoles'. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Amsterdam, 10-12 June 1993.

Gilbert, Glenn G. (ed.) 1987. *Pidgin and Creole Languages: Essays in Memory of John E. Reinecke*. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Grüner, Rolf. 1982. 'Die invloed van Duits op vroeë Afrikaans--'n sosiohistoriese perspektief', *Acta Academica* 15: 33-48.

Hagman, Roy S. 1977. *Nama Hottentot Grammar*. (Indiana University Publications, Language Science Monographs, 15.) Bloomington: Indiana University.
Hancock, Ian F. 1971. 'A survey of the pidgins and creoles of the world', in *Hymes (ed.).*, 509-23.

Haugen, Einar. 1976. *The Scandinavian Languages*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hesseling, D. C. 1899. *Het Afrikaansch*. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

------. 1923. *Het Afrikaans*. 2nd ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Hill, Kenneth C. (ed.). 1979. *The Genesis of Language*. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Hoijer, Harry. 1948. 'Linguistic and cultural change', *Language* 24: 335-45.

Holm, John. 1988-89. *Pidgins and Creoles*. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. 1991. 'American Black English and Afrikaans: Two Germanic semi-creoles'. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, Chicago, January 1991.

Hutterer, Claus Jürgen. 1975. *Die germanischen Sprachen*. Budapest: Adadémiai Kiadó.

Hymes, Dell (ed.). 1971. *Pidginization and Creolization of Languages*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kainz, Friedrich. 1943. *Psychologie der Sprache*. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.

Katzen, M. F. 1982. 'White settlers and the origin of a new society, 1652-1778', in *Monica Wilson and Leonard Thompson (eds.). A History of South Africa to 1870*. Cape Town: David Philip, 70-93.
Kloeke, G. G. 1950. *Herkomst en groei van het Afrikaans*. Leiden: Universitaire Pers.

Kloss, Heinz. 1978. *Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800*. 2nd ed. (Sprache der Gegenwart, 37.) Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.

Kolbe, Peter. 1727. *Peter Kolbe. Naaukeurige en uitvoerige beschryving van de Kaap de Goede Hoop*. Amsterdam.

Kotzé, E. F. 1984. 'Afrikaans in die Maleierbuurt: 'n diachroniese perspektief', *Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe* 24: 41-73.

------. 1989. 'How creoloid can you be? Aspects of Malay Afrikaans', in Pütz and Dirven (eds.), 251-64.

------. 1991. 'Afrikaans in the context of creole linguistics--dismantling linguistic apartheid'. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, Chicago, January 1991.

------. 1994. 'Afsonderlik ontwikkel deur verbastering?--Afrikaans en Middelnederduits in die kreoolse konteks', in Olivier and Coetzee (eds.), 130-38.

Kroenlein, J. G. 1889. *Wortschatz der Khoi-khoin (Namagua-Hottentotten)*. Berlin: Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft.

Kruisinga, E. 1906. 'De oorsprong van het Afrikaans', *Taal en Letteren* 16: 417-39.

Lass, Roger. 1987. *The Shape of English*. London and Melbourne: J. M. Dent & Sons.
------, 1990a. 'How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution', *Journal of Linguistics* 26: 79-102.

------, 1990b. 'Where do extraterritorial Englishes come from?', in S. Adamson et al. (eds.), *Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics*.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 245-80.

Le Page, Ray. 1987. 'The need for a multidimensional model', in Gilbert (ed.), 113-29.

Le Roux, J. J. 1923. *Oor die Afrikaanse sintaksis*. (Diss. Utrecht.) Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Le Roux, T. H. 1910. *Beschrijvende klankleer van het Afrikaans*.
(Diss. Leiden.) Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff.

Lichtenstein, Hinrich. 1812-15 [1928-30]. *Travels in Southern Africa in the Years 1803, 1804, 1805 and 1806*. Translated by Anne Plumptre. (Van Riebeeck Society, 10-11.) Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.

Links, Tony. 1989. *So praat ons Namakwalanders*. Cape Town:
Tafelberg.

Lockwood, W. B. 1965. *An Informal History of the German Language, with Chapters on Dutch and Afrikaans, Frisian and Yiddish*. Cambridge: W. Heffer.

Loubser, J. E. 1961. *Die saamgestelde verbale vorm van Nederlands na Afrikaans*. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.

