Goddard || Cultural values and ‘cultural scripts’ of Malay (Bahasa Melayu)

jmtmal~ ELSEVIER

Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

Cultural values and 'cultural scripts' of Malay (Bahasa Melayu) Cliff Goddard* Department of Linguistics, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia

Received May 1995; revised version February 1996

Abstract This paper documents some Malay 'rules of speaking' and articulates their connections with Malay cultural values, using the new theory of 'cultural scripts' developed by Anna Wierzbicka. Aspects of the prefen'ed Malay discourse style, which is normally described as refined, restrained, and charming, are shown to be linked with the Malay social emotion of malu 'shame, propriety', with the personal qualities of maruah 'dignity' and harga diri 'selfesteem', and with the ideal of senang hati '(lit.) easy heart'. It is argued that the cultural scripts approach enhances descriptive accuracy, helps reduce ethnocentricism, and facilitates the integration of pragmatics and cultural semantics.

I. Problems of method in discourse-and-culture studies Though the study of culture-specific 'ways of speaking' has been undertaken from many different approaches (such as ethnography of communication, contrastive pragmatics, and linguistic anthropology), scholars generally agree on the need to go beyond purely behavioural description. The greater challenge is to explore and uncover the links between particular ways of speaking and the cultural values and attitudes of the people concerned. Most studies of discourse-in-culture invoke constructs such as 'rules of speaking', 'norms of interaction', or 'discourse strategies' to characterise shared understandings hypothesised to exist within the speech community.

Certain methodological difficulties beset such inquiries: how to describe speech patterns with rigour and precision, how to identify the relevant cultural values and priorities independently of the :speech patterns themselves, and overarching both of My sincere thanks to Norlinda Hasan, my main consultant for this study, for her patient and thoughtful contribution. I am grateful also to Vicki Knox, Lee Mee Wun, Anna Wierzbicka, and an anonymous reviewer, for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. * E-mail: cgoddard@metz.une.edu.au; Fax: +61-67-733735.

0378-2166/96/$15.00 Copyright Š 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PII S0378-2166(96)00032-X

184

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

these, how to minimise ethnocentric bias, that is, the danger that any picture we form about the discourse practices of another culture will be distorted by the linguistic and conceptual baggage we bring with us from own culture. It is the contention of this paper that the new theory of 'cultural scripts' being developed by Anna Wierzbicka (1994a,b,c) offers the way to make substantial progress on these problems by minimising the risk that our metalanguage of description will unwittingly impose a language-specific and culture-specific perspective. I propose to demonstrate this by an investigation of the ways of speaking and cultural values of the Malay (Melayu) people of peninsula Malaysia.

The conventional metalanguage used to describe cultural norms of communication consists of an open-ended set of technical (and semi-technical) terms such as 'directness', 'formality', 'politeness', 'involvement', 'face' and so on. Though valuable and useful up to a point, such terms can be criticised as being somewhat vague, and they are used with different meanings by different authors. For instance, when Japanese speech patterns are contrasted with English ones, the Japanese are described as 'indirect' and the English as 'direct', but when English is compared with Hebrew, it is the English speech patterns which are 'indirect' and the Hebrew 'direct'. These differences are not merely quantitative; that is, it is not simply the case that there is a cline of 'directness' on which English is situated midway between Japanese and Hebrew (cf. Wierzbicka, 1991). Rather, the differences are qualitative.

Cultures differ on what one should be 'indirect' about, on how to be 'indirect', and, most importantly perhaps, on why to be 'indirect'. Similar critiques of the notions of 'formality', 'politeness', and 'involvement' can be found in Irvine (1979), Janney and Arndt (1993), and Besnier (1994), among others.

Furthermore, relying on terms like 'directness', 'formality', and 'politeness' as analytical constructs introduces an element of ethnocentrism into our analyses, because the relevant concepts are not usually found in the cultures being described and cannot be translated easily into the languages involved. In an attempt to overcome this difficulty, ethnographers of communication typically incorporate indigenous terms into their descriptions, but then the difficulty of translation arises in reverse. Without a sound methodology for lexical semantic analysis, they seldom succeed in explaining the full conceptual content of the indigenous terms.

I believe that the key to overcoming these problems is the 'natural semantic metalanguage' developed by Anna Wierzbicka and colleagues over many years of crosslinguistic semantic research (cf. Wierzbicka, 1972, 1980, 1992, 1996; Goddard and Wierzbicka, 1994; Goddard, in press). This consists of a small set of simple meanings which evidence suggests can be expressed by words or bound morphemes in all languages; for example, PEOPLE, SOMEONE, SOMETHING, THIS, SAY, THINK, WANT, KNOW,GOOD, BAD, NO. These appear to be lexical universals, that is, meanings which can be translated precisely between all languages. They combine according to a small set of universal grammatical patterns, comprising a mini-language which is an ideal tool for cross-linguistic semantics. A large body of empirical semantic research has been conducted using the NSM approach, much of it focusing on cultural 'key words', speech acts, and discourse particles (cf. among others: Wierzbicka, 1991, 1992, 1996; Goddard, 1992, 1994, 1996; Ameka, 1987, 1992; Hasada, in press).

c. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

185

Now, the metalanguage of lexical universals can be used not only for semantic analysis, but also to formulate cultural 'rules', which Wierzbicka proposes to call 'cultural scripts'. Because they are phrased in simple and translatable terms, such scripts can achieve a high degree of precision while at the same time minimising the danger of ethnocentric bias creeping into the very terms of the description. To take a simple example, the script below (cf. Wierzbicka, 1994a) is intended to capture a Japanese cultural norm. if something bad happens to someone because of me I have to say something like this to this person: 'I feel something bad because of this' This represents a hypothesis about a cultural value or norm which is characteristically (though not exclusively) Japanese. It is linked, of course, with the often noted tendency of the Japanese to 'apologise' very frequently and in a broad range of situations, but it does so without relying on the culture-bound English speech-act verb apologise. The script is also more accurate and explicit than the English term in not implying any admission that 'I did something bad to you', which would be inappropriate for the Japanese 'apology': one is expected to perform the speech-act in question whenever one's action leads someone else to suffer harm or inconvenience, no matter how indirectly. The script is readily translatable into Japanese, and is thus directly accessible to the intuitions of Japanese speakers.

