Oranjerivierafrikaans, ʼn Argeologiese Genealogie. Deel I. 1595-1916
Abstract
Dié eerste deel van ʼn vierdelige artikelreeks ondersoek die geskiedenis van die sosiolinguistiek relatief tot Oranjerivierafrikaans, een van die drie hoofdialekkontinuums van Afrikaans, van die periode 1595 tot 1916. Begrond in die linguistiese geskiedskrywing in die breë, en Michel Foucault se argeologiese en genealogiese oriënterings in die besonder, skets die artikeldeel hoe die intellektuele geskiedenis van Oranjerivierafrikaans in die “voortyd” van 1595-1843, en die meer formele Europeestalige sosiolinguisties georiënteerde studies van die tydperk 1844-1916 – dit wil sê die tydperk van die sosiolinguistiek oor Afrikaans, maar nie in Afrikaans nie – daar uitgesien het. Die optekenings van reisigers en dagboekskrywers, insluitende Willem ten Rhyne, Peter Kolbe, Otto Mentzel, John Barrow en Hinrich Lichtenstein, asook meer professionele taalkundiges, insluitende Antoine Changuion, Wilhelm Bleek, Thomas le Roux, Jac van Ginneken, en Theophilus Hahn, word bespreek. Ter afsluiting van die artikeldeel word die oorgangstydsgees van die eerste en tweede taalbewegings in verhouding tot die bewussyn oor Afrikaans vermeld. Hierdeur daag die artikelreeks vier sentrale veronderstellings oor die taalvorm uit, naamlik dat daar ʼn gebrek aan bronne oor die taalvorm is, dat dit redelik “onsigbaar” is, dat dit as ʼn Swart Afrikaanse taalvorm getipeer kan word, en dat Kaapse Afrikaans, eerder as Oranjerivierafrikaans, as die “oudste” vorm van Afrikaans beskou moet word. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This first part of a four-part article series investigates the history of sociolinguistics relative to Orange River Afrikaans, one of Afrikaans’s three main dialect continuas, from the period 1595 to 1916. Grounded in linguistic historiography broadly construed, and Michel Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical orientations specifically, this part of the article sketches how the intellectual history of Orange River Afrikaans in the period 1595-1916 figured through two Zeitgeists – the ‘pre-time’ of 1595-1843, and the more professional European-language sociolinguistic orientated studies of the period 1844-1916. This constitutes the period of sociolinguistics about Afrikaans, but not in Afrikaans. The writings of travellers and journal keepers, including Willem ten Rhyne, Peter Kolbe, Otto Mentzel, John Barrow and Hinrich Lichtenstein, and more professional linguists, including Antoine Changuion, Wilhelm Bleek, Thomas le Roux, Jac van Ginneken, and Theophilus Hahn, are discussed. In conclusion to this part of the article series, mention is made of the transitionary period of the first and second language movements relative to the consciousness around Afrikaans. Through this, the article series challenges four central and dominant presuppositions on Orange River Afrikaans, namely that there are limited sources available relative to it, that it constitutes an ‘invisible’ language form, that it can be typified as an expression of Black Afrikaans, and that Kaaps (Cape Afrikaans), rather than Orange River Afrikaans, should be regarded as the ‘oldest’ form of Afrikaans.Downloads
Copyright (c) 2024 Luan Staphorst
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).