Louden, Mark L. 1993. 'Is Yiddish a creole language?' Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Amsterdam, 10-12 June 1993.
Louw, S. A. 1948. <u>Dialekvermenging en taalontwikkeling: Proewe van Afrikaanse taalgeografie.</u> Amsterdam: North Holland.

Lubbe, H. J. 1974. 'Valkhoff en die ontstaan van Afrikaans, veral n.a.v. sy <u>New Light on Afrikaans and "Malayo-Por-tuquese"', Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe</u> 14: 89-99.

Makhudu, Dennis P. 1984. 'Is Afrikaans a creole language?' MA thesis, Southern Illinois University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

Mansvelt, N. 1884. <u>Proeve van een Kaapsch-Hollandsch idioticon.</u>
Utrecht: A. J. van Huffel. Rpt. in H. J. J. M. van der Merwe (ed.) 1971. <u>Vroeë Afrikaanse woordelvste.</u> (Patriot-vereniging vir Afrikaanse teksuitgawes, n.s. 5.) Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.

Markey, T. L. 1981. 'Diffusion, fusion and creolization: A field guide to developmental linguistics', <u>Papiere zur Linguistik</u> 24: 3-37.

--------. 1982. 'Afrikaans: Creole or non-creole?', <u>Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik</u> 49: 169-207.

Markey, T. L. and Paul T. Roberge (eds.). 1979. <u>On the Origin and Formation of Creoles: A Miscellany of Articles by Dirk Christiaan Hesseling.</u> Introduction by Pieter Muysken and Guus Meijer. (Linguistica Extranea. Studia, 4.) Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Mentzel, O. F. 1785-87 [1921-44]. *A Geographical and Topographical Description of the Cape of Good Hope*. Ed. by H. J. Mandelbrote. (Van Riebeeck Society, 4, 6, 25.) Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.

Meshtrie, Rajend. 1992. *English in Language Shift: The History, Structure, and Sociolinguistics of South African Indian English*. Cape Town: Cape Town University Press.

Mossop, E. E. (ed.). 1935. *The Journals of Wikar, Coetsé and Van Reenen*. (Van Riebeeck Society, 15.) Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1974. *Pidginization and Simplification of Language*. (Pacific Linguistics, B/26.). Canberra: Australian National University.

------. 1986. *Pidgin and Creole Linguistics*. (Language in Society, 11.) Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.

Muysken, Pieter (ed.) 1978. *Amsterdam Creole Studies II*. (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, 20.) Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Nienaber, G. S. 1934. *Oor die Afrikaanse taal*. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

------. 1949-53. *Oor Afrikaans*. 2 vols. Johannesburg: Afrikaanse Pers.

------. 1950. *Taalkundige belangstelling in Afrikaans tot 1900*. Johannesburg: Afrikaanse Pers-Boekhandel.

------. 1955. 'Iets naders oor die ontkenning in Afrikaans', *Hertzog-Annale* 2: 29-45.
------. 1963. *Hottentots*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.

------. 1994. 'Die ontstaan van Khoekhoe Afrikaans', in Olivier and Coetzee (eds.), 139-52.

Olivier, Gerrit and Anna Coetzee (eds.). 1994. *Nuwe perspektiewe op die geskiedenis van Afrikaans opgedra aan Edith H. Raidt*. Johannesburg: Southern Books.

Paardekooper, P. C. 1990. 'Een voegwoordraadsel: *Lat 'dat''*. *Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde* 8: 174-77.

Pauwels, J. L. H. 1958. *Het dialect van Aarschot en omstreken*. Brussels: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.

Pheiffer, R. H. 1980. *Die gebroke Nederlands van Franssprekendes aan die Kaap in die eerste helfte van die aqtiende eeu*. Cape Town, Pretoria, and Johannesburg: Academica.

Platt, J. T. 1975. 'The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect "Singlesh" as a "creoloid", *Anthropological Linguistics* 17: 363-74.

Polomé, Edgar. 1983. 'Creolization and language change', in Woolford and Washabaugh (eds.), 126-36.

Ponelis, F. A. 1987. 'Uit die geskiedenis van die Afrikaanse betreklike konstruksie', (*Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Taalkunde*, geleentheidsuitgawe, 5.) Linguistic Society of Southern Africa.