Cultural scripts are an improved method for stating 'rules for speaking', equally compatible with the search for broad generalisations about discourse and with attention to the particularities of individual cultures. Of course, cultural scripts framed in independently established lexical universals cannot, in themselves, eliminate ethnocentrism but they can eliminate ,one source of it, namely, reliance on English-specific concepts as analytical tools. Likewise, cultural scripts cannot, in themselves, eliminate inaccuracy and imprecision but they can eliminate one source of it, namely, reliance on complex and vague technical (and semi-technical) terms.

Adopting a standardised metalanguage for semantic explications and cultural scripts, does not mean, of course, that one must forsake conventional English altogether. For example, in the present paper, I introduce, discuss, and justify the proposed explications and scripts using conventional academic English. One can therefore imagine a sceptic asking: Aren't the explications and scripts merely paraphrases of the explanations given in ordinary prose? To this, the answer must be: Yes and no. In a sense they are paraphrases, but not 'mere' paraphrases. They are paraphrases which (it is claimed) can be transposed without change of meaning from English into Malay, or into any human language. They do not rely on any English-specific words such as 'dignity', 'consideration', 'sensitivity', or 'refinement', which may seem convenient for expository purposes (with English speakers), but which embody Anglo-cultural attitudes and which are not precisely translatable.

Using the same 'natural semantic metalanguage' both for lexical semantics and for cultural scripts makes it possible to draw links between indigenous cultural

i 86

C. Goddard/Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

values and cultural rules of speaking. Thus, in this paper I will propose in Section 2 semantic explications for the Malay social emotion of malu '(roughly) shame, propriety', the Malay personal qualities of maruah 'dignity' and harga diri 'selfesteem', and the Malay ideal of senang hati '(lit.) easy heart'. Then in Section 3 we will see how these cultural values help account for aspects of the preferred traditional discourse style, as depicted in a series of cultural scripts. Concluding remarks form Section 4.

2. Some Malay cultural values 2.1. Orientation Present-day Malaysia is one of the most industrialised nations in South East Asia, but traditionally the Malays were a village people, relying on fishing, market gardening and rice cultivation. They have long been Muslims, and Malay traditions (adat) co-exist, more or less comfortably, with Islam. European observers generally describe Malay culture as valuing 'refined restraint', cordiality, and sensitivity and Malays themselves as courteous, and charming (and less positively, as fatalistic, and easy to take offence).

The culture places great importance upon proper (patut) conduct - as Mahathir (1970: 157) puts it: "there is always a proper way to do things". One of the most salient social distinctions is between behaviour which is halus 'refined' as opposed to that which is kasar 'crass, coarse'. Among themselves, Malays evaluate each other along this dimension, according to how well and to what extent a person adheres to certain ideals of speech and action. In comparison with other cultures and peoples, such as the Chinese and Europeans, Malays generally tend to regard themselves as halus and others as kasar (Wilson, 1967: 132).

A great deal of what it means to be halus hinges on one's speech, and much of this paper is devoted to specifying the linguistic norms involved and placing them in the context of Malay cultural values. It is important to stress, however, that halus behaviour applies to a range of non-verbal behaviour as well; for instance, removing the shoes before entering a home, consuming some of whatever refreshment is offered, adopting a specific posture when passing between people who are seated, using only the right hand in eating or in passing things, avoiding physical contact with the opposite sex, beckoning in a certain way.

Malay culture is richly verbal, with a large stock of sayings (peribahasa), short evocative verses (pantun), and narrative poems (syair). The importance of speech (bahasa) to proper conduct is attested by the fact that bahasa has a secondary meaning of 'courtesy, manners'. For instance, the collocation tahu bahasa (lit. 'know speech') is explained by Hussain (1990: 26f.) as sopan santun 'well mannered'.

Other similar expressions are melanggar bahasa (lit. 'attack speech') 'breach etiquette' and kurang bahasa (lit. 'less/under-speech') 'ill-mannered'.

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

187

2.2. Some important Malay social values

Among the cultural concepts fundamental to Malay interaction is the social emotion of malu 'shame, propriety'. It is usually glossed in bilingual dictionaries as 'ashamed', 'shy', or 'embarrassed', but these translations don't convey the fact that Malays regard a sense of malu as a social good, somewhat akin to a 'sense of propriety'. Swift (1965:110) equal:es malu with "hypersensitiveness to what other people are thinking about one" (though note the ethnocentric perspective reflected in the prefix 'hyper-'). Desire to avoid malu has been identified by some anthropologists as the primary force for social cohesion - not to say conformism - in the Malay village.

Essentially, malu is a negative reaction to the idea that other people could think something (anything) bad about one, a prospect which is powerfully unpleasant to Malay sensibilities. I suggest it can be explicated as follows; for detailed justification see Goddard (1996).

