Research Interest
Spoken by the Straits-born Chinese of Malacca, Penang and Singapore, Baba Malay has been accorded different status according to various scholars. Baba Malay has been described as a creole based on Malay with a Minnan substrate (Lim 1981). However, Pakir (1986) views it as a dialect of Malay and in Grimes (1992), Baba Malay is described as a Malay dialect with some borrowings from Hokkien. Chia (1989) sees it as a “corrupt form of the Malay tongue.”
Of particular interest to this paper is the attempt to resolve these different views and to show that the Hokkien element found in Baba Malay represents a case of substrate influence rather than borrowing. The historical context of Baba Malay, coupled with the evidence given by an in-depth analysis of the grammatical structures, point to the direction that Baba Malay should be treated as a creole.
Methodology
The core structure of this paper will adhere to the following guidelines. We will consider the structural influence of Hokkien on Baba Malay in terms of substrate influence. Also, the chief focus will be on the syntactic features which will include the possessive and passive constructions. An examination of the loan words incorporated into Baba Malay will also be considered.
In the course of this paper, we will argue that based on both historical and structural grounds, Baba Malay should rightfully not be considered a dialect of Malay, but rather a creole with Malay as the lexifier and Hokkien as the substrate language.
Introduction: From History to Contemporary
The Babas who were considered the first descendents of Fujian Chinese and the local Malay women can be found in Malacca, Penang and Singapore (which were collectively known as the Straits Settlement of Malaya from 1826 to 1957). The most significant defining feature of a Baba is that he has mixed Chinese-Malay ancestry. These intermarriages took place for a number of reasons. As Chia (1980) points out, the Fujian Chinese immigrants were all adventurers who came to seek a fortune or make a living. As such, many did not or could not afford to bring their womenfolk along owing to poverty. Also, they did not have any intention of making Malaya their home at the initial stage. The most important reason was attributed to the fact that while the males were free to come and go as they wished, women immigrants were subjected to a strict watch placed over them by the Chinese authorities. It is out of this inter-racial background that the language of the Baba community developed. Such a historical context represents a likely context for creolization to take place, although it differs in some respects from the more familiar creolization contexts created by the slave trade.
While Malacca claims the status as the original birthplace of the Baba Malay language, Penang and Singapore were the places to which many of the Malacca Babas migrated to, especially during the turn of the nineteen-century.
The men of the Baba community are known as babas and the women nyonyas. We will use the term ‘babas’ in this paper to refer to the community as a whole. Interestingly, there are other forms by which the Babas have been known to be associated with. Common examples are ‘peranakan’, ‘Straits-Chinese’ and ‘Straits-born Chinese’. As Pakir remarks, “all these names developed over the time that the Babas were evolving as a distinct cultural identity in Malaya over the centuries.” Baba Malay too, has its fair share of other names such as the ‘peranakan community speech’, ‘language of the Straits-Chinese’ and ‘language of the Straits-born Chinese’.
The distinctive culture which supported the use of Baba Malay as a first language has been in decline since World War II and most fluent speakers are elderly, mostly in their seventies. The fate of Baba Malay in these three communities is very different. In Singapore, the Baba community completely switched to a totally different language which was English. As for Penang, the strong substrate influence of Hokkien, or Penang Hokkien to be more precise, has been noted. This is a reversal of the normal upward trend we would associate a post creole continuum with (where the acrolectal degree of sophistication is the ultimate goal). In Malacca, decreolization has taken place as Baba Malay speakers assimilate towards the lexifier language in the form of Standard Malay. This was largely because of changes in the educational policy of Malaysia where the medium of instruction in schools is Standard Malay.
Once a prestigious language used for trade cum other purposes and as an expression of their unique cultural background, Baba Malay has lost much of its lustre and has in fact gone through a period of steady decline. Scholars acknowledge that Baba Malay is a dying language.