------. 1988. 'Afrikaans en taalversteuring', in *Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe* 28: 119-49.
------. 1991. *Historiese klankleer van Afrikaans*. (Universiteit van Stellenbosch. Annale, 1990/1.) Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

------. 1992. 'Die ontwikkeling van die possessief in Afrikaans', in H. Bennis and J. W. de Vries (eds.), *De binnen-bouw van het Nederlands. Een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper*. Dordrecht: ICG Publications, 273-90.

------. 1993. *The Development of Afrikaans*. (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, 18.) Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

Pütz, Martin and René Dirven (eds.). 1989. *Wheels within Wheels: Papers of the Duisburg Symposium on Pidgin and Creole Languages*. (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, 5.) Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

Rademeyer, J. H. 1938. *Kleurling-Afrikaans: Die taal van die Griekwas en Rehoboth-Basters*. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Raidt, Edith H. 1974. 'Nederlandse en Kaapse spreektaal in die 17de en 18de eeu', in F. F. Odendal (ed.), *Taalkunde--'n lewe. Studies opgedra aan W. Kempen*. Cape Town: Tafelberg, 90-104.

------. 1975. 'Nuwe aktualiteit van 'n ou polemiek', in *Afrikaans--Dit is ons erns*. Pretoria: Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, 39-54.
------. 1976a. 'Die herkoms van objekskonstruksies met vir', in *1875-1975; Studies oor die Afrikaanse taal*. Johannesburg: Perskor, 72-101.

------. 1976b. 'Linguistische und soziologische Faktoren im Sprachwandel des Afrikaans im 18. Jahrhundert', in Leonard Forster and Hans-Gert Roloff (eds.), *Akten des V. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses*. (= *Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik*, A/2.) Bern: Herbert Lang, 2.2: 155-64.

------. 1977. 'Afrikaans and "Malayo-Portuguese": Light and Shadow', *African Studies* 36: 70-78.

------. 1978. 'Enkele aspekte van taalverandering', in H. Snyman (ed.), *Uit vier windstreke. Studies opgedra aan prof. dr. Meyer de Villiers*. Cape Town: Nasou, 104-19.

------. 1980. 'Die Reduplikation im Afrikaans', in Heinz Rupp and Hans-Gert Roloff (eds.), *Akten des VI. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Basel 1980*. (= *Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik*, A/8.) Bern, Frankfurt a.M., and Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 2: 494-501.

------. 1981. 'Oor die herkoms van die Afrikaanse reduplikasie', in A. J. Coetzee (ed.), *Hulsels van Kristal: Bundel aan-gebied aan Ernst van Heerden*. Cape Town: Tafelberg, 178-89.

------. 1983. *Einführung in Geschichte und Struktur des Afrikaans*. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

------. 1984a. 'Interne ontwikkeling van Afrikaans', in T. J. R. Botha (ed.), *Inleiding tot die Afrikaanse taalkunde*. Pretoria and Cape Town: Academica, 52-82.
------. 1984b. 'Vrouetaal en taalverandering', *Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe* 24: 256-86.

------. 1991. *Afrikaans en sy Europese verlede*. 3rd ed. Cape Town: Nasou.

Reinecke, John E. 1937. 'Marginal languages'. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

Reinecke, John E., Stanley M. Tsuzaki, David DeCamp, Ian F. Hancock, and Richard E. Wood. 1975. *A Bibliography of Pidgin and Creole Languages* (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, 14.) Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Roberge, Paul T. 1985. 'Grammatical prerequisites to phonological change?', *Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik* 52: 188-217.

------. 1986. 'What's happening in Afrikaans historical linguistics'? [review article of Raidt 1983], *Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik* 53: 194-202.

------. 1987. 'Phonomorphological indeterminacy', in Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and John Rennison (eds.), *Phonologica 1984*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 267-72.

------. 1990. 'The ideological profile of Afrikaans historical linguistics', in John E. Joseph and Talbot J. Taylor (eds.), *Ideologies of Language*. London and New York: Routledge, 131-49.
--------. 1991. 'Etymological opacity, hybridization, and the Afrikaans double negation'. Paper presented to the Tenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Free University of Amsterdam, 12-16 August 1991.

--------. 1992. On the origin of the Afrikaans demonstrative pronouns *hierdie* and *daardie*. Paper presented to the Berkeley-Michigan Germanic Linguistics Roundtable, University of California at Berkeley, 10-11 April 1992.

--------. 1993. On the origins of the Afrikaans verbal hendiads. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Amsterdam, 10-12 June 1993.

--------. 1994. 'On detecting a prior linguistic continuum in Cape Dutch', in Olivier and Coetzee (eds.), 153-65.

Romaine, Suzanne. 1988. *Pidgin and Creole Languages*. London and New York: Longman.

Ross, Robert. 1976. *Adam Kok's Griquas: A Study in the Development of Stratification in South Africa*. (African Studies Series, 21.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sankoff, Gillian. 1979. 'The genesis of a language', in Hill (ed.), 23-47.

Scholtz. J. du Plessis. 1963. *Taalhistoriese opstelle*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.

--------. 1965. *Afrikaans uit die vroeë tvd*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.
------. 1972. *Afrikaans-Hollands in die aqtiende eeu*. Cape Town: Nasou.

------. 1980. *Wording en ontwikkeling van Afrikaans*. Cape Town: Tafelberg.

Schonken, F. T. 1914. *De oorsprong der Kaapsch-Hollandsche volksoverleveringen*. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Siegel, Jeff. 1985. 'Koines and koineization', *Language and Society* 14: 357-78.

Slomanson, Peter. 1993. 'On a problem in the grammar of Orange River Afrikaans'. Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Amsterdam, 10-12 June 1993.

Smith J. J. 1927. 'The evolution and recognition of the Afrikaans language', in *Official Year Book of the Union* 8 (1925): 14-23.

------. 1952. 'Theories about the origin of Afrikaans'. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Smuts, J. 1969. *Vroeë Afrikaans*. (Afrikaanse taalmonografie, 4). Cape Town: Nasou.

Teenstra, M. D. 1830 [1943]. *De vruchten mijner werkzaamheden*. Ed. by F. C. L. Bosman. (Van Riebeeck Society, 24.) Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.

ten Rhyne, Willem. 1673 [1933]. *Schediasma de Promontorio Bonae Spei*. in I. Schapera and B. Farrington (eds.), *The Early Cape Hottentots*. (Van Riebeeck Society, 14.) Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.
Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. *Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics*. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Trudgill, Peter. 1978. 'Creolization in reverse', *Transactions of the Philological Society*, 1976-77: 32-50.

Valkhoff, Marius F. 1966. *Studies in Portuguese and Creole. With Special Reference to South Africa*. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

--------. 1971. 'A descriptive bibliography of the linguistics of Afrikaans', in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), *Current Trends in Linguistics*. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 7: 455-500.

--------. 1972. *New Light on Afrikaans and "Malayo-Portuguese."* Louvain: Éditions Peeters Imprimerie Orientaliste.

van der Merwe, Elda. 1993. 'Orange River Afrikaans: Post-creole or not?' Paper presented to the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference, University of Amsterdam, 10-12 June 1993.

van der Merwe, H. J. J. M. 1963. 'Die ontstaan van Afrikaans', in H. J. J. M. van der Merwe (ed.), *Inleiding tot die taalkunde*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik, 67-88.

--------. 1964. 'Ontstaansteorieë oor Afrikaans', in H. J. J. M. van der Merwe (ed.), *Studierigtings in die taalkunde*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik, 135-55.

--------. 1966. 'Afrikaans 'n basterkind van Hollands-Kreools-Portugese fornikasie aan die Kaap!?', *Tydskrif vir Geestes-wetenskappe* 6: 377-94.
-------. 1968. Die ontstaan van Afrikaans. In H. J. J. M. van der Merwe (ed.) *Afrikaans--sy aard en ontwikkeling*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik, 15-66.

-------. 1970. *Herkoms, en ontwikkeling van Afrikaans*. Johannesburg: Afrikaanse Pers.

van Ginneken, J. J. A. 1913. *Handboek der Nederlandsche taal*. Nijmegen: Malmberg.

van Marle, Jaap. 1978. 'A case of affix generalization in Afrikaans', in Muysken (ed.), 57-67.

van Rensburg, M. C. J. 1983. 'Nie-standaardvorme, variasiepa-trone en Afrikaans uit die vorige eeu', in G. N. Claassen and M. C. J. van Rensburg (eds.), *Taalverskeidenheid. 'n Blik op die spektrum van taalvariasie in Afrikaans*, Pretoria, Cape Town, and Johannesburg: Academica, 134-61.

-------. 1984. 'Oranjerivier-Afrikaans', in Van Rensburg (ed.) 1 (2): 513-18.

