Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 May 2025 | Story Dr Francois Smith | Photo Supplied
Francois Smith
Dr Francois Smith, Head of Department: Afrikaans and Dutch; German and French, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Dr Francois Smith, Head of Department: Afrikaans and Dutch; German and French, University of the Free State 




On 8 May 1925, the writer CJ Langenhoven introduced a bill in the parliament of the then Union of South Africa that led to Afrikaans being recognised as one of the country’s official languages, alongside English. It is this historic moment that marks the centenary being celebrated today. However, the language itself predates its official status by centuries. The roots of Afrikaans can be traced back to the 1500s, during the first interactions between European sailors and the indigenous Khoi-Khoi people. What makes the origin of Afrikaans particularly significant is that it developed on African soil, shaped by the contact and exchange between European colonists, enslaved people brought from Africa and Asia, and the local Khoi population. Afrikaans is, therefore, a uniquely South African creation – a rich tapestry of diverse influences. It is this diversity, this cultural and linguistic fusion, that is truly worth celebrating.

It is evident that Afrikaans did not begin as a fully developed written language. Some of the earliest recorded instances of written Afrikaans date back to the 1830s, when Muslim imams used Arabic script to communicate with their pupils in Afrikaans in religious schools. A more formal effort to establish Afrikaans as a written language emerged in 1875 with the founding of the Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners (Society for Real Afrikaners), which played a pivotal role in standardising and promoting written Afrikaans.

 

The Dutch language

During the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), the two Boer republics – the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek and the Orange Free State – were defeated by the British Empire. In the aftermath of this conflict, efforts were made to unite the two British colonies, the Cape Colony and Natal, with the former Boer republics into a single political entity. This led to the National Convention, where representatives negotiated the constitution for what would become the Union of South Africa. Given the dominant position of Britain, the prevailing influence of English-speaking authorities in the Cape and Natal, and the Anglophile stance of many British leaders, it would have been reasonable to expect the new Union to adopt English as its sole official language. However, due to the tireless advocacy of figures such as former President MT Steyn and General JBM Hertzog, the resulting South Africa Act of 1909 – passed by the British Parliament – stipulated that ‘the Dutch language’ would share official status with English in the Union. This was a significant victory for the preservation of Dutch (and later, Afrikaans) in the political and administrative life of the country.

The ‘Dutch’ used in South Africa at the time, particularly among ordinary people, was far from uniform and bore little resemblance to the Standard Dutch of the Netherlands. Very few South Africans were proficient in writing formal Dutch. Meanwhile, Afrikaans had only just begun the process of standardisation in the years following the formation of the Union. In many cases – especially in written contexts – the language appeared as a hybrid of spoken Afrikaans and formal Dutch, or what was loosely referred to as ‘Hollands’. Recognising this linguistic shift, figures such as CJ Langenhoven began advocating for Afrikaans to be recognised as a full-fledged language, particularly as a standardised orthography began to take shape. Langenhoven and his contemporaries likely understood that the continued use of Standard Dutch in South Africa was untenable. Thanks to their dedication, a joint session of the Volksraad and the Senate was held on 8 May 1925, during which Act No. 8 of 1925 was passed. This legislation clarified that the term ‘Hollands’, as used in South African legal and governmental contexts, also encompassed Afrikaans – marking a pivotal moment in the formal recognition of the language.

A necessary consequence of the 1925 legislation was that Afrikaans, now recognised as an official language, had to rapidly develop in areas such as orthography, terminology, and grammatical consistency. Subsequent constitutions – specifically those of 1961 and 1983 – further entrenched the status of Afrikaans by extending the use of both official languages to the provincial level. Because Afrikaans was now required to operate on equal footing with a global language such as English across all spheres of government, the development of a standardised variety became essential. This standard form enabled the state not only to fulfil its constitutional obligations but also to communicate effectively with a significant portion of the population.

 

Most South Africans not first-language English speakers

Today, South Africa officially recognises twelve languages, following the recent addition of South African Sign Language. While earlier constitutions explicitly outlined the functions and domains of the official languages, the 1996 Constitution is notably more open-ended. It mandates that the state must take "practical and effective measures" to elevate the status and promote the use of all official languages, and that they must be treated equitably and enjoy equal status. However, these provisions are vague and lack clear implementation guidelines or enforceable obligations. Unlike earlier frameworks that prescribed specific uses and provided mechanisms for accountability, the current constitutional language leaves much to interpretation. As a result, and in the absence of meaningful incentives or enforcement, English has become the de facto sole language of government, undermining the ideal of multilingualism and linguistic fairness envisioned in the Constitution.

The reality that most South Africans are not first-language English speakers means that a significant portion of the population has limited access to essential information, which in turn restricts their ability to fully participate in the country’s economic, educational, and social opportunities. This linguistic barrier perpetuates inequality and undermines the goals of inclusive development. One of the pressing challenges facing the current government is, therefore, strikingly similar to that which confronted the Union government a century ago with respect to Afrikaans: the need to actively develop all of South Africa’s official languages. Only through dedicated investment in their growth and functional application can these languages truly operate as instruments of democracy, equality, and social justice.

The development of human potential and the advancement of science and technology are among the foremost priorities of the current South African government. However, these goals are unattainable without language – spoken or written – as the foundation for communication. More specifically, the absence of well-developed scientific languages renders scientific and technical communication ineffective. This reality places increasing demands on South Africa’s official languages, requiring the creation and maintenance of robust, multilingual terminology across a wide range of disciplines. Ensuring that all languages are equipped to handle specialised knowledge is essential for equitable access to education, innovation, and national development.

Due to the dominance of English, South Africa’s other official languages face significant challenges in developing technical vocabulary and keeping pace with the demands of a rapidly evolving modern world. One notable achievement in Afrikaans is the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (WAT), a comprehensive dictionary project that began in 1926 and, despite minimal state support, continues to progress toward its final volume, expected in 2028. This kind of initiative should serve as a model for all of South Africa’s official languages. Scientific and technological knowledge must be made accessible in every language, ensuring they are equipped to function effectively across all levels of society. When a language loses functional domains, its practical value diminishes, its cultural sphere contracts, and its speakers are more likely to shift towards a language perceived as more useful.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept