Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 2 No. 2 2003 ISSN 1475 - 8989
Factors Influencing the Language Choices
of Malay Malaysians
in the Family, Friendship and Market Domains
Hafriza Burhanudeen
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Abstract
The multilingual and multicultural nature of Malaysians has been the focus of many scholars in the field of Southeast Asian sociolinguistics. This paper endeavours to contribute to the development of Malaysian sociolinguistics by discerning the interaction between the language behavior of the dominant ethnic group in Malaysia, the Malays, and their unique social and cultural identity. In this paper, this goal is fulfilled by providing a descriptive account of the language choices of 219 Malay Malaysians in the family, friendship and market domains. The linguistic and cultural characteristics that emerge from this study will lead to a better understanding of the ethnolinguistic vitality of the Malay Malaysian community.
1. Introduction and Background Information
Domain analysis is a popular choice for many scholars who choose to investigate a community's norms of language use. This paper, similarly, endeavours to use domain analysis to investigate the interactive effects of education, age, role-relationships and ethnicity on the language choices of Malay Malaysians in the family, friendship and market domains. Fishman (1972:435) defines domains as classes of situations, in which individuals interact in appropriate role relationships and discuss topics appropriate to their role relationships. Fishman (1972) further contends that different kinds of multilingual speech communities should benefit from domain analysis, whether the domains are defined intuitively, theoretically, or empirically because it illuminates factors concerning the circumstances, social or otherwise, in which languages are used "where," "when" and "why." In this paper, the domains investigated are defined inituitively by the writer, a member of the Malay Malaysian community. In addition, assumptions made about the language behaviour of the 219 subjects are also empirically tested. By combining qualitative and quantitative procedures, the paper aspires to firmly document the language and cultural norms of Malay Malaysians not only in relation to “where,”“when” and “why” but also the “how,” that is how these languages choices are communicated in the domains investigated in this paper.
Two criteria serve as relevant background information to the goal of this paper; firstly the effect of language planning on the role and status of the Malay and English language before and after independence from British colonialization and secondly, the types of language choices available to
Malay Malaysians. A description of the former is necessary to provide a framework that could account for and explain the possible differences in language choices among the older subjects in this study vis a vis the younger subjects due to the fact that the older participants of this study were educated entirely in English, or bilingually in English and Malay while the younger participants are currently being educated entirely in Malay. All this, plus other factors which will be discussed during data interpretation could influence the language choices of these Malay Malaysians. The function of the second criteria mentioned, that is, a description of the types of language choices available to Malay Malaysians is to highlight the salient features of each type of language choice available. This is considered important for two reasons; Firstly, as relevant background information to the goal of this paper and secondly, as reference when each type of language choice is indicated in the data interpretation section of this paper. Being bilingual, the language choices would be either English or Malay only.
We begin by providing a general description of the first criteria aforementioned, the effect of language planning processes on the role and status of the Malay and English language. The English language was introduced to Malaysia in the 1800s by British colonialization. During this period, the role and status of English was high being the language of government and education. English was also regarded as an indispensable requirement for social and economic mobility. Due to these roles, the learning and use of English was greatly pursued by members of the local multiracial population comprising of Malays, and Chinese and Indian immigrants.
The role and status of Malay, before the British presence in the 1800s was considerable in its functions as the language of administration, education, culture, literature and arts for the Malay archipelago since 7 A.D. These roles, however, declined drastically after British colonization. During this period, the role of Malay was confined to a language of primary education, daily use among the Malays, and an interethnic means of communication in several transaction domains such as the market place. These transaction domains, in diglossic terms, were regarded as low domains. Additionally, the variety of Malay used here was a sub-standard variety containing many features of the immigrant languages. Like Malay, the role of Chinese and Indian languages were largely confined to their respective communities.
Independence in 1957 saw a dramatic change again in the role and status of English and Malay. After independence, Malay was selected as the national language as a tool of integration for the different ethnic groups in Malaysia and as an official language for purposes of nation-building. The selection of Malay was primarily linked to the fact that it was indigenous to Malaysia, the language of the majority, the Malays, and that it existed as the language of administration long before the coming of any Western power. The major vehicle used, however, to ensure the growth and use of Malay was the selection of Malay as the language of education in addition to its role as national language. Beginning in 1957, too, English was gradually phased out as medium of education in favor of Malay. From 1957 to 1983, a bilingual system existed. After 1983, Malay was the sole language of education. This gradual process meant that Malaysians who were educated in the 60s and 70s would have had more exposure to English in the education system compared to those who went through an all Malay-medium education. Given all this, it is expected that the older participants of this study who were educated in the 70s and 80s would be more comfortable in English compared to the younger participants who were eduacted in Malay.
Next, the four major types of language choices frequently made by Malay Malaysians in various domains of language use are code-mixing, code-switching and the employment of different styles within the same language. Here, I use Asmah's (1982) definition of code-mixing and code-switching to discuss the language behavior of Malay Malaysians. According to Asmah, code-switching entails that the language codes are used intersententially whereas in code-mixing, the language codes are used intrasentially.
Examples of each are given below.
Code-switching among Malays can be illustrated as follows (Asmah, 1982:132). The English translation is mine.
Speaker A : Tuan Pengerusi, saya pada dasarnya menyokongpendapatTuan Pengerusi itu tetapi saya ingin mencadangkan supaya peraturan ini di-kenakan secara beransur-ansur. We must be careful not to force the system all at once on the people.They are sure to reject it.
(Mr. Chairman, I support your views in principle but I would like to suggest that the implementation of the regulations be carried out gradually.
(We must be careful not to force the system all at once on the people. They are sure to reject it).
Speaker B : Yes, yes, I agree with you. Bagaimana pendapat yang lain?
(Yes, yes, I agree with you. How about hearing other opinions?)
Code-mixing among Malays, on the other hand, usually takes the form illustrated below (Asmah, 1982:132). The English translation is mine.
1) We are not testing apa yang diperolehi di university.
Knowledgewise, the clerks know better, kerana dia membaca.
(We are not testing what one gains in university. Know-
wise, the clerks know better because they read)
2) Daripada analysis yang dibuat, if we go by faculty, ada perbezaan.
(From the analysis that was done, if we go by faculty, thereare differences)
The types of code-shifting shown above are appropriate in formal domains such as meetings and seminars. It is additionally vigorous in semi-formal domains viz. a group of Malay professionals arguing politics or work related issues over lunch and in informal domains such as the home and among friends. Here, code-mixing tends to occur at well defined points in a conversation and the shift in codes is marked by little or no hesitation.
Code-mixing and code-switching among Malays can also take the form of switching between the standard variety of Malay and a regional Malay dialect. Both types of switchings are characteristic of informal discourse between Malay speakers who come from different regions. In the urban area, the Malay bilingual, for example, will rarely mix the regional Malay variety and the standard Malay variety in a speech situation if he is overly concerned with his social and regional identity. However, if an occasion arises where a speaker switches to his regional dialect, both he and his interlocuter could be from the same region and hence share the same regional dialect, or the interlocuter could be from a different region, but has sufficient knowledge of the dialect directed at him to achieve membership and solidarity. I have been in a situation many times when I am with Malay friends from different regions in Malaysia. I would consciously switch to the regional Malay dialects of my friends to achieve rapport and familiarity. In turn, my friends would switch to my regional dialect to achieve equality. Thus, in a single speech situation, a variety of regional varieties can go back and forth between a group of people to heighten group solidarity such that sociocultural authenticity can be shared and exchanged. All this supports Giles and Powesland's (1975) theory of speech accomodation where in language choice an individual can induce the other to evaluate him more favorable by reducing the dissimilarities between them.
The employment of different styles within the same language here refers to the variety of styles ranging from formal to informal. Whether a formal of informal style is used would depend on the situation and the participants associated with the situation. For example, formal styles are appropriate in domains such as government and education whereas very informal English or Malay are usually used in situations where it is generally assumed that the participants are not educated beyond the primary level, for example, the market domain. As mentioned earlier, very informal Malay and English are the language choices with interlocuters who are assumed to have had only a primary education. Educated speakers will use these very informal forms with the former to reduce social and psychological distance for better communication and service. Instances such as these will be discussed in more detail during interpretation of data used for this study. Sometimes, however, bazaar English and Malay are used in the family and friendship domain for a humerous effect especially among siblings and friends of the same generation.
2. Methodology
Data was gathered from 219 Malaysian Malays between the ages of 16 and 35 years concerning their language choices in the family, friendship and market domains. Subjects between the ages of 16 and 19, henceforth referred to as students, were from these following schools:
1. St. Mary's Secondary School, Kuala Lumpur
2. Maxwell Secondary School, Kuala Lumpur
3. Pantai Secondary School, Kuala Lumpur
Participants between 20 to 35 years, henceforth referred to as professionals, included university lecturers, computer analysts, lawyers, journalists, diplomats, managers of various companies, and some lower on the occupational scale like clerks and secretaries.
Questionnaires were the principal instruments used in this study followed by interviews on a smaller scale to supplement information gathered through the questionnaires. Questionnaires for the student group were distributed by the researcher in person at each school while questionnaires for the professional group were distributed through a network of friends and family. The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain feedback on the nature of language use among Malay Malaysians. Unstructured and informal interviews were carried out with each secondary school teacher that administered the survey in the three secondary schools investigated here, and with participants such as members of the family and friends to discuss any problems that arose while they carried out the survey, or about any other observations they had that would aid data analysis. Most of the interviews lasted about an hour. Finally, discreet observation of the interaction between interlocuters in the family, friendship and market domain was carried out by the researcher to aid data interpretation. Here, most of the interactions were noted and recorded surreptitiously by her. It is important to point out that although the language choices on the questionnaire do not indicate levels of formality, semi-formality and informality, these levels do exist during communication and will be included in the discussion where relevant.
A combination of parametric and non-parametric tests was used in this study. The Friedman analysis of variance was used to test assumptions in the family, market and friendship domain. Discussion of data obtained will be handled in two ways; firstly, a description of the domains to give readers, unfamiliar to the Malaysian situation, a general sense of what usually goes on in each domain. Second, a discussion of the quantitative results. These will be interpreted primarily by introspection. Used objectively, introspection is an efficient method of interpreting data that yields objective results. It draws on the inherent knowledge of a researcher already culturally and linguistically sensitive to a given community, thus reducing the need for error-prone postulating based on outside sources.
Saville-Troike (1982:110-111, 114) provides several advantages of studying one's own culture:
1) "One of the advantages of studying one's own culture,
and attempting to make explicit the systems of understanding
which are implicit, is that ethnographers are able to use
themselves as sources of information and interpretation."
2) "..acknowledges the member of the society as the repository of
cultural knowledge, and recognizes that the ethnographer
who already possesses this knowledge can tap it introspectively
validate, enrich, and expedite the task of ethnographic
description."
3) "..some major questions regarding validity and reliability raised by the quantitatively oriented social sciences can be at least partially resolved."
4) "Combining observation and self-knowledge, the ethnographer can plumb the depths and explore the subtle interconnections of meaning in ways that the outsider could attain only with great difficulty, if at all."
5) "..some of the problems of verification can be overcome, and a corrective to unbridled speculation provided."
6) " ...no outsider can really understand the meaning of interactions of various types within the community without eliciting the intuitions of its members."
The raw data reveals that the subjects' language choices are influenced by the setting, the degree of formality, whether the personal repertoires of the interlocuters are equal, age, ethnicity of interlocuter and education. For example, the subjects' preferred Malay with other Malays in the market domain but only 62 percent of the time with non-Malays in the same domain. In the family domain, formal varieties are preferred with grandparents and parents while an informal variety is preferred with siblings. Such comparisons lend support to my conviction that the subjects' language choices in a given situation is not arbitrary, but governed by certain norms of appropriate language use prevalent in the Malay society.
3. Data Analysis and Interpretation
The domains investigated in this study are the family domain, the market domain and the friendship domain.
3.1. The Family Domain
Four sub-domains can generally be found in Malay families. They are
1) Conversing with grandparents
2) Conversing with mother
3) Conversing with father
4) Conversing with siblings
3.1.1. Result and Discussion of Hypothesis Testing
The hypotheses that there is a difference in language use between the Malay subjects and the participants in the family domain depending on the family member was significant (Chi-square of ranks=17.41, df=3, p<.05)
Table 1
Malay always / English & Malay equally / English more than Malay / English alwaysMother / N / 165 / 37 / 10 / 7
% / 75.34 / 16.89 / 4.57 / 3.20
Father / N / 158 / 40 / 12 / 9
% / 72.14 / 18.26 / 5.48 / 4.11
Grandparents / N / 204 / 6 / 5 / 4
% / 93.15 / 2.73 / 2.28 / 1.83
Siblings / N / 128 / 73 / 13 / 5
% / 58.44 / 33.33 / 5.94 / 2.28
N=219
3.1.2. Summary and Discussion
The results show that the subjects’ prefer Malay with mothers, fathers, grandparents and siblings. However, the use of Malay is most dominant with grandparents followed by parents and least dominant with siblings. The use of English either monolingually or bilingually with Malay, on the other hand, is preferred most with siblings, and almost equally used with mothers and fathers.
Interaction with the older generation has to exude a certain degree of social distance, humility and deference to indicate respect for their age and authority. This is accomplished by being formal in language and in behaviour. This formality in language and behaviour is often accompanied by the lowering of one's voice and avoiding full eye contact. To do otherwise, such as using informal varieties and talking in a loud voice, would be considered rude in Malay society.
With the above in mind, the dominant use of Malay with grandparents is also influenced by the assumption that they are not likely to be proficient in English due to informal interview data indicating a Malay-medium education among the subjects’ grandparents. Hence, the use of formal Malay accompanied by the proper social norms stated above would be appropriate and polite. The table also shows small amounts of English being used with grandparents. This could be explained by the following reason. In the Malay community, the choice of a nursing home for the care of grandparents is socially and culturally unacceptable. Members of the grandparents' immediate family usually take turns to care for grandparents. Hence, grandparents may understand some English being constantly around some younger educated members of the family who would sometimes use English. However, the grandparents would most likely answer in Malay.