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

IRSJ marks five years of championing social justice
2016-08-12

Description: IRSJ 5 year Tags: IRSJ 5 year

Members of the Advisory Board of the IRSJ,
Prof Michalinos Zembylas (Open University
of Cyprus), Prof Shirley Anne Tate (Leeds
University, England), and Prof Relebohile
Moletsane (University of KwaZulu-Natal),
listen to a speaker on the programme.
Photo: Lihlumelo Toyana

The Institute for Reconciliation and Social Justice (IRSJ) marked its fifth anniversary with a function on 27 July 2016 in the Reitz Hall of the Centenary Complex on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). Earlier that day, the Advisory Board of the IRSJ, chaired by Prof Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the UFS, hosted their annual meeting.

A new book was also launched, co-authored by JC van der Merwe, Deputy-Director at the IRSJ and Dionne van Reenen, researcher and PhD candidate at the IRSJ. It is entitled Transformation and Legitimation in Post-apartheid Universities: Reading Discourses from ‘Reitz’. The function featured not only reflections on the IRSJ, but a four-member panel discussion of the book and higher education in 2016.

The IRSJ came into being officially at the UFS in January 2011. Prof André Keet, Director of the IRSJ, said: “With a flexibility and trust not easily found in the higher education sector, the university management gave us the latitude and support to fashion an outfit that responds to social life within and outside the borders of the university, locally and globally.”

The IRSJ has not hesitated to be bold and
courageous in reforming ... traditional policies."

 

Prof Jansen went on to mention three things he finds appealing about the IRSJ: “Thanks to Prof Keet and his team’s vision and understanding of how important it is for students to have a space in which they can learn how to be, learn how to think, and learn how to contribute, the IRSJ has become a place where students can learn about things that they might not learn in the classroom. Second, it created, for the first time, a space where members of the LGBTIQ community could gather in one place. And third, it speaks to the intellectual life of the university, as evidenced by the research and publications produced over the past few years.”

Prof Jansen added: “The IRSJ will only be successful to the extent that we have safe spaces, courageous spaces, in which not only black students talk to themselves, but where black and white students talk together about their difficulties. If you’re entangled, you can’t get out of [that] unless you speak to the other person.”

Read More

Prof Michalinos Zembylas of the Open University of Cyprus and member of the Advisory Board, said of the IRSJ: “The works produced by the institute in this short time have been valuable to this community and beyond, because they recognise the complexities of education, ... while pushing the boundaries of how to translate theoretical discussions into practical, everyday conditions. ... For example, the IRSJ has not hesitated to be bold and courageous in reforming some traditional policies in this university—remnants of an ambivalent past that reproduced inequality and disadvantage.

In reflecting on how the IRSJ came into being during her opening remarks, Dr Lis Lange, Vice-Rector: Academic at the UFS, said that it has always been “dedicated to transformation.” She added that it “gathered the energy and creativity of some of our most promising student leaders.” She concluded: “For me, the greatest success of the Institute, besides publications and local and international networks, is the fact that something that started in the margins is being asked today to come closer to the centre, to play a larger role in the structural transformation of the university.”

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