-------. 1985. 'Taalverskeidenheid, taalversteuring en Afrikaans', in H. J. Lubbe (ed.), *Fokus op die taalkunde*. (= *Acta Academica*, Nuwe Reeks B.) Bloemfontein: University of the Orange Free State, 123-66.

-------. 1989. 'Orange River Afrikaans: A stage in the pidgin/creole cycle', in Pütz and Dirven (eds.), 135-51.

-------. 1994. 'Die ontstaan van Afrikaans in 'n intertaal konteks', in Olivier and Coetzee (eds.), 166-79.

van Rensburg, M. C. J. (project director). 1984. 'Die Afrikaans van die Griekwas van die tagtigerjare'. Bloemfontein: Uni-
versity of the Orange Free State.

van Rensburg, M. C. J. (project director). 1987. 'Finale verslag van die groter navorsingsprojek: Gesproke Afrikaans: Die Afrikaans van die Richtersveld'. Bloemfontein: University of the Orange Free State.

Washabaugh, William and Sidney M. Greenfield. 1983. 'The development of Atlantic creole languages', in Woolford and Washabaugh (eds.), 106-19.

Webb, V. N. 1993. 'Die herkoms van Oranjerivierafrikaans', in *Linguistica. Festschrift E. B. van Wyk*. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik [in press].

Whinnom, Keith. 1971. 'Linguistic hybridization and the "special case" of pidgins and creoles', in Hymes (ed.), 91-115.

Wittmann, Johannes. 1928. 'Die sprachgeschichtliche Entwicklung des Deflexionstypus in Afrikaans'. (Diss. Bonn.) Bonn: L. Neuendorff.

Woolford, Ellen. 1983. 'The social context of creolization', in Woolford and Washabaugh (eds.), 1-9.

Woolford, Ellen and William Washabaugh (eds.). 1983. *The Social Context of Creolization*. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

Zimmer, Stefan. 1992. 'On language genesis: The case of Afrikaans', in *Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé*. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph no. 9.) McLean, VA: Society of Man, 2: 347-59.
CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS ISSUES OF SPIL PLUS

SPIL PLUS 1 (1980)

Jeanne Maartens 1-78
Nuwe ontwikkelings binne Chomsky se teorie van kerngrammatika

SPIL PLUS 2 (1980)

Alta Oosthuizen 1-217
Leksikale basiskategorieë. Probleme vir die "working grammarian"

SPIL PLUS 3 (1980)

Jeanne Maartens 1-91
Afrikaanse Sintaksis: 'n evaluering

SPIL PLUS 4 (1981)

Walter Winckler 1-166
Aspekte van die taksonomiese taalkunde

SPIL PLUS 5 (1981)

FONOLOGIE, SEMANTIEK, TAALPOLITIEK: DRIE BESPREKINGS

R.P. Botha 1-6
Oor vrye kritiese meningswisseling en die skete van peripatete

J. Roux 7-43
Praktiese fonetiek vir taalstudente ..... : 'n Evaluering

C. le Roux en M. Sinclair 44-92
'n Kritiese beskouing van Inleiding tot die Semantiek

R.H. Pheiffer 93-105
Bedenkinge oor die politieke kader van Tuiste in eie taal

SPIL PLUS 6 (1982)

REPLIEK EN KRITIEK

J.C. Steyn 1-32
Bedenklike Bedenkinge: Pheiffer se Taalpolitiek

D.P. Wissing 33-39
Fonetiek vir Eerstejaars: 'n kort waardering

SPIL PLUS 7 (1982)

CHOMSKY IN DIE JARE TAGTIG

R.P. Botha 1-47
'n Roete deur die wêreld van Chomsky

W.K. Winckler 49-94
Rules and Representations: Lees maar ... Daar staan wel wat daar staan
## SPIL PLUS 8 (1983)

### TAALWETENSKAP EN DIE STUDIE VAN LITERATUUR

Rudolf P. Botha
Wat kan Taalwetenskap die student van literatuur bied?
1-24

Arnold Blumer
Basiskonsepte vir die doseer van taal en literatuur in die konteks van 'n vreemde kultuur
25-30

Wilhelm Liebenberg
Die rol van die Taalwetenskap in die ontwikkeling van die Literatuurwetenskap
31-43

Henning Snyman
Implikasie as taalverskynsel
44-51

Johan C. Thom en Pieter G.R. de Villiers
Die relevansie van 'n linguistiese benadering tot die analise van klassieke tekste
52-61

## SPIL PLUS 9 (1984)

Hester Waher
Chomsky se teorie van 'government-binding'
1-187

## SPIL PLUS 10 (1985)

### AFDELING I
ALGEMENE PERSPEKTIEWE OP DIE NORMERING VAN TAALGEBRUIK

D.D. Joubert
'n Sosiologiese konsepsie van norme
1-12

J.C. Steyn
Algemene aspekte van taalnormering
13-69

V.N. Webb
Taalnorme en Afrikaans. 'n Geval van twyfel en vertwyfeling?
70-108

W.K. Winckler
Oor die taalwetenskaplike gronde van taalgebruiksnorme: "important" of "importantly"?
108-122

R.P. Botha en M. Sinclair
Die negende gebod in taalgebruik
123-146

### AFDELING II
PERSPEKTIEWE OP DIE PRAKTYK VAN DIE NORMERING VAN AFRIKAANS

E. Raidt
Historiese perspektief op die normering van Afrikaans
147-168

L.C. Eksteen
Die rol van die Akademie in die standaardisering van die Afrikaanse spelling
169-200

D.C. Hauptfleisch
Taalnormering en woordeboeke: 'n Praktykgerigte perspektief
201-237
T.J.R. Botha
Normering in die Afrikaanse Radio- en Televisiediens
238-268

J. Picard
Die normering van Afrikaanse vakterminologie
269-291

J.S. Schutte
Die taalpraktisyn as kruispunt
292-320

D.W. le Roux
Die Staatstaaldiens: Funksies en invloed ten opsigte van die normering van taalgebruik
321-327

G. Kroes
Die doeltreffendheid van die Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls as handleiding en naslaanbron by die onderrig van Afrikaans op tersière vlak
328-344

J.P. Botha
Die normering van Afrikaanse taalgebruik soos beoefen in die skool en die universiteit
345-365

J.M. Marais
Taalnormering in die skool: 'n onderwyser se perspektief
366-371

J. Esterhuyse
Die dominasie van die Afrikaner-lewensbeskouing binne die Afrikaanse spraakgemeenskap, soos gemanifesteer in taalhandboeke vir hoërskole
372-391

L.R. Heiberg
Taaldokters
392-416

A. Gardiner
Die Afrikaanse taaldokter en die Hippokratiese eed: implikasies vir die taalgebruiker
417-452

H. Snyman
Norme by literêre taalgebruik
453-463

C.J. Conradie
Die normering van Afrikaanse Bybeltaal
464-487

## AFDELING III
### PERSPEKTIEWE OP DIE NORMERING VAN ANDER TALE

E. Loubser
Normering op die Nederlandse taalgebied
489-496

E. Ridge
Norms in British and South African English
497-512

S. Skorge
Norme en normkritiek ten opsigte van die Duitse taal: 'n kort oorsig
513-553

P. Brink
Taalnormering in Frankryk
554-572
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>J.M. Lenake & C.F. Swanepoel<br>Historiese aspekte van normering in Suid-Sotho</td>
      <td>573-590</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>A. Wilkes<br>Taalgebruiksnormering in die Suid-Afrikaanse Bantoetale</td>
      <td>591-604</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 11 (1987)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rudolf P. Botha<br>The generative garden game: challenging Chomsky at conceptual combat</td>
      <td>1-283</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 12 (1989)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Jan B. Bedaux<br>The portraits of Simon van der Stel, first governor of the Cape</td>
      <td>1-18</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 13 (1989)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>C. le Roux<br>On the interface of morphology and syntax</td>
      <td>1-417</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 14 (1989)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rudolf P. Botha<br>The Metaphysics Market. 1 Merchandizing language as matter</td>
      <td>1-52</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 15 (1989)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rudolf P. Botha<br>The Metaphysics Market. 2 Billing language as behavioural</td>
      <td>1-76</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 16 (1991)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Hester Waher<br>Oor grense, kettings, en lisensies. 'n Sleutel tot Chomsky se teorie van grammatika</td>
      <td>1-105</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 17 (1991)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rudolf P. Botha<br>The Metaphysics Market. 3 Selling language as soul</td>
      <td>1-105</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 18</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>M. Sinclair and W.K. Winckler<br>Relevance Theory. Explaining verbal communication</td>
      <td>1-97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 19 (1991)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rudolf P. Botha<br>The Metaphysics Market. 4 Pushing language as Platonic (not to mention Popperian)</td>
      <td>1-80</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2"><b>SPIL PLUS 20 (1991)</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rudolf P. Botha<br>The Metaphysics Market. 5 Stocking language as something social</td>
      <td>1-68</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
SPIL PLUS 21 (1992)

TAALWETENSKAP VIR DIE TAALPROFESSIES 1: DEEL A
LINGUISTICS FOR THE LANGUAGE PROFESSIONS 1: PART A

<table><tr><td>R.P. Botha<br>Charting the anatomy of linguistic reality</td><td>1-30</td></tr><tr><td>Johann L. van der Walt<br>Linguistics and second language teaching: An assessment</td><td>31-43</td></tr><tr><td>Gary P. Barkhuizen<br>What we want from linguistics: A plea from high school<br>English teachers</td><td>44-58</td></tr><tr><td>Elizabeth de Kadt<br>Contrastive analysis, pragmatics and language teachers?</td><td>59-76</td></tr><tr><td>Vivian de Klerk<br>Why language teachers need linguistics</td><td>77-94</td></tr><tr><td>Elaine Ridge<br>Communicative language teaching: Time for review?</td><td>95-108</td></tr><tr><td>M.S. Odendaal<br>Error correction in a communicative language teaching framework</td><td>109-128</td></tr><tr><td>Peter Southey<br>Fossilization in English second language medium</td><td>129-139</td></tr><tr><td>H.W. Broekman<br>Circular interaction between linguistic departments and language<br>departments</td><td>140-158</td></tr><tr><td>Marianna Visser<br>Theoretical syntax in second language acquisition research and in<br>second language classroom research</td><td>159-185</td></tr><tr><td>M. Viljoen<br>Wat is dit wat ons met behulp van 'n taaltoets evalueer?</td><td>186-217</td></tr><tr><td>Norah Haussmann<br>What exactly are we testing when we claim to be testing mother-<br>tongue communicative competence?</td><td>218-232</td></tr><tr><td>J. de Vynck<br>Taalgebruik en taalbeheersing: twee Franse modelle</td><td>233-255</td></tr><tr><td>J. Keith Chick<br>A role for linguistics in addressing contextual issues relevant to<br>second language teaching</td><td>256-277</td></tr><tr><td>Christine Anthonissen<br>The relevance of speech act theory for research on the acquisition<br>of pragmatic competence by second language learners</td><td>278-295</td></tr><tr><td>Cecile le Roux<br>The problem of ethnocentric bias in speech act studies: Implications<br>for language teaching</td><td>296-323</td></tr></table>
Kay Mc Cormick 324-337
Sociolinguistics and first language teaching

Jeanne Maartens 338-359
The disadvantaged non-mother-tongue speaker as university student of Afrikaans: Possible solutions to the language lecturer's dilemma

Rosemary Granger 360-374
The problem of non-standard utterances used by speakers of English as a second language at tertiary level

Margaret Inglis 375-388
The interrelationship of proficiency in a second language and understanding of scientific concepts

Ninon Roets 389-399
Insette uit die toegepaste linguistiek vir 'n kursus vir akademiese doeleindes

E. Hilton Hubbard 400-410
Linguistics as a subversive activity: Exploding myths and misconceptions in the language classroom

H. Menkveld 411-437
Die problematiek rondom die onderrig van Afrikaans (T1)

Hildegard van Zweel 438-452
Factors influencing the transition from orality to literacy

Myrtle Hooper 453-461
The rhetorics of audience consciousness: A dialogic approach to reading Donne in Zululand

Lydia McDermott 462-479
Literary analysis and exposition: The second language reader-writer

## SPIL PLUS 22 (1992)

### TAALWETENSKAP VIR DIE TAALPROFESSIONS 1: DEEL B
LINGUISTICS FOR THE LANGUAGE PROFESSIONS 1: PART B

### LITERÈRE KRITIEK EN ANALISE / LITERARY CRITICISM AND ANALYSIS

Henning H.J. Snyman 3-16
Paradigma en parodie

Ina Gräbe 17-38
Linguistiese ondersoek en gediganalise: noodwendige verstrengeling of marginale oorvleueling?

