The Hulle and Goed Constructions in Afrikaans

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

Over the past more than 100 years, Afrikaans associative plural constructions – especially constructions with hulle (‘they’) and goed (‘things/stuff; good’) as right-hand components – have been studied from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives, but with the main interest in their origins, and what they could tell us about the genesis of Afrikaans. One school of thought claims that they both have Germanic roots, while the other school maintains that both are creole constructions. No definitive conclusions have been reached. Moreover, there is no consensus on whether these constructions should be regarded as noun phrases, compounds, or derived words. The most recent synchronic description of the hulle construction was published in 1969, and the last synchronic description of the goed construction in 1989. In the absence of corpus data, unsubstantiated claims about these constructions abound in the literature. This article presents a synchronic, corpus-based, constructionist description of these two Afrikaans constructions. They are characterised as hybrid constructions on a scale between compounds and derivations, while some remarks on their productivity are made. Based on detailed analyses of their right- and left-hand components, the article concludes with a categorisation network of the schemas and subschemas of these constructions.

Keywords

Afrikaans Associative plural Cognitive grammar Construction morphology Compounding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the many insightful conversations I had with Christo van Rensburg, who is a truly inspiring source of knowledge about Afrikaans, its genesis, and varieties. My gratitude also goes to Geert Booij and Ton van der Wouden for their comments; to Bertus van Rooy and Suléne Pilon for insightful conversations; to Jana Luther who did many searches in her corpora for me; and to Benito Trollip who diligently helped with the semantic annotations. All fallacies, however, remain mine.

This work is based on research supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF). Any opinion, finding and conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the author, and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard.

References

  1. Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AWS1: Le Roux, T.H., Malherbe, D.F., and Smith, J.J. 1917. Afrikaanse woordelijs en spelreëls. 1st ed. Commissioned by the South African Academy for Language, Literature and Arts. Bloemfontein: Het Volksblad-Drukkerij.Google Scholar
  3. AWS6: Taalkommissie (comp.), commissioned by the South African Academy for Science and Arts. 1953. Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls. 6th ed. Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel.Google Scholar
  4. AWS10: Taalkommissie (comp.), commissioned by the South African Academy for Science and Arts. 2009. Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls. 10th ed. Cape Town: Pharos.Google Scholar
  5. AWS11: Taalkommissie (comp.), commissioned by the South African Academy for Science and Arts. 2017. Afrikaanse woordelys en spelreëls. 11th ed. Cape Town: Pharos.Google Scholar
  6. Baayen, R.H., and R. Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29: 801–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, L. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, L., R. Lieber, and I. Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg, K. 2013. Graphemic alternations in English as a reflex of morphological structure. Morphology 23: 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booij, G. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. W.U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O.E. Pfeiffer, and F. Rainer, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. to appear. Compounds and lexical phrases in Dutch: Complementarity and competition. In Complex lexical units: Compounds and phrases, ed. B. Schlücker. Mannheim/Berlin: IDS/Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Booij, G., and M. Hüning. 2014. Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Extending the scope of construction grammar, ed. R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, and G. Rutten, 77–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Booij, G., and Van der Wouden, T. 2016. Coordinative compounds. Taalportaal. http://taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-13998813295676713. Accessed 3 Mar 2017.
  15. Bosman, D.B. 1923. Oor die ontstaan van Afrikaans. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  16. Bouman, A.C. 1926. Onderzoekingen over Afrikaanse syntaxis. Annale van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch IV-B(3 November): 1–72.Google Scholar
  17. Bouman, A.C., and E.C. Pienaar. 1946. Afrikaanse spraakkuns. Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia.Google Scholar
  18. Combrink, J.G.H., and J. Spies. 1994. Sakboek van regte Afrikaans. Cape Town: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
  19. Daniel, M. 2000. Tipologija Associativnoj Mnozhestvennosti [Typology of Associative Plurality]. Doctoral dissertation, Russian State University for Humanities, Moscow.Google Scholar
  20. Daniel, M., and E. Moravcsik. 2013. The associative plural. In The world atlas of language structures online, ed. M.S. Dryer and M. Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/36. Accessed 5 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
  21. De Kleine, C. 1997. The verb phrase in Afrikaans: Evidence of creolization? In The structure and status of pidgins and creoles: Including selected papers from the meeting of the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, ed. A.K. Spears and D. Winford, 289–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Den Besten, H. 1989. From Khoekhoe foreigner talk via Hottentot Dutch to Afrikaans: The creation of a novel grammar. In Wheels within wheels: Papers of the Duisburg symposium on Pidgin and Creole languages, ed. M. Pütz and R. Dirven, 207–249. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1996. Associative DPs. Linguistics in the Netherlands 13: 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.13.04bes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2001. The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions. In Taallandskap: Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg, ed. A. Carstens and H. Grebe, 49–58. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
  25. Deumert, A. 2004. Language standardization and language change: The dynamics of Cape Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donaldson, B.C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Du Toit, P.J. 1905. Afrikaansche studies. Ghent: Siffer.Google Scholar
  28. Egenes, Th. 2003. Introduction to Sanskrit, Part 1. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
  29. Eksteen, L.C. 1984. ’n Beeld van Afrikaanse woorde. Pretoria: Academica.Google Scholar
  30. Fletcher, W.H. 2007. Concordancing the web: Promise and problems, tools and techniques. Language and Computers: Corpus Linguistics and the Web 59: 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203791_004.Google Scholar
  31. Güldemann, T. 2008. A linguist’s view: Khoe-Kwadi speakers as the earliest food-producers of southern Africa. Southern African Humanities 20 (1): 93–132.Google Scholar
  32. HAT. 2015. Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse taal, ed. J. Luther, F. Pheiffer, and R.H. Gouws, 6th ed. Cape Town: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/store/apps/windows.Google Scholar
  33. HCSA, and J. Kirsten. 2015. Historiese korpus van Standaardafrikaans 1.0. Vanderbijlpark: Noordwes-Universiteit.Google Scholar
  34. Hesseling, D.C. 1905. Het Negerhollandsch der Deense Antillen: Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Nederlandse taal in Amerika. Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1923. Het Afrikaans. 2nd ed. Leiden: N.V. Boekhandel en Drukkerij.Google Scholar
  36. Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hüning, M., and G. Booij. 2014. From compounding to derivation. The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica 42 (2): 579–604.Google Scholar
  38. Jenkinson, A.G. 1982. As ek jy is en jy is hy, wie is ons? In Wat sê jy?: Studies oor taalhandelinge in Afrikaans, ed. G.J. van Jaarsveld, 99–126. Johannesburg: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1984. Deel II: Die Afrikaans van die Griekwas – ’n taalkundeperspektief: Morfologie. In Finale verslag van ’n ondersoek na die Afrikaans van die Griekwas van die tagtigerjare, ed. C. van Rensburg, 229–253. Pretoria: RGN.Google Scholar
  40. JLAFC, and J. Luther. 2017. Afrikaanse fiksiekorpus 1.0. Cape Town: Personal collection.Google Scholar
  41. Kempen, W. 1946. Samestellinge met “hulle” nie Kreools nie? Die Huisgenoot, 20–21; 56, 15 March.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1969. Samestelling, afleiding en woordsoortelike meerfunksionaliteit in Afrikaans. Cape Town: Nasou.Google Scholar
  43. Kirsten, J. 2016. Grammatikale verandering in Afrikaans van 1911–2010. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Vanderbijlpark: North-West University.Google Scholar
  44. Langacker, R.W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization, Cognitive Linguistics Research. Vol. 14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. LAC: Projekt Deutscher Wortschatz. 2017. Afrikaans corpus. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Abteilung Automatische Sprachverarbeitung. http://corpora.uni-leipzig.de/en.Google Scholar
  47. LAPA: Lapa-uitgewers & CTexT. 2017. NWU/Lapa corpus 1.1. Potchefstroom: CTexT, North-West University. http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  48. Le Roux, J.J. 1923. Oor die Afrikaanse sintaksis I: Woordgroepe en volsin. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  49. Le Roux, J.J. 1926. Ismes in Afrikaans. In Gedenkboek ter ere van die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners (1875–1925), ed. ASB-kommissie, 329–364. Potchefstroom: Afrikaanse Studentebond.Google Scholar
