Back to A From A to B: Linguistic Rewrite Presentation outline J2K - PDF document

Back to A From A to B: Linguistic Rewrite Presentation outline J2K Vrije Universiteit Brussel Back to A 2019-2020

Back to A Abstract This document aims to spell out, establish and codify our objectives and the general modus operandi undertaken during the linguistic exercise undertaken on Ms. Bonang Matheba’s book ‘From A to B’. Let us be very clear from the onset that this is a not rewrite of the book in any form or shape whatsoever. There was a second edition of the book which, in ways large and small, attempted to remedy the linguistic deficiencies of the first. Our work did not in any way take the second edition of the book into consideration. We do intend to compile a side-by-side comparison between the first and second edition in order to provide our assessment as to whether the linguistic shortcomings were adequately addressed. This academic rewrite merely aims to pinpoint any linguistic oddities in the first edition of the book, and with an ever-so-gentle linguistic paintbrush try to apply a deft touch to proceedings without any flash and dazzle antics. We make no pronouncements on the tone, content and spirit of the book and were intent on not altering any aspect of the book that did not merit altering; even where we felt it necessary. Therefore, we hope it will serve as a reliable linguistic blueprint and lay down a useful guideline that hopefully adds value in ways large and small on an academic level. Linguistically, where we did not need to make any alterations, we didn’t; even if we felt we could also artistically restructure the specific discourse. Ours was not to undertake an exercise that would fundamentally alter the spirit of the book but merely to panelbeat it into shape linguistically so that the story was not fundamentally altered but still met linguistic muster. Keywords ​ : ​ linguistic rewrite, linguistic muster, tone, content and spirit of the book

Back to A Introduction While on holiday in South Africa, and on the lookout for a potential future thesis project, we were given a copy of Ms. Bonang Matheba’s book ‘From A to B’. We had vaguely gotten wind of the brouhaha surrounding its release in 2017, but since we were in Brussels at the time, we paid scant regard to it. Upon first reading, it became evident that there were aspects of the book which could do with a linguistic touch-up. There’s a reason the book became a bestseller, but there was also some merit in the outcry that followed on social media regarding some portions of it. Being mindful that we didn’t have a mandate to rewrite the book but seeing an opportunity for a potential thesis project, we set about giving it the linguistic touch-up we felt it needed. Ours was not to comment on its contents, spirit or the subsequent social media outcry but to simply make a difference and possibly conduct an exercise that could add linguistic value on an academic level. Without getting into other aspects of the book, our view was that we could make a linguistic difference by making the book the subject of a future thesis. We have reworked some of its aspects linguistically and hereby present you with the first draft of our reworked version.

Back to A Methods ● For the purpose of our academic exercise, we did not take into consideration the second edition of the book but instead only focused on the first. The second edition, we felt, did address some of the linguistic issues identified in the first on a morphological and syntactic level but not necessarily on a semantic level. ● As stated above, we did not set out to make any amendments that did not make a difference linguistically; even where we felt we could. The utmost care was taken to keep the tone, spirit and flavour of the book as envisaged by Ms. Matheba in the first edition. ● Our rewrite did not take into consideration any linguistic shortcomings phonetically or phonologically. Our focus was on a morphological, syntactic and semantic level. ● On a morpho/syntactic level, there were elements which we felt needed altering (i.e. spelling errors and factual inaccuracies), but that we did not alter because we felt it could fundamentally alter the tone, spirit and soul of the book. ● We tried to keep the spirit and the literary structure of the original version as much as possible. We only reworked where linguistically necessary, but our goal was to use as much

Back to A of the original lexicon and structure as possible in order to stay true to the spirit of the first edition of the book. Results The result, we believe, is a simpler to read and linguistically more coherent piece of literary work that still maintains the linguistic flavour and structure of its predecessor. There were other amendments we wanted and could have made, but simply did not as it would have meant amending or tampering with the tone of the book. Ergo, there are still sections we feel could have been reworked, but that we could change due to insufficient inside information and a sense that doing so lacked linguistic merit. For example: The city of Glasgow in Scotland was incorrectly stated as ‘Glasglow’ in the book. Amending ‘Glasglow’ to Glasgow made sense because there was enough context to ascertain this fact without altering the fabric of the surrounding lexis. Amending ‘Basetsana Kumalo’, however, to ‘Basetsana Khumalo’ was not carried out because linguistically it does not fundamentally fall within the scope of our work. Therefore, we left it in its current form. Only after verification could this be changed. The same can be said of Ava DuVernay being described as an “Oscar-winning director” instead of an ‘Oscar-nominated director’ and the date of Ms. Bonang’s conception being mentioned as being “in the middle of the year” when it could only have been in the last quarter of the said year owing to her stated date of birth. The above-mentioned were all factual and not linguistic inaccuracies, and hence they did not fall within the scope of our work.

Back to A The result will hopefully be a linguistic exercise that may serve as guideline for future writers, students and scholars on how not to write a book. Our goal is not to embarrass anyone or show them up, but to help the author, subject and publisher of the book do better in the future. We hope the result is a piece of academic work that stands the test of time and can in future be relied upon as a potential blueprint on how to pen a memoir or piece of literary work linguistically. Conclusion We hope this rewrite makes a difference academically and linguistically to those who took a keen interest in the book by making the book easier to read. We hope it is met with the right attitude and seen for what it is and what it tried to do, which was to help shed some linguistic light on a dark corner of the publishing world. We cannot vouch for what is in book as we were not privy to the original manuscript nor were we privy to a sit-down with Ms. Matheba in order to ascertain her thought process. If given the opportunity to do a literary rewrite, we could do one that combines elements from both versions of the book. Due to the limitations in the scope of our work and what we could change without altering the contents of the book, at times the result could feel like a mismatch because there certainly were instances where we could not decipher what the author intended to say. At times, the semantics just did not pass linguistic muster. There seemed to also be a fundamental misunderstanding of the linguistic issues plaguing the first edition of the book. Hence, in our opinion the second edition did not make a fundamental difference but may in fact have inadvertently just served to highlight the glaring deficiencies in the first. Akin to putting on new tyres and a fresh coat of paint on a car whose engine would not

Back to A ignite; the second edition failed to fully address the key issues plaguing the first. To this end, only changes that were linguistically necessitated were made for this exercise. Once again please take note that this is not a rewrite, hence we do not comment on the content, spirit and tone of the book. Even where we found there may have been some factual inaccuracies, if it did not affect our linguistic exercise, we left it unaltered. This exercise is purely academic at this stage and not intended to derive any financial benefits for its author, but should any financial compensation be forthcoming, it would be indirect and merely a by-product of the passion project we have undertaken. From what we can glean, the series could become a great educational tool for Grade 11 and 12 HG English first language learners should the publisher decide to re-release the book containing our modifications. As a bonus, and with a bit more conflict added to the story, we feel there's actually a story in there worth telling in a feature film. It would be a story about a girl who leaves a small town in the North-West, and against all odds, becomes a national and global star. It would basically be the South African version of 'A Star is Born'.