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

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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