  50. Le Roux, J.J. 1939. Praatjies oor ons taal. Kaapstad: Nasionale Pers. http://hdl.handle.net/10394/8405.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 1947. Die bou van die Afrikaanse taal. In Kultuurgeskiedenis van die Afrikaner Volume 2, ed. C.M. van den Heever and P. de Villiers Pienaar, 40–72. Kaapstad: Nasionale Pers.Google Scholar
  52. Links, T. 1989. So praat ons Namakwalanders. Cape Town: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
  53. LK: Projekt Deutscher Wortschatz. 2016. Afrikaans corpus. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Abteilung Automatische Sprachverarbeitung. http://corpora.uni-leipzig.de/en. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.Google Scholar
  54. Lombard, J., ed. 2014. Die ding in die riete. Cape Town: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
  55. Lowe, J.J. 2013. English possessive’s: Clitic and affix. In LSA annual meeting extended abstracts, 4. Retrieved from http://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/3524-6826-1-SM.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. MM: Maroela Media and CTexT. 2017. NWU-Maroela Media corpus 1.1. Potchefstroom: CTexT, North-West University. http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  57. Moravcsik, E. 2003. A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Studies in Language 27 (3): 469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Naudé, J.A. 2005. Translation and cultural transformation: The case of the Afrikaans Bible translations. In Translation and cultural change: Studies in history, norms and image-projection, ed. E. Hung, 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. NCHLT: Department of Arts and Culture and CTexT. 2017. Afrikaans NCHLT text corpora. Potchefstroom: CTexT, North-West University. https://doi.org/ISLRN: 544-932-849-161-3. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  60. Neef, M. 2012. Graphematics as part of a modular theory of phonographic writing systems. Writing Systems Research 4 (2): 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nienaber, G.S. 1994. Pa-hulle is kreools. Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir taalkunde supplement 21: 14–67.Google Scholar
  62. Odendal, F.F. 1976. Oor die aanspreekvorme in Afrikaans. In Gedenkbundel H.J.J.M. van der Merwe, ed. W.J. de Klerk and F.A. Ponelis, 105–113. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
  63. Ó Séaghdha, Diarmuid. 2008. Learning compound noun semantics. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  64. Paradis, C. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive linguistics 12 (1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. PCSA, and F.A. Ponelis. 1976. Ponelis Korpus van Gesproke Afrikaans 1.0. Stellenbosch: Universiteit Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  66. PK: Protea Boekhuis & CTexT. 2017. PUK/Protea Boekhuis corpus 2.1. Potchefstroom: CTexT, North-West University. http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  67. Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ponelis, F.A. 1979. Afrikaanse sintaksis. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
  69. ———. 1993. The development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  70. Rademeyer, J.H. 1938. Kleurling-Afrikaans: die taal van die Griekwas en Rehoboth-Basters. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  71. RSG: Radio Sonder Grense & CTexT. 2015. RSG Afrikaans corpus 2.0. Potchefstroom: CTexT, North-West University. http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  72. Sipma, P. 1913. Phonology & grammar of modern West Frisian; with phonetic texts and glossary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Smith, J.J. 1940. Bespreek J.J. le Roux se Praatjies oor ons Taal. Ons Eie Boek 62(Junie): 18–20.Google Scholar
  74. ———. 1962. Op ons taalakker. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
  75. Stevens, Ch.M. 2005. Revisiting the affixoid debate. On the grammaticalization of the word. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, ed. T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, and S. de Groodt, 71–83. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  76. Taylor, J.R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. TK: Taalkommissie van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. 2011. Taalkommissie corpus 1.1. Potchefstroom: CTexT, North-West University. http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  78. Traugott, E.C., and G. Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Uys, M.D. 1983. Die vernederlandsing van Afrikaans. Unpublished D. Litt. thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  80. Valkhoff, M.F. 1966. Studies in Portuguese and Creole. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.Google Scholar
  81. ———. 1972. New light on Afrikaans and “Malayo-Portuguese”. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
  82. Van der Merwe, H.J.J.M. 1964. Taalbeïnvloeding en taalvermenging. In Inleiding tot die taalkunde, ed. H.J.J.M. van der Merwe, 214–236. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
  83. Van Goethem, K. 2008. Oud-leerling versus ancien élève: A comparative study of adjectives grammaticalizing into prefixes in Dutch and French. Morphology 18: 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Van Huyssteen, G.B. 2010. (Re)defining component structures in morphological constructions: A cognitive grammar perspective. In Cognitive approaches to word-formation, ed. A. Onysko and S. Michel, 59–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  85. ———. 2017. Opname- en elimineringskriteria vir die Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls: Die geval emeritus. Deel 2. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 57 (2): 346–368.Google Scholar
  86. Van Huyssteen, G.B., and B. Verhoeven. 2014. A taxonomy for Afrikaans and Dutch compounds. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2014): The first workshop on Computational Approaches to Compound Analysis (ComAComA), 31–40. Dublin. http://gerhard.pro/publications
  87. Van Rensburg, Ch. 1989. ’n Verkenning van Afrikaans: Gister. Bloemfontein: Patmos.Google Scholar
  88. ———. 1998. Op soek na Afrikaans. Bloemfontein: UOVS.Google Scholar
  89. ———. to appear. Die Taalkommissie se eerste honderd jaar. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis.Google Scholar
  90. Vassilieva, M. 2008. A syntactic analysis of nominal and pronominal associative plurals. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14(1): 339–352. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=pwpl
  91. Verhoeven, B., G.B. Van Huyssteen, M.M. Van Zaanen, and W. Daelemans. 2014. Annotation guidelines for compound analysi, CLiPS Technical Report Series (CTRS) number 5. ISSN: 2033-3544. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  92. VivA: Virtual Institute for Afrikaans. 2017. Corpus portal. http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
  93. WAT: Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. 2017. Stellenbosch: Buro van die WAT. In VivA Woordeboekportaal [VivA dictionary portal] (App) (1.2). https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/store/apps/windows. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
  94. Webb, V.N. 1989. Griekwa-Afrikaans binne intertaalkonteks. Pretoria: Linguistic Society of Southern Africa.Google Scholar
  95. WKJ: WatKykJy. 2017. Watkykjy.co.za corpus 1.1. WatKykJy.co.za. Retrieved from http://viva-afrikaans.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Text Technology (CTexT)North-West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations