Style and translation in the Malay press
J.M. Gullick’s “Style and Translation in the Malay Press” (JMBRAS 26.1, 1953, pp. 14–23) is a linguistic survey of how the Malay-language press in the early 1950s was reshaping the Malay language through the daily necessity of translating English political and news vocabulary. Gullick, writing as a non-specialist observer rather than a systematic philologist, identifies the press as the most pervasive agent of linguistic innovation in Malay and traces the specific mechanisms—borrowing, extended meaning, and stylistic rejection of the classical standard—through which English influence was being absorbed.
Summary
Gullick frames the central problem as one of translating the untranslatable under the time and space constraints of newspaper production (p. 14). The Malay journalist, unlike an examination candidate, cannot afford long-pondered periphrases; he must find quick solutions. Gullick catalogues four principal strategies. First, direct borrowing of English words, which he finds to be relatively rare, mostly limited to proper nouns (e.g., Progressive, Commonwealth) and a haphazard set of common nouns (passport, deck, record, police recruit), with no consistent principle governing the choice (pp. 15–16). Second, the use of Indonesian words, which Gullick interprets not as a translation necessity but as a stylistic preference, noting that in many cases a Peninsular Malay synonym was available (p. 16). Third, the use of Arabic, which remains confined to religious and moral registers and contributes little to the translation of new Occidental concepts, with the isolated exception of jahanam used for the destruction of a bus (p. 17). Fourth and most significantly, the use of purely Malay words in new combinations or with extended meanings, which Gullick argues will have the greatest long-term effect on the language (p. 17).
Gullick’s most developed argument concerns this fourth category. He distinguishes between literal translation (which works best for simple noun compounds like uchapan penanggohan for “adjournment speech” and tenaga boroh for “labour force”) and what he calls the “general appropriateness of previous usage” test, illustrated by lombong minyak for “oil-field,” where lombong (primarily an open pit or opencast tin-mine) carries an association with mineral extraction that makes it apt where the literal ladang or kebun would not (p. 17). He further identifies a process by which Malay words acquire secondary or metaphorical meanings borrowed from their English correspondents: paham (understand) comes to carry the English secondary sense of “believe” or “is given to understand” (di-pahamkan); berjumpa (meet) extends to “hold a meeting”; membayangkan (foreshadow) and berkesan (make an impression) acquire metaphorical force (pp. 19–20).
The stylistic analysis shifts to a comparison between the “standard” or Peninsular Malay (which the press labels chara kono) and the actual practice of the newspapers. Gullick identifies a conscious rejection of the standard style, driven partly by the perception that Indonesia is ahead of the Peninsula in all things, partly by the practical difficulty of writing in the strict classical register under deadline pressure, and partly by the echo of big-seaport speech (p. 20). The consequences include: the use of Indonesian words where Peninsular synonyms exist (paling, wanita, kesulitan); minor grammatical departures (sentences beginning with dan or juga, the locative di- used for time, the demonstrative ini standing alone); phonetic spellings (saja, baru, saya, dulu) that appear occasionally but are far less common than the conventional forms; the over-use of mereka and tersebut; the use of sa-chara to form adverbs; and the adoption of the European editorial kita where classical Malay would omit the pronoun (pp. 21–22). The most striking departure is in sentence construction: where the standard style preserves short, terse sentences, the press produces extremely long, multi-clause constructions, with one example of 87 words in 8 clauses, and ponderous introductory phrases such as boleh di-katakan sudah tentu bahwa (p. 22).
Gullick draws a contrast between news items, which are often translations from English and remain comparatively brief, and leading articles, which are extremely long-winded. His closing example is a House of Lords remark on Malaya’s dependence on tin and rubber, rendered in a news item in reasonable economy, but then reworked in a leading article that spends some fifteen words before reaching its main point (p. 23).
Key Findings
- The Malay press is identified as the most widely pervasive source of linguistic innovation in Malay, more so than broadcasting, schools, or government publications, because it has almost to itself foreign news and local political controversy (p. 15).
- Direct borrowing of English words is not common and is haphazard in principle; where it occurs, the borrowed words are nearly all nouns, and the choice is not consistently determined by the absence of a Malay equivalent (pp. 15–16).
- The translation lombong minyak for “oil-field” exemplifies Gullick’s central thesis that the merit of a good translation lies in the general appropriateness of a word’s previous associations rather than its literal meaning (p. 17).
- The press exhibits a conscious preference for Indonesian Malay over the standard Peninsular style, using words like paling, wanita, and kesulitan where Peninsular synonyms are available, a preference driven by non-literary considerations and the practical difficulty of writing in the classical register under deadline (p. 21).
- A single sentence in a leading article was noted to contain 8 clauses totalling 87 words, illustrating the abandonment of the classical and standard preference for short, terse construction (p. 22).
- The over-use of mereka (they) and tersebut (aforesaid) constitutes the most notable new mannerism, replacing the classical practice of omitting personal pronouns where context suffices (p. 22).
Conclusion
Gullick’s definitive takeaway is that the Malay press, in its problems of translation, tends not toward the introduction of new foreign words but toward the use of Malay words in new and extended meanings. The influence of English is thus mediated through the extension of meaning and usage of existing Malay vocabulary: words acquire secondary or metaphorical senses that are not the natural development of their previous Malay usage but are borrowed because the English correspondent is used in that extended sense in English. Simultaneously, the press has consciously rejected the standard modern style as too narrow and rigid, but no satisfactory alternative has yet been developed; the absence of stylistic discipline produces long, formless sentences and occasional lapses from previously accepted usage (p. 23).
Context
Gullick’s article sits at a specific juncture in the history of Malay-language standardisation. The “standard” or Peninsular Malay he describes as chara kono was the product of deliberate colonial-era language planning, particularly the work of the Malay language committees and the influence of the Bahasa Melayu as the medium of government and education in the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States. The preference for Indonesian Malay that Gullick documents reflects the broader post-war political alignment of the Malay press with the Indonesian nationalist movement and the perception of Indonesia as a more advanced Malay-speaking polity. The article was received in February 1953 and published in July of that year, during the Malayan Emergency, a period when the Malay press was at the height of its political engagement and its need to translate the vocabulary of international politics. Gullick’s position as an external observer—neither a government language officer nor a Malay journalist—gives the article a comparative, somewhat detached quality, and his examples are explicitly noted as collected from reading rather than from a systematic survey (p. 15). The article does not engage with the political implications of the stylistic choices it documents; the preference for Indonesian Malay is treated as a linguistic and practical phenomenon rather than as a statement of political allegiance, though the non-literary motivations are acknowledged (p. 20).