J.T. von Gruenewaldt 39-60
The relevance of linguistic theories in the analysis of literary texts

### VERTICALING EN TEKSWETENSKAP / TRANSLATION AND TEXT
LINGUISTICS

Melinda Sinclair 61-90
The effects of context on utterance interpretation: Some questions and some answers
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Ferdinand Deist<br>Bible translation and relevance theory</td>
      <td>91-110</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Gerrie Snyman<br>The theologian's search for "Meaning": Restraint or liberation of the creative spirit?</td>
      <td>111-123</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>C. van Schalkwyk<br>Vertaling - 'n diskursiewe doenigheid</td>
      <td>124-133</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>G. Kroes<br>Die inhoud en plek van norme in die vertaalpraktyk, vertaalkunde, vertaalkritiek en die vertaalwetenskap</td>
      <td>134-156</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>J. du T. McLachlan<br>Terug na Trap der Jeugd: 'n praktykbeskouing van die resultaat van taalopleiding</td>
      <td>157-174</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Anna-Marie Beukes<br>Die vertaalberoep en taalbeplanning</td>
      <td>175-191</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Walter K. Winckler<br>Missing Matthew's meaning. Or: Towards a nodding acquaintance with 'Textual Meaning' (and, maybe, with 'Context' too)</td>
      <td>192-224</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Judith A. Campbell<br>Semantic representation and the translation of poetry</td>
      <td>225-238</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>M.E. Nelson<br>Perspektiewe uit die tekswetenskap op die vertaling van eiename in 'n kinderboek</td>
      <td>239-259</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Alet Kruger<br>Die beredeneerde betoog in die afstandonderrig van vertalers</td>
      <td>260-272</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">LEKSIKOGRAFIE / LEXICOGRAPHY</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Piet Swanepoel<br>Leksikografie en linguistiek</td>
      <td>273-294</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>F.J. Lombard<br>Leksikograaf, woordeboekgebruiker en taalwetenskaplike: 'n kongruente of inkongruente drichock?</td>
      <td>295-311</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>John R. Taylor<br>How many meanings does a word have?</td>
      <td>312-347</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>A.E. van Niekerk<br>Betekenis en gebruik in 'n omvattende woordeboek</td>
      <td>348-357</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Maria Smit<br>Translating culture-bound words: A problem in bilingual lexicography</td>
      <td>358-370</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Ernst F. Kotzé<br>Die probleem van grammatikale ekwivalensie by 'n vertalende aanleerderswoordeboek</td>
      <td>371-384</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Klaus Menck
Die woordeboek as hulpmiddel - en nie as struikelblok - in
vreemdetaalonderrig
385-406

SPRAAKTERAPIE / SPEECH THERAPY

E. Alant
Die tersaaklikheid van taalwetenskap vir spraakheelkunde
407-416

Jenny Pahl
Speech-language therapy with Zulu clients: Implications for
linguistics
417-438

INLIGTINGKUNDE / INFORMATION SCIENCE

L.G. de Stadler and M.W. Coetzer
A morphological parser for Afrikaans
439-448

TAALBEPLANNING / LANGUAGE PLANNING

C.S. Johl
Die relevansie van linguistiek en literatuurwetenskap in 'n
post-apartheidgemeenskap
449-466

David Brown
Sociolinguistic practice and political change: Critical appraisal
of the language atlas of South Africa
467-471

Walter McKay
Marginal limitations: Report from a vanishing empire
472-484

V. Prabhakaran
The political situation as a factor in shift and maintenance of the
Telugu language in South Africa
485-499
THE SPIL LOGO

The logo on the front cover depicts Simon van der Stel, Dutch governor of the Cape of Good Hope from 1679 to 1699, and the founder of Stellenbosch. We have chosen to portray Van der Stel in our logo for reasons of symbolism that relate to his historical significance, his intellectual qualities, and his creole descent. Simon van der Stel was the man who, in founding the town of Stellenbosch, took a deliberate initiative towards establishing the permanency of the young Dutch settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. He has been portrayed as a man endowed with special intellectual qualities, who set great store by clear, factual thinking --- a quality which we value. His creoleness, to us, is symbolic both of the melting-pot from which emerged the South Africa of the 18th century and of the kind of future that we envisage: a future unmarred by the racist divisions that plagued our country in the past. Our commitment to a future free of apartheid, as well as our reasons for portraying Simon van der Stel in the SPIL logo, are stated more fully in SPIL 17 of 1988.