(1) Person-X rasa ('feels') mal~ = X thinks something like this.: people can know something about me people can think something bad about me because of this people can say something bad about me because of this 1 don't want this because of this X wants not to be near people because of all this X feels something bad A related social concept is that of a person's maruah, variously glossed in bilingual dictionaries as 'dignity', 'self-respect', 'pride', and the like. As the range of translation equivalents suggests, maruah involves both what others think about one and what one thinks about oneself. Though the usual translations don't bring this to the fore, it is a notion resonarlt with moral implications: a person with maruah would not lower him or herself to knowingly do something wrong. I would propose the explication in (2) below.

(2) Person-X ada ('has') maruah = X can think something like this I know people can't think about me: 'this person is not a good person' 'this person does bad things' it is good for a person if a person can think things like this This portrays maruah as a kind of whole-some confidence in one's moral standing in the eyes of others. Other closely related concepts are harga diri 'self esteem' (harga 'value', diri 'self') and nama baik '(one's) good name'. This cluster of concepts is of primary concern to Malay social ideology. As Vreeland (1977: 113) remarks: "an individual's amour propre [is] in many respects his most treasured and jealously defended possession".

188

c. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

Maruah and a concern for one's harga diri bear a clear relationship to the emotion of malu. Feeling malu 'shame' implies a threat to one's maruah 'dignity', because malu is induced by the prospect that other people are thinking things about one; conversely, maintaining one's maruah will largely pre-empt any unpleasant sense of malu. The relationship is similar to that remarked upon by Jacoby (1991: 24) in a discussion of the psychology of shame, 'shame-anxiety', and dignity in the European context:

"... one could regard shame as a 'guardian' of dignity. Shame-anxietyputs us on guard against 'undignified' behaviour, sensitising us to whether or not a given event will be experienced as 'degrading'."

What do such concepts have to do with characteristic Malay speech patterns? The answer is suggested by this observation by Vreeland (1977:117): "The social value system is predicated on the dignity of the individual and ideally all social behaviour is regulated in such a way as to preserveone's own amour propre and to avoid disturbing the same feelings of dignity and self-esteemin others."

That is to say, in ordinary conversation Malays cooperate to assist the safeguarding of each other's maruah 'dignity' and to steer away from the possibility of incurring or inducing malu 'shame'.

A third important Malay social ideal is senang hati 'a heart at ease' - an untroubled, relaxed state of mind, for which I would advance the following explication.

(3) Person-X senang hati = X isn't thinking (this) about anything: this is bad X isn't thinking: maybe something bad will happen X thinks something like this: if I want to do something, I can do it I don't have to do anything because of all this, X feels something good people think: it is good for people to be like this This depicts a person who is senang hati as untroubled by the present, not worried about the future, and feeling free to do as he or she chooses (without having to do anything). The final component adds a cultural endorsement. In support of the middle components, one can point to the make-up of the expression itself, that is, the word senang 'easy, relaxed', and also to the often noted Malays' resistance to work (sometimes mistaken, especially by colonialists, for indolence; cf. Alatas, 1977).

Commenting on the salience of the senang hati concept Djamour (1965: 145146) stresses "the importance which Singapore Malays attach to personal happiness":

C. Goddard / Yournal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

189

"It would be difficult to over-emphasizethis attitude: it permeates all fields of human behaviour. When a Malay contemplates a change of residence, marriage, divorce, or the exercise of a profession,the primary considerationis ... serenity of mind."

There is a Malay saying senang hati, goyang kaki 'easy at heart, swinging one's heels' which alludes to the casual relaxed state where one is content with life as it is.

Consistent with senang hati being a culturally-endorsed attitude toward life, commentators (e.g. Djamour, 1965; Maeda, 1975) often note that Malays would rather disregard grievances or dissatisfactions than disturb their peace of mind. Friction and incompatibility are regarded not only as unpleasant, but, so to speak, as unhealthy.

3. Some Malay cultural scripts Let us then move to the topic: of Malay conversational style, beginning with ordinary colloquial speech designated bahasa basahan 'everyday language' by Asmah (1987); it is also referred to as bahasa hari-harian (hari 'day'). This is neither particularly halus 'refined' nor paz'cicularly kasar 'crass', and neither is it the 'educated variety' of Malay learnt in formal education, or the careful pronunciation style bahasa baku '(lit.) pure speech' encouraged for use in the official media. According to Asmah (1987: 89), bahasa basahan is used "when there is no social distance. The interlocutors are familiar with each other and the topic they talk about is of a casual nature, and so is the mood".

3.1. Scripts about speaking Even in relaxed everyday interaction, it is a presumption of Malay social interaction that one should think before one speaks. There are many common sayings to this effect, for example: Kalau cakapfikir lah sedikit dulu 'if you're going to speak, think a little first'. But think about what? Firstly, consistent with the social values described above, one should be mindful not to present oneself in a bad light; secondly, one should adopt a considerate attitude toward the interlocutor's feelings (cf. the saying jaga hati orang 'mind people's feelings', and the expression bertimbang rasa 'consider (lit. weigh feelings)').

These principles can be captured in the cultural script in (4). Notice that it is framed in the 'first-person', as a set of guidelines about how 4i' should speak. It enjoins a kind of consideration for others and a concern for one's standing in the eyes of other people.

(4) before I say something to someone, it is good to think: I don't want this person to feel something bad because of this I don't want this person to think something bad about me I have to think about what I say

190

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

People who don't show the appropriate care when they speak are described disparagingly as gila bahasa 'talk-crazy'. (It may be worth noting that some Anglo readers have commented that script (4) would apply to English also. "No-one wants to hurt anyone else's feelings", as I was once told. Even if this is a general moral imperative of Anglo culture, however, it is not the same thing as the rule of verbal caution embodied in script (4).)

Another convention of ordinary Malay conversation is not to raise one's voice unnecessarily. To do so is viewed as a sign of some negative emotion. Melay speakers are also careful not to say too much (cf. the common assurance dia cakap banyak tapi hati dia baik 'She talks a lot but her heart is good'). These norms can be captured in the following simple scripts.

(5) when I say something to someone if this person is near me it is not good to say it loudly if I say it loudly, this person might think I feel something bad (6) when I say something to someone it is not good to say many things in a short time if I do, this person might think something bad about me From the Malay point of view, the norms set out in scripts (4)-(6) above are simply taken for granted, and similar (but not identical) assumptions about speaking apply in many Asian cultures. For some readers with these cultural backgrounds, it may appear superfluous even to bother stating such obvious scripts. What has to be borne in mind, however, is that there are many cultures in which speaking loudly and saying a lot are regarded in a positive light, due to their being connected with altogether different cultural values, such as a positive view of self-assertion or a positive view of strong emotional expression. For examples, see Wierzbicka (1994b) on Polish and Wierzbicka (1292) on Russian, Schiffrin (1984) and Tannen (1981) on contemporary American Jewish culture, and Kochman (1981) on Black Americans.

The cultural scripts and social values discussed above are reflected in many ways in ordinary Malay conversational style. For example, script (4) makes it very difficult to voice criticisms of any kind directly. Suppose, for instance, I have done something to hurt a Malay friend's feelings and she wants to say something about it to me (instead of putting it aside), the most explicit thing she might feel comfortable saying would be something like the sentence below (the name is used in place of a pronoun): i

t Some of the Malay examples are written in a spelling that depicts a casual colloquial pronunciation.

This kind of spelling can be found in Malaysian popular novels and comics, but does not always correspond with the official, standard spelling. Examples: ye 'yes' (instead of ya), takde 'it's nothing' (tak ada), aje 'only' (saja).

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

191

Malam Cliff lain dari biasa. Selalunya Cliff tak macam begitu, selalunya Cliff lebih ramah.

'Yesterday you (Cliff) were different to normal; you're usually not like that, you're usually more agreeable.'

Notice that the evaluation of m,.¢ behaviour is indirect (the term 'bad', or 'not good', is not used) and balanced by the favourable evaluation that I am usually ramah 'agreeable, affable'.

For a second example, suppose my child has been picking on yours in the playground. It would be out of the question to say outright that you didn't like the way my child had been behaving lately. Instead, a question would be a better strategy, something like: Anak awak dia selalu pukul-pukul budak lain tak? Sebab tadi dia dah pukul budak tu.

'It isn't usual for your child to pick on other boys, is it? Because today he hit this boy;' This kind of speech manoeuvre can be described by the verb czev tegur, probably best glossed as something like 'alert someone' or 'draw attention to something'.

Coope's (1991: 363) Malay-English Dictionary defines its more straightforward uses as 'to address, greet; to accost, salutation', but even a baby calling out for attention could be said to tegur. Coope also gives the meaning 'criticise', presumably in recognition of the indirect speech act described above.

Now let us shift our attention from casual speech among familiars to more formal situations or to speech between people who do not know each other well (orang lain 'other people'). In such situations, one always feels people are liable to be watching and passing judgment, ready to disparage those who speak poorly as kurang ajar 'uncouth, (lit.) under-taught'. (This is a slur on one's upbringing, as well as on oneself, as the proper way of speaking is a skill learnt in the home.) The relevant complex of cultural attitudes can be represented as below.

(7) when people hear someone saying something sometimes they think things like this: this person knows how to say things well to other people, this is good sometimes they think things like this: this person doesn't know how to say things well to other people, this is bad Notice that this portrays an awareness of people being judgmental not about one's way of speaking per se (which might refer to one's accent or standard of education) but about saying things 'to other people', that is, to speaking as seen in a social context.

The category orang lain 'other people', though somewhat vague, is a very salient one for Malay construals of social interaction. It invokes a dichotomy between 'us' and 'them' which may apply at different levels. 'Strangers' are orang lain from the

192

c. Goddard/ Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

point of view of people from the same village. The others in the village are orang lain from the point of view of a group of family friends and neighbours. The smallest unit of solidarity from which the 'us/them' dichotomy can be drawn is the household unit. Implicit in the phrasing of (7) is the idea that standards of good speaking are to be applied pre-eminently with 'other people' (and by implication, that they may be relaxed 'among ourselves'; see Section 3.4).

3.2. Scripts about expressing feelings One of the main dimensions of cultural variation in speaking concerns the expression of personal feelings. In general, it can be said that Malay culture discourages people from verbally expressing how they feel, the ideal demeanour being one of good-natured calm (cf. the discussion of senang hati above)? Karim (1990a) cites O'Brien (1883: 145) as summing up the Malay race as "externally impassive" and Banks (1983: 88) as saying that most social relationships cultivate "unemotional presentation". On the other hand, everyone is expected to be sensitive to other people's facial expressions and actions. People who do not show the expected sensitivity are deemed to be bodoh 'thick, stupid'.

The script in (8) effectively discourages verbal explicitness about one's feelings, while expressing confidence in the effectiveness of non-verbal signals.

