The papers in the special focus issues of the Journal of Germanic Linguistics (13.4 and 14.1) testify to the continuing significance of Afrikaans sociohistorical linguistics. Even before its official “birth,” recognition, and christening, Afrikaans had been the subject of debate, discussion, dissension, and adulation. Within linguistics, it has excited attention from Hesseling onward on account of the transformation of Dutch grammar evident in some facets of its structure and lexicon. The extent of the transformation and the participation of indigenous and enslaved people in the process have proved what my co-editor, Paul Roberge (1995:72), once called an “enduring crux ” in sociohistorical linguistics. With the promotion (and consequent further politicization) of Afrikaans in the apartheid era (1948–1994), the issue of origins became an ideologically polarized one. It seemed to me in the 1980s and 1990s that linguists in South Africa, with a few exceptions, weren't keeping pace with developments in creolistics; and, conversely, scholars versed in creolistics weren't always paying attention to the full span of the data on the transformation of Dutch in South Africa. With the academic boycott of apartheid South Africa, there seemed little opportunity for full, free, and frank scholarly exchange.

中文翻译：

---

前言

论文在特别焦点问题的日耳曼语言学杂志（13.4 和 14.1）证明了南非荷兰语社会历史语言学的持续意义。甚至在正式“诞生”、承认和洗礼之前，南非荷兰语就已经成为辩论、讨论、分歧和奉承的主题。在语言学中，由于荷兰语语法的转变在其结构和词汇的某些方面很明显，它引起了 Hesseling 的关注。转变的程度以及土著和被奴役人民在这一过程中的参与证明了我的共同编辑保罗·罗伯格 (Paul Roberge, 1995:72) 曾经称其为社会历史语言学中的“持久症结”。随着南非荷兰语在种族隔离时代（1948-1994 年）的推广（以及随之而来的进一步政治化），起源问题成为意识形态两极分化的问题。在我看来，在 1980 年代和 1990 年代，南非的语言学家，除了少数例外，并没有跟上文理学的发展步伐。相反，精通克里奥尔学派的学者并不总是关注南非荷兰人转变的全部数据。随着南非种族隔离的学术抵制，似乎很少有机会进行全面、自由和坦率的学术交流。