In Singapore for example, the once rich Baba community’s fortunes took a dramatic turn for the worse during the Japanese Occupation. In fact, it has been noted by Turnbull (1977) that Babas lost their cultural heritage and unique social status during this period (15 Feb 1942 – 15 Aug 1945) as a result of the measures adopted by the Japanese. The Babas had to do tough labour and manual work which they never did in their lives such as ploughing and farming and as Chia puts it, “the ones who had softer skin suffered the most because the bigger the calluses grew”. These measures relegated their status and in turn led them to socialize with the Chinese. As time passed, Baba grandparents could then no longer force their rich culture and language upon their half or non-Baba grandchildren. It is also sad to note that although one can claim to have Baba blood running through the veins, he or she may not necessarily know how to speak Baba Malay.
Syntactic Features of Baba Malay
Kasi
Kasi in informal Malay is used as a main verb, whose lexical meaning is ‘to give’. In Baba Malay however, kasi is used in several other ways which are not used in Standard Malay. The influence of the different uses of kasi in Baba Malay which are absent in Standard Malay, comes from Hokkien. Kasi is the counterpart of the Hokkien ho, and in Baba Malay has all the grammatical functions of the latter based on their similarities. The four uses of kasi as a marker of causative constructions, a cause verb in causative constructions, the main verb and as an agent marker in passive constructions will be discussed.
Kasi as a marker of causative constructions
Kasi acts as a conjunctive connecting cause and consequence clauses. It means ‘to let, so that’. Hokkien ho has the same function and meaning.
bukak jok tu kasi dia kena ujan
Kasi as a cause verb in causative constructions
Kasi functions as the cause verb meaning ‘let, make’ which has a parallel in Hokkien ho. Kasi like ho can denote intention or non intention.
kita kasi tau kita mia kawan
(we kasi know our friend)
Glosses: We let our friend know
Hokkien : lan ho lan e peng iu zai
(we ho our friend know)
Kasi can have a negative prefix attached to it i.e. tak kasi or can be preceded by an auxiliary i.e. pi kasi. Similarly, Hokkien ho can be negated i.e. bo ho or have an auxiliary before it i.e. khi ho. The function of kasi as the cause verb can be found in the Standard Malay equivalent beri.
Kasi as the main verb
Kasi and ho both functions as the main verb, meaning ‘ to give’.
kasi gua ayam
(give me chicken)
Hokkien: ho gua quae
(give me chicken)
In informal Malay, there are similar constructions with kasi. In Standard Malay, kasi carries the function of the main verb too. This is the only function which Standard Malay kasi, Baba Malay kasi and Hokkien ho have in common.
Kasi as an agent marker in passive construction
dia kasi gua pukol
(he ho I hit)
As the above example shows, kasi in Baba Malay and ho in Hokkien both function as the agent marker in passive constructions. The use of kasi and ho suggest adversity in this function. The action being done by the agent to the ‘undergoer’ is undesirable. This feature of adversity is a common one in many Asian languages.
In Standard Malay, the agent in passive constructions is marked by the preposition oleh. This however is a neutral passive, not an adversative one. The four functions of kasi in Baba Malay are analogous to the functions of ho in Hokkien.
Only one out of four possible usages of kasi in Baba Malay parallels the only usage of kasi in Standard Malay; that of the main verb. Kasi in Baba Malay has an equivalent in Malay’s beri as seen, but has no equivalents. While the links between kasi in Baba Malay and ho in Hokkien are consistent, the same cannot be said for the usages of kasi in Baba Malay and kasi in Standard Malay.
Kena
Kena is the equivalent of tioq in Hokkien in function but is regarded as colloquial Malay in form. In Standard Malay, kena is not used.
Kena used in passive constructions
Kena in Baba Malay is used to mark the passive construction. Kena is not followed immediately by the agent unlike in kasi. A passive construction containing kena may be agentless or the agent may be expressed in the post-verbal position. The agent might also precede kena. Baba Malay kena in this function has no Hokkien equivalent. Hokkien ho used in the passive construction is always followed by the agent, since it is an agent marker. Hokkien tioq in the passive construction does not require an agent.
Hokkien: i tioq may
(he tioq scolded)
Glosses: He was scolded
However such passive constructions containing tioq has restricted usage, and is used only to inferiors. In Taiwanese Hokkien, such usage is completely absent. This is the only function of kena that is not paralleled by Hokkien tioq or any other morpheme in Hokkien.
Kena used in incurred constructions
Kena in Baba Malay means ‘contact’ of an adversative, but non-volitional nature. The agent is not obvious and is not indicated. Hokkien tioq has the same meaning as Baba Malay kena in this function and is used in the same way as Baba Malay kena. In the previous function, it was stated that a construction like i tioq may was very rare. This is because the agent in the above construction was obvious though deleted. Hokkien tioq can only be used when the agent is not obvious.
dia kena racun
(he kena poison)
Glosses: He was poisoned
Hokkien : i tioq tok
(he was poisoned)
Kena as main verb
Kena in Baba Malay is analogous in function as the main verb to Hokkien tioq. Baba Malay kena and Hokkien tioq both mean to ‘hit a target or strike a target’.
gua kena capjiki
(I kena gambling game)
Glosses: I struck the winning combination in the gambling game
Hokkien : gua tioq capjiki
(I struck gambling game)
Kena and tioq carry positive, non-adversative connotations.
Kena as auxiliary
Kena is used as an auxiliary verb in Baba Malay, meaning ‘have to (do something)’.
gua kena pigi
(I kena go)
Glosses: I had to go (i.e. I had no choice)
Hokkien: gua tioq khi
(I tioq go)
The one difference between Baba Malay kena and Hokkien tioq is that while the latter may signify both the notions of obligatory and non-volition, kena signifies only non-volition. The twin semantic components of tioq are split and distributed in Baba Malay between two lexemes, kena (non-volition) and misti (obligation) as illustrated below.
kita kena jalan sana
(we kena walk there)kita misti jalan sana
(we misti walk there)
Glosses: We must walk there
The use of kena as auxiliary verb shows influence from H tioq, though the influence is not total. Of the four functions of kena, three of these parallel the functions of tioq. Kena used as a passive marker is an additional feature which Baba Malay kena has acquired in addition to the functions of Hokkien tioq. At times, kena and tioq parallel each other. On other occasions, kena is nearly equivalent to tioq. Thus influence of Hokkien in Baba Malay is considerable.
Mo
Mo in Baba Malay is the phonologically reduced version of mau. Mau is commonly used in Colloquial Malay, but is not used in Standard Malay. Baba Malay mau has several functions whose influence can be seen to come from Hokkien beq.
Mo as main verb
Mo is used as a main verb, whose lexical meaning is ‘want or desire’
lu mo brapa ayam
(you mo what many chickens?)
Glosses: How many chickens do you want?
The equivalent of mo as Main verb in Hokkien is ai. However general influence in mo does not come from Hokkien ai as ai does not parallel the later functions of mo, as we shall see.
Mo as auxiliary verb
Baba Malay mo can denote simple futurity, intention or expectation depending on the context in which it is used. Hokkien beq as an auxiliary verb parallels Baba Malay mo in this respect.
mo ujan; angkat payong
(mo rain; carry umbrella)
Glosses: It’s going to rain, carry an umbrella
Hokkien : beq lo hor; gia ji ki hor suah
(beq to rain; take an umbrella)
Ali mo beli buku
(Ali mo buy book)
Glosses: Ali wants to buy a book
Hokkien : Ali beq buay cek
(Ali beq buy book)
dia mo mati skali tak jadi
(he mo die once cannot become)
Glosses: He was about to die but it didn’t happen
Hokkien : i pi ka beq si au lai ho khi lai
(he sick until beq almost die later recover)
As shown, Hokkien beq parallels Baba Malay mo in its function as an auxiliary verb. Malay however has different morphemes for the denotations of simple futurity and intention respectively. Akan functions as an auxiliary verb signifying simple futurity. Hendak is used to signify intention. Standard Malay does not have an auxiliary verb signifying expectation.
Pigi which means ‘to go’ is a member of the class of full verbs in Baba Malay as well as the minor class of function-words. Pigi in its guise as a function-word has a parallel in the Hokkien khi also meaning ‘to go’. Both pigi and khi indicate ‘direction away from the speaker’ when juxtaposed with a verb of motion.
gua pake parka pigi sekola
(I wear parka pigi school)
Glosses: I wear a parka to school
Hokkien : gua cheng parka khi o-tng
(I wear parka khi school)
Pigi has as its complementary opposite the word datang (literally meaning ‘to come’) which is again paralleled by the Hokkien lai. Both mean direction towards the speaker when preceded by a motion verb.
Punya
Punya is widely used in Baba malay and is often phonologically reduced to mia. In Standard Malay, punya is a verb whose lexical meaning is ‘to possess’. It is never phonologically reduced. On the other hand, Baba Malay punya is a grammatical morpheme. Baba Malay punya has three main functions which parallel the functions of Hokkien e. Three uses of punya will be discussed.
Punya as possessive marker
This is the most common use of punya in Baba Malay. The syntactic structure containing punya as a possessive marker is Possessor punya Noun which is possessed. This is analogous to the way in which Hokkien e is used. Hokkien e too carries the function of a possessive marker. Punya and e are used as suffixes which attach to the Possessor.
dia mia menantu
(he mia daughter-in-law)
Glosses: His daughter-in-law
Hokkien : i e sin pu
(he e daughter-in-law)
lu mia sukak
(you mia like)
Glosses: As you wish
Hokkien : li e sukak
(you Ie wish)
Baba Malay punya and Hokkien e when used with pronouns form the genitive case and when used with nouns form possessives.
Punya as marker of modifying phrases
Baba Malay punya and Hokkien e both can be attached to phrases or clauses to turn them into modifiers. Thus, a phrase in Hokkien marked with e and a phrase in Baba Malay marked with punya are phrases which modify a noun. Punya like e can be a marker of temporal modifiers and markers of locative modifiers and a variety of other types of phrases.
dulu mia orang
(past mia people)
Glosses: People of the past
Hokkien: korca e lang
(last time e people)
dekat Bedok mia skolar
(preposition place mia school)
Glosses: The school in Bedok
Hokkien : bedok e o-tng
(bedok e school)
jahat mia orang (wicked mia people)
Glosses: wicked people
Hokkien : pai sim e lang
(bad-hearted e people)
beli buku punya duit
(buy book punya money)
Glosses: the money for buying books
Hokkien : buay cek e lui
(buy book e money)
Punya as nominalizer
Punya when used with a deleted object functions as a nominalizer. Hokkien e can be used in a similar fashion too.
skrang mia
(now mia)
Glosses: that which belongs to the present
Hokkien : cit cun e…
(present e…)
The use of punya in Baba Malay shows consistent syntactic influence from Hokkien e. Baba Malay pays very little attention to the use of suffixes and prefixes which is essential in Malay grammar. Such prefixes and suffixes include ber, mo, me, per, ter, kan, nya, lah, kah.
dia baca buku
(he read book)
Glosses: He reads a book
Hokkien : yi kua cek
(he read book)
Malay : dia membaca buku
(he read book)
The lack of inflexional morphology is a prominent feature in most pidgins and creoles. This has its roots in the situations in which pidgins developed, whereby syntactic structures were simplified for limited functions.
Word Order
The word order in Baba Malay has already been dealt with briefly when discussing punya and its usages. Lim (1988) remarks that word order in Baba Malay, as we have seen is patterned after Hokkien rather than Standard Malay in that modifiers of all types may precede the head nominal. These modifiers may be locative phrases, adjectives, temporal phrases or full sentences. If they precede the head nominal, they will have to occur with punya, which serves as a relativiser.
Adjective + Nominal
bese punya ruma
(big punya house)
Glosses: A house which is big
Locative phrase + Nominal
sini punya orang
(here punya people)
Glosses: the people who are here
Temporal phrase + Nominal
tiga bulan punya holiday
(three months punya holiday)
Glosses: the holiday which is of three months
Full sentence + Nominal
orang tarek punya cia
(man pull punya vehicle)
Glosses: the vehicle which is pulled by the man)
None of the above patterns are permissible in Malay, but they are fully permissible in Hokkien where the above examples may be regarded as noun-phrases containing an embedded sentence. This further strengthens the argument that the Hokkien substrate plays an influential role in the syntactic structures of Baba Malay.
Interestingly, another area or word order in which Baba Malay differs from Malay because it is patterned after Hokkien word order is found in the positioning of determiners in relation to the nominal. The most commonly cited example is the following.
Baba Malay : itu orang and Hokkien : hi e lang
(the person) (the person)
Glosses: the person
as compared to Malay : orang hitu
(person the)
It is Pakir’s claim that Baba Malay is a dialect of Malay, based on seeming similarities between Baba Malay and Standard Malay in syntax. She frequently compares Baba Malay with Colloquial Malay. However it should be noted that Colloquial Malay itself had absorbed external influences from many sources, one of which is Hokkien. Colloquial Malay and Baba Malay might both have grown out of a common pidgin in which Chinese played an important role in shaping. Hence in the above analysis, we have used Standard Malay as the superstrate language and the basis of comparison with Baba Malay. Although Standard Malay might have equivalents for different functions of a morpheme in Baba Malay, these functions are separated into different morphemes in Standard Malay. This is unlike Baba Malay, where a single morpheme is representative of collective functions. This syntactic phenomenon is found in Hokkien whereby a morpheme can have lexical and grammatical uses. In the discussion of kasi, kena, punya, pigi and mo, we have successfully shown that language shift from Hokkien into Baba Malay has been consistent and prominent. Processes characteristic of creolization, like lack of inflexional morphology and grammaticalization, are apparent in Baba Malay. Baba Malay’s syntax is also contrastive with Standard Malay’s syntax. These provide evidence of Baba Malay being a creole.
Lexis
It is obvious that the majority of the Baba Malay lexicon is of Malay origin, thus supporting the argument that Baba Malay derives its lexis from its lexifier language Malay. Grimes (1984) defines Baba Malay as “a creole developed from Malay with some Chinese borrowings.”
Png Poh Seng (1967) as quoted by in Pakir’s thesis conducted a survey to determine the number of Hokkien loans in Malay and concluded that there are about 400 Hokkien loanwords in Standard Malay. In fact, many of these Hokkien loanwords are also Baba Malay words, thus suggesting the possibility that Baba Malay might have taken some Hokkien words directly from its lexifier language (i.e. Malay) instead of borrowing them from Hokkien. Hence, Baba Malay ties to Malay might be stronger than are initially realized using the very evidence of some Hokkien borrowings in Baba Malay. Examples of Hokkien words which are present in both Baba Malay and Malay are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Hokkien words present in both Malay and Baba Malay
| Examples | Meaning |
| Capjiki | a lottery of twelve numbers |
| Popia | Chinese spring rolls |
| Mi | Noodles |
| Tauge | Bean sprouts |
| Taucio | Preserved soy beans |
| Konsi | (a) company or firm (b) to share |
Although a large proportion of Baba Malay comes from its lexifier language, Standard Malay, Babas have cultural systems which are uniquely Chinese. Chinese loan words are necessary when referring to things which have Chinese origin. The Chinese loan-words which are mostly derived from Hokkien dialect include ‘nyun-lo‘ (incense pot), ‘teyian‘ (religious donation), ‘lap-cai‘ (bridal gifts), ‘hok‘ ( good fortune and happiness) and ‘sang-ke-m‘(female bridal attendant). Chinese loan words are also used when referring to domestic items, food, kinship and utensils. They include ‘keyah‘(kitchen shelves) from Hokkien ‘ke-a‘, ‘teko‘ (kettle), ‘capcai‘ (mixed vegetable dish) from Hokkien chap-chai, ‘yunko‘(mushroom) from Hokkien ‘hiu-ko‘, ‘binpoh‘(face towel), ‘loteng‘ (upstairs) from Hokkien ‘lau-teng‘ and ‘jeuk‘ (mattress) from Hokkien ‘jiok-a‘. It is no doubt the above are some examples of borrowings from Hokkien, but according to Pakir, the importance of the Hokkien element in Baba Malay has been over-estimated. The use of the Chinese loanwords does not make Baba Malay anymore Chinese-Malay than say, Malay is Portuguese-Malay because of the presence of several Portuguese loanwords in Malay. Since the bulk of the lexis in Baba Malay is still from Standard Malay, we can conclude that Baba Malay derives its lexis from Standard Malay, its one and only lexifier language. In fact, according to a lexical count of the data collected by Pakir, almost all of Baba Malay’s basic vocabulary and much of the exchange between Baba Malay speakers would have all or only Malay words. In addition, any of the conversations among Baba Malay speakers can be fairly understood by Malay speakers. In Pakir’s words, “Hokkien influence in the lexicon … is obvious, though shallow.”
The stand that Baba Malay derives its lexis from Standard Malay (its lexifier language) can also be seen from the fact that we can find loanwords from various sources (other than Hokkien) that are present in both Standard Malay and Baba Malay. Many of these loanwords must have entered into Standard Malay at an earlier stage and then come into Baba Malay later when the latter took its lexis from the former. Examples of foreign loanwords (other than Hokkien) shared by both Standard Malay and Baba Malay would include dunia ‘world’ from Arabic, kahwin ‘marry’ from Persian, kolam ‘pond’ from Tamil and bola ‘ball’ from Portuguese.
Conclusion
Some studies on Baba Malay are clearly permeated by the idea that recognizing the creole-like nature of Baba Malay would somehow diminish its status, that the idea of a creole as a corrupt, bastard language would endanger the originality of Baba Malay. But the historical circumstances under which Malay women cum Chinese men formed a community, coupled with the syntactic and lexical evidences unearthed throughout this paper clearly point to the direction that Baba Malay should be treated as a creole.
We do not deny that there has always been a stigmatised view against pidgins and creoles. Nevertheless, what continues to fascinate us is that the existence of pidgins and creoles demonstrate the amazing innate capacities of mankind for communication. Two groups of people with absolutely no prior contact could give birth to a distinctively new language which is representative of a unique culture. Baba Malay as a dual-input creole is one such proof of mankind’s linguistic and communicative abilities.
Bibliography
Chua, Felix. 1980. The Babas. Singapore: Times Books International
Grimes, Barbara. 1992. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics
Lim, Sonny. 1981. ‘Baba Malay: The Language of the “Straits-Born” Chinese’. MA Thesis, Monash University
Lim,Sonny. 1988. ‘Baba Malay: The Language of the “Straits-Born” Chinese’ in Papers in Western Austronesian Linguistics No.3. Pacific Linguistics.
Pakir, Anne. 1986. ‘A Linguistic Investigation of Baba Malay’. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawaii
Turnbull, CM. 1977. A History of Singapore, 1819-1975. Singapore: Oxford University Press
October 10th 1999 Posted to
research papersource: http://www.longtaizi.org/1999/10/10/creolization-in-baba-malay/