(8) when I feel something it is not good to say something like this to another person: 'I feel like this' if the other person can see me, they will know how I feel The use of 'meaningful looks' (pandangan bermakna) is a favoured non-verbal strategy. For instance, the verb tenung (cf. bertenung 'to divine') depicts a kind of glare used to convey irritation with someone else's behaviour, e.g. a child misbehaving or someone in the room clicking a pen in an irritating way. Widening the eyes mata terbeliak (lit. 'bulging eyes') conveys disapproval. Lowering the eyes and deliberately turning the head away (jeling) without speaking can convey that one is 'fed up' with someone. Pressing the lips together and protruding them slightly (menjuihkan bibir) conveys annoyance.

Non-verbal expression is critical to the closest Malay counterpart of English 'angry', namely marah 'offended, angry'. This is associated not with scenes of 'angry words' as sanctioned by Anglo cultural scripts of free self-expression, but by the sullen brooding performance known as merajuk (cf. Goddard, 1996).

Malay reluctance to verbalise about feelings can also be seen if we consider the situation in which I realise that I have done something bad to someone else. It would be difficult to say outright " I ' m sorry, I was wrong". The preferred strategy is to be extra nice to the person in question; they will understand. If I must say something, it should be vague and there should be no direct reference to your feelings or to mine.

One could say something like this:

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

193

Kalau semalam aku ada terbuat/tercakap yang kasar aku minta maaf yelah.

'If yesterday I did/said something rough I ask for pardon, yes.'

Needless to say, there is no exact Malay equivalent to the English speech-act verb 'apologise'. The speech-act above would be classed as pujuk, a word whose range also takes in 'comfort, console', that is to say, it is focused on making the other person feel better rather than on displaying one's own regrets. The expression minta maaf'ask pardon' sounds somewhat formal and does not correspond to English 'saying sorry'.

Of course, both these examples involve the speaker's 'bad feelings', and in scenarios in which the addressee :Loo could conceivably feel something bad. There is abundant evidence, however, that Malay cultural ideology disfavours the verbalising about 'good feelings' also, particularly in formal situations. At a Malay wedding, for instance, it is bad form for the bride or groom to smile. They are supposed to maintain a composed, calm expression. Karim (1990a) cites Wilder (1982: 74) approvingly: "During marriage, as in other contexts of Malay social relations, constant emphasis is placed on the maintenance of personal and social equilibrium and restraint. In Malay social relations in general, as in marriage in particular, a keenly-felt balance and reserve operate to counter the public display of affection, or hostility, or practically any deeper emotion."

The same applies during courtship. It is considered bad for the young people to give explicit signs of their affection for one another. As Karim (1990b: 29) says: "During courtship, a person regardless of sex, has to be careful to conceal his or her feelings in public". To do otherwise would invite malu 'shame'. When young people betray observable signs of infatuation or love, these are seen as 'disorders' (gila, also 'craziness').

Interestingly, Karim (1990b: 30-32) highlights the role of the pantun in controlling the display of emotion during courtship. The pantun is a Malay poetic form, consisting of two rhyming couplets in which an emotion or mood is implied or evoked. Fauconnier (1990:82 [1931]) places great emphasis on their role in traditional rural Malay life: "It is the play of words, the equivocations, the tenuous allusions, that constitute their special charm for the Malays . . . . They all know a large number of pantuns and are constantly inventing new ones. Their conversation is full of these poetic insubstantial images."

One can easily appreciate how an abundance of pantuns, and of other evocative peribahasa 'sayings', would be a very serviceable resource for alluding to potentially sensitive matters. In traditional-style courtship they play a special role, providing the young man and woman with a compact written medium in which their feelings may be expressed with acceptable restraint. Karim (1990b: 32) describes how a series of such veiled messages will often be passed between the pair by a gobetween. She comments:

194

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

"Like Japanese haiku, the brevity of verse attempts a controlledelegance over emotion. It is in this sense a mode of communication which guides passion into acceptablepoise and restraint."

The comparison with the haiku is highly suggestive, Japanese culture being widely known as one which disfavours displays of emotion (cf. Honna and Honna, 1989).

Two situations where European norms would lead one to expect 'good feelings' to be expressed verbally are accepting a gift and in response to a compliment, but Malay cultural norms differ in both cases. On accepting a gift (after the appropriate refusals; see Section 3.5 below) one would never say anything like "Oh wow, how great!", in the Anglo-American style. It would be good form instead to look a little to one side, perhaps smiling slightly, and to softly say terima kasih (terima 'receive', kasih 'care'), which though usually translated as 'thank you' is better understood as an acknowledgment of the other person's kindness.

If someone says something nice about you, for instance, that your shirt or dress looks nice or looks new, one would deflect the remark as follows: Takde lah, lni kan yang Cliff beli tahun lalu.

'This is nothing, I bought it years ago.'

Takde lah. Biasa aja.

'This is nothing, it's just ordinary.'

Biasa-biasa saja.

'Just same as ordinary.'

If it is something more personal, such as that you are a good cook, or that you are skilled at your work, or (less common) that you are pretty, the right thing to do is not to say anything, and not to look directly at the other person either. One looks downward and a little to the side, perhaps smiling slightly (tersenyum sedikit). Of course, these responses could (and should) be spelt out in more specific scripts. My point here is just that the favoured mode of non-verbal response is consistent with a general restriction on directly verbalising one's feelings.

3.3. Scripts about expressing what one wants Whenever people are together an obvious potential arena for personal conflict has to do with what each wants (or doesn't want). What if A wants to do something but B doesn't want A to do it? What if A wants B to do something but B doesn't want to do it? Different cultures have evolved different 'solutions', so to speak, to such potential problems. In some parts of the world, the solution is that people don't mind an overt clash of wills. It may even be welcomed in the interest of some other cultural value, such as intensity of personal interaction. Or openness of expression may be valued for its own sake.

In traditional Malay society, however, an overt clash of wills is something to be avoided. Part and parcel of being brought up Malay is learning to anticipate others' wishes and, as far as possible, to accommodate them. Among a list of the "values

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

195

inherent in the Malay view of the conduct and matter of social relationships" Wilson (1967:13 If.) includes the following: "showing consideration and concern, anticipating the other ... and, above all, being sensitive to the other person". According to Mahathir (1970: 160), "The good Malay is always unobtrusive and self-effacing, unwilling to impose his will if it conflicts with others, and ever willing to compromise".

As a first step to teasing out and making explicit the cultural assumptions underlying these observations, I would like to propose the cultural script below. This enjoins the 'good Malay', that is to say, the Malay who is conscious of the traditional values, to keep the other person in mind with a view to divining their intentions in order to decide how one should act oneself. (The script does not specify how one's actions should be influenced, just that the other person's wishes are important for knowing the right thing to do.)

(9) when I am with someone it is good to think about this person because it is good to know what this person wants if I know this, I will know what it will be good to do It is not always easy for cultural outsiders to understand why it can be hard for a Malay to say outright what he or she wants even if it is obvious that the interlocutor wants to know. A Malay friend illustrated this for me by relating how she once unintentionally offended her husband's grandfather, who is European.

He had offered her some food and when she did not accept it at once, he asked her pressingly "do you want it or not?". Though she did in fact want it, the closest she could come to saying so was "not really", which he mistook for diffidence.

This small example suggests that along with (9), there is another script which constrains people from voicing any wishes they might have about other people doing things for them.

(10) it is not good to say something like this to someone: 'I want you to do something it will be good for me if you do' The phrasing of this script means that it forbids only the expression of explicitly selfinterested wishes. There is no proscription against expressing wishes of other sorts; for instance, giving directions to children or junior family members, helping to organise communal activities, or in giving instructions in accordance with one's role, e.g. as a teacher or superior officer.

In support of the above two scripts, I would adduce the following scenarios, volunteered by the same Malay consultant. The first concerned how she might speak to her husband if she wanted him to make dinner that evening. Rather than a direct request, or an Anglo-style hint such as saying how much she enjoys her husband's cooking, she might say something like: "Are you hungry?" It was explained that

196

c. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

this would be effective because her husband would realise that if she had intended to do it herself she would have simply said "What would you like for dinner?" From an Anglo point of view this is pretty subtle stuff, but it makes sense on the assumption that Malay interlocutors are actively 'tuned in' to divining each other's desires.

To take a second example: if I would like you to come over to my house and help in preparing food for a kenduri ('feast, food party'), I might just tell you that the party was on (besok ada kenduri 'there's a food party tomorrow'). Given Malay 'community spirit' and the tradition of helping each other out (tolong menolong), this would be sufficient.

One can also see evidence for the scripts proposed above in the linguistic routines which accompany the presentation and acceptance of a gift. The giver will downplay the value of the gift and urge the intended recipient to take it; the recipient will insist it is too good or not needed or that the giver can't really want to give it. In a sense, both parties seem to be operating with a view to script (10). The following examples apply to an informal family setting.

A: Ini bukan apa-apa. Ambil lah.

'This isn't anything. Take it!'

B: Apa lah! lni kan baru. Takkan nak kasi ini.

Tak payah lah.

'What! Isn't it new?' '(You) can't want to give this.' 'There's no need.'

Jangan lah.

'Don't. ' A: Takde lah.

Biasa aje.

Ambil lah.

'It's nothing. (It's) just ordinary; Go on take itI' As mentioned several times already, it seems to be a Malay cultural imperative to avoid friction, that is, not to do or say anything which would clash with or interfere with the other person. This creates an obvious problem when you don't want to do something your interlocutor wants you to do. Ideally such difficult moments would not arise, but when they do occur the basic strategy is to avoid saying the uncomfortable thing while still saying something else. As one Malay consultant put it: " D o n ' t say it straight, go around". The other person will understand and not press the matter. This strategy is summed up in (11). The final component is necessary to rule out silence as an appropriate response.

(11) if someone wants me to do something it is not good to say something like this to this person: 'I don't want to do it' it is good to say something else

3.4. The meaning of kasar 'coarse'and halus 'refined' behaviour Having canvassed a variety of value-laden scripts for verbal interaction, we are in a position to specify what it means to speak in a kasar 'coarse' or a halus 'refined'

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

197

way. Essentially, kasar speech is that which disregards the normal standards and halus speech is that which shows exemplary adherence to them.

When and where can one disregard the normal standards? To approach this question it is necessary, firstly, to recognise the pivotal role of the household in Malay life. The household is virtually the only social grouping identified by observers as having any organic role in Malay social organisation. Maeda (1975) remarks that the village (kampong) is little more than "an amorphous gathering of people and houses". Nor is the 'family' (keluarga) a clear-cut unit, since people commonly regard themselves as members of various, overlapping family circles. The household, on the other hand, is crucial. Wilson (1967:116) describes the house as "the most highly valued material possession of the village Malay" and he goes on to say that "it is also the center and focus of all that is vital in his emotional, social and cultural life"; cf. Djamour (1965: 52), Vreeland (1977: 120).

At home, out of the public eye, and in the company of those with whom one not only shares a roof but all the small intimacies of daily life, one can be truly relaxed.

Familiar people, who one has 'got used to' (sudah biasa), are thought of in a similar light. These claims can be illustrated with the following common expressions, which could all be used to put someone at their ease: Buat lah macam rumah sendiri 'Make like at home', Kita kan dah biasa ' W e ' v e (incl.) got used to each other', Jangan malu-malu. Kita kan saudara 'Don't hold back (be "shy"). We're kin'. To help put someone at ease in relation to the presence of a particular third person, one could say of him: Bukan orang lain, adik '(He's) not other people, (he's) a brother'.

The home, in other words, is the prime setting in which normal 'public' standards of behaviour may be relaxed. As Vreeland (1977:119) notes: "Among intimate friends kasar behaviour may be accepted as an expressionof warm affection,a manifestation of trust in each other. Kasar behaviour, however, is generallyconfined to the kitchen, a part of the house out of general view, and in the preparation and sharing of food together, an activity that is reserved to the closest of friends."

Asmah (1987: 89) concurs with this general observation, explaining that "the 'coarseness', as it were, of their language reflects their close intimacy". I am not sure it is right to describe such behaviour as literally kasar, though it is certainly behaviour which could be seen (by outsiders) as kasar.

So, what is it to be kasar 'coarse'? Like halus 'refined', it is a concept which revolves around the idea that there are standards for correct behaviour with other people. It is kasar to go against the standards, for whatever reason. (Interestingly, not everything which could cause others unpleasantness is classified as kasar. For instance, burping and breaking wind (wang angin) are not kasar behaviour, though they are tak sopan 'not polite'.)

I propose the following explication, which falls into three parts. First, the person speaking is depicted as not being mindful of the standards (how to say things well).

Second, what was actually said would not have been said if the speaker had been mindful of those standards; thus, not everything said casually is kasar - only those utterances which do, as a matter of fact, offend the relevant standards. Third, there is an implicit negative value judgment attributed by the label kasar.

198

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

(12) X said something to Y in a kasar way = X said something to Y when X said it, X didn't think something like this: I want to say things well to this person if X had thought this, X would not have said it like this this is not good Though this explication does not include any of the individual scripts discussed so far, it alludes to them all by referring to the idea that a person can 'say things well' to another person. It invokes the whole complex of cultural attitudes about good and bad ways of speaking to others. And, as expected, kasar speech is characterised by neglect of all the scripts proposed so far. For instance, it is loud and brash. It is garrulous. It is associated with open expression of emotion (cf. Asmah, 1987: 89).

Disregarding for a moment the overall negative evaluation embodied in the final component, it can readily be appreciated that kasar speech may come about for a variety of reasons. I may know the normal standards for speaking but disregard them because I don't care about the other person's reaction (if I am contemptuous or annoyed). Or perhaps I do not know the relevant standards or do not care about them (non-Malays are often regarded as speaking in a kasar fashion).

Or perhaps because of our special relationship I trust that the other person is not going to be offended or to draw any damning conclusions, no matter how I speak.

This explains why 'kasar' speech is sometimes indulged in at home, among close friends. This is not really kasar in the strict sense, however, because there is no negative evaluation attached to 'coarse' speech in these circumstances. Unguarded speech at home is recognised as I~IKEkasar speech in that the participants are not monitoring themselves, are not being mindful of community standards, and often do not conform to those standards, but to label this as literally kasar would be to adopt an inappropriately censorious perspective.

If speaking in a kasar way is disregarding the usual care, it makes sense that halus 'refined' speech is taking extra care. According to (13), speaking in a halus way means complying in a conspicuous, exemplary, and skilled fashion to the underlying dictates of more ordinary conversation.

(13) X said something to Y in a halus way = X said something to Y when X said it, X was thinking something like this: I want to say things well to this person if X had not thought this, X would not have said it like this X knows much about how to say things well to other people it is good if people can say things in this way As one might expect from the scripts proposed throughout, speaking in a halus way means using elegant phrases and traditional sayings (peribahasa) to allude to potentially sensitive matters, it means using a soft and gentle (lemah lembut) tone of

C. Goddard / 3ournal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

199

voice, not saying too much, paying careful attention to the other person's moods and wishes, and so on.

The script does not specify when halus speech is appropriate, but, again, this is probably as it should be. The fact that speech tends to be halus in formal situations, and with people one doesn't know well, can be deduced from other principles of traditional Malay culture. After all, in a formal situation such as a marriage negotiation or a property settlement it is natural that everyone would be very mindful of the need to avoid the others present thinking anything bad about one. Similarly, when dealing with people one doesn't know, or when speaking in public, the desire to avoid malu would make for conspicuously halus behaviour. In either case, it makes sense to speak in a halus fashion.

4. Concluding remarks Toward the end of his monograph A Malay Village and Malaysia, Peter Wilson (1967:147) observes that to make cultural sense of social relations "one must make explicit the ideological level ... the less tangible level of values and emotions". In line with this recommendation, my aim in this paper has been both to document some Malay speech conventions and to illuminate their connections with other aspects of Malay culture. I hope to have shown that the new theory of cultural scripts is conducive to both these goals. It allows us to formulate clear and testable hypotheses about speech patterns, and 1:o see how these relate to the conceptual content of culturally important emotion and value terms.

A parting caveat should perhaps be made about the use of the term 'script'.

Despite the possible connotations of the word, it is important to acknowledge that cultural scripts are not necessarily 'binding' on individuals. Cultural norms may be followed by some of the people all of the time, and by all of the people some of the time, but they are certainly not followed by all of the people all of the time. Whether or not they are being followed in behavioural terms, however, cultural norms are always in the background as an interpretive framework against which people make sense of and access other people's behaviours.

It should also be acknowledged that no-one knows, at this early stage in the development of the theory of cultural scripts, how many scripts would be needed for a comprehensive description of the 'verbal culture' of any society (just as no-one has yet produced a complete ethnography of communication in conventional terms). We may expect, however, that the number would be large. We can also expect to find both direct relationships between scripts (for example, some taking priority over others) and subtler forms of intertextuality. We can expect that many scripts will be tailored to particular classes of interlocutors and settings. The present short study must therefore be seen as fragmentary and programmatic.

A final matter of general interest which bears mention is the question of whether there are certain formats which are characteristic of scripts from particular cultures.

In this respect, it is noticeable that Malay cultural scripts lend themselves to formulations in terms of what is 'good' or 'not good', rather than in terms of what people

200

C. Goddard / Journal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

'can' or 'cannot' say or do, as seems appropriate for Anglo-American and Japanese scripts (cf. Wierzbicka, 1994a,b,c). The traditional Malay 'cultural ideology' of social relations seems to be constituted in moral or ethical terms, rather than in terms of freedoms, constraints, and social possibilities.

References Alatas, Hussein Syed, 1977. The myth of the lazy native. London: F. Cass.

Ameka, Felix, 1987. A comparative analysis of linguistic routines in two languages: English and Ewe. Journal of Pragmatics 11 : 299-326.

Ameka, Felix, ed., 1992. Special issue on 'Interjections'. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2/3).

Asmah, Haji Omar, 1987. Malay in its sociocultural context. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Banks, David J., 1983. Malay kinship. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Besnier, Niko, 1994. Involvement in linguistic practice: An ethnographic appraisal. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 279-299.

Coope, A.E., 1991 [1976]. A Malay-English English-Malay dictionary. Revised edition. Kuala Lumpur: Macmillan Education.

Djamour, Judith, 1965 [19591. Malay kinship and marriage in Singapore. London: Athlone Press.

Fauconnier, Henri, 1990. The soul of Malaya. Singapore: Oxford University Press. [Translated by Eric Sutton. First published 1931.]

Goddard, Cliff, 1992. Traditional Yankunytjatjara ways of speaking - A semantic perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics 12(1): 93-122.

Goddard, Cliff, 1994. The meaning of lah: Understanding 'emphasis' in Malay (Bahasa Melayu).

Oceanic Linguistics 33(1): 145-165.

Goddard, Cliff, 1996. The 'social emotions' of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Ethos 24(3).

Goddard, Cliff, ed., in press. Studies in the syntax of universal semantic primitives. Special issue of Language Science 19(2).

Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka, eds., 1994. Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hasada, Rie, in press. Some aspects of Japanese cultural ethos embedded in nonverbal communicative behaviour. In: F. Poyatos, ed., Nonverbal communication in translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hussain, Abdullah, 1990. Kamus simpulan Bahasa. (Edisi Kedua). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Honna, Nobuyuki and Bates Hoffer, eds., 1989. An English dictionary of Japanese ways of thinking.

Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

Irvine, Judith T., 1979. Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropologist 81(4): 773-790.

Jacoby, Mario, 1991. Shame and the origins of self-esteem: A Jungian approach. Trans. in collaboration with the author by Douglas Whitcher. London and New York: Routledge.

Janney, Richard and Horst Arndt, 1993. Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective. Multilingua 12(1): 13-50.

Karim, Wazir Jahan, 1990a. Introduction: Emotions in perspective. In: W.J. Karim, ed., Emotions of culture. A Malay perspective, 1-20. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Karim, Wazir Jahan, 1990b. Prelude to madness: The language of emotion in courtship and early marriage. In: W.J. Karim, ed., Emotions of culture. A Malay perspective, 21-63. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Kochman, Thomas, 1981. Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Maeda, Narifumi, 1975. Family circle, community, and nation in Malaysia. Current Anthropology 16(1); 163-166.

Mahathir, Mohammed, 1970. The Malay dilemma. Kuala Lumpur: Times Books International.

O'Brien, H.A., 1883. Malay amoks. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Straits Branch 11: 143-153.

C. Goddard / 3ournal of Pragmatics 27 (1997) 183-201

201

Schiffrin, Deborah, 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13:311-335.

Swift, M.G., 1965. Malay peasant society in Jelebu. London: Athlone Press.

Tannen, Deborah, 1981. New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30: 133-149.

Vreeland, Nen, Glenn B. Dana, Geoffrey B. Hurwitz, Peter Just, Philip W. Moeller and R.S. Shinn, 1977. Area handbook for Malaysia. 3rd Edition. Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming Corporation of America.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1972. Semantic primitives. Frankfurt a.M.: Athen~ium.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1980. Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language, New York: Academic Press.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of social interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1992. Semantics, culture and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1994a. 'Cultural scripts': A semantic approach to cultural analysis and cross-cultural communication. In: L. Bouton and Yamunu Kachru, eds., Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series, Vol. 5), 1-24. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinolois.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1994b. 'Cultural scripts': A new approach to the study of cross-cutural communication. In: M. Piitz, ed., Language contact and language conflict, 67-87. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1994c. Emotion, language and cultural scripts. In: S. Kitayama and H. Markus, eds., Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence, 130-198. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilder, W.D., 1982. Communication, social structure and development in rural Malaysia: A study of Kampung Kuala Beta. London: Athlone Press.

Wilson, Peter J., 1967. A Malay village in Malaysia. New Haven, CT: Hraf Press.