Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 23:2 (2022) ► pp.147–190

Emotion terms in Malay

Patterns in [meN-], [meN‑ -i], [meN‑ -kan], and [‑kan]-only forms

| National Chengchi University
This study examined 25 emotion terms in Malaysian Malay and used corpus data to investigate whether these emotion terms appeared with the [meN-], [meN‑ -i], [meN‑ -kan], and [‑kan]-only forms. The emotion terms were patterned in four different ways. Category One included local emotion verbs that conformed to the pattern [Affector-Affectee]. In this category, the verbs were dominated by the [meN‑ -i] form, with a small number including the suffix [‑kan]-only. A verb in the [meN‑ -kan] form was either a Category Two [Causer meN‑ -kan Causee] pattern or a Category Four [Experiencer meN‑ -kan Event] pattern, among which Category Two had a higher number of instances. Category Three included two possible patterns – [Experiencer meN‑ -i Stimulus] and [Experiencer meN‑ (Stimulus absent)]. We found that the emotion terms with the [meN-]-only form were largely “narrating” the emotions of the speaker or situation, which provided the background, while the emotion terms with the [‑kan]-only form were largely “proposing” the emotion of the speaker or the subject being referred to (cf. Hopper 1983; Bambang Kaswanti Purwo 1988). We were able to discern not only emotion terms in Malay but also their different uses in [meN-], [meN‑ -i], [meN‑ -kan], and [‑kan]-only forms.
Keywords: emotion terms, semantic roles, Malay, corpus, [meN-] [meN‑ -i] [meN‑ -kan] [‑kan]
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.[MeN-], [meN‑ -i], [meN‑ -kan], and [‑kan]-only
    • 2.1[MeN-]
    • 2.2[-i] and [-kan]
    • 2.3Semantic roles
  • 3.Methodology and results
  • 4.Pattern analysis
    • 4.1Category One: [Affector-Affectee]
    • 4.2Category Two: [Causer-Causee]
    • 4.3Category Three: [Experiencer-Stimulus]
    • 4.4Category Four: [Experiencer-Event]
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and future work
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 29 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00102.chu
References (54)
References
Aarts, Bas. 2018. English syntax and argumentation. 5th edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1984. Some proto-Malayic affixes. Bijdragen tot de Taal‑, Land‑ en Volkenkunde [Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia] 140(4). 402–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asmah Haji Omar. 2015. Nahu Melayu mutakhir [The latest Malay grammar]. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka.Google Scholar
Bambang Kaswanti Purwo. 1988. Voice in Indonesian: A discourse study. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Passive and voice (Typological Studies in Language 16), 195–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Geoffrey. 1993. Grammar and polity: The cultural and political background to Standard Malay. In Foley, William A. (ed.), The role of theory in language description, 341–392. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2000. Figurative, lexis and cultural resonance: A corpus based study of Malay. Pragmatics 10(3). 281–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2011. Uses of ter‑ in Malay: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3) 799–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Lagi in Standard Malaysian Malay: Its meaning conceptualization. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 45(1). 82–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chung, Siaw-Fong & Shih, Meng-Hsien. 2019. An annotated news corpus of Malaysian Malay. NUSA: Linguistic studies of languages in and around Indonesia 671. 7–34.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter & Son, Min-Jeong. 2004. The argument structure of the verbs with the suffix ‑kan in Indonesian. Oceanic Linguistics 43(2). 339–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order (Discourse Perspectives on Grammar 2). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2014. Words for feelings: Studies in the history of the English emotion lexicon. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabiszak, Malgorzata. 1999. A semantic analysis of emotion terms in Old English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: An international Review of English Studies 341. 133–146.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1). 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977. The case for case reopened. In Cole, Peter & Sadock, Jerrold (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical relations, 59–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1996. The “social emotions” of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 24(3). 426–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Sabar, ikhlas, setia – patient, sincere, loyal? Contrastive semantics of some ‘virtues’ in Malay and English. Journal of Pragmatics 33(5). 653–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heider, Karl G. 1991. Landscapes of emotion: Mapping three cultures of emotion in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1983. Ergative, passive, and active in Malay narrative. In Klein-Andreu, Flora (ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax, 67–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hovy, Eduard H. 2015. What are sentiment, affect, and emotion? Applying the methodology of Michael Zock to sentiment analysis. In Gala, Núria & Rapp, Reinhard & Bel-Enguix, Gemma (eds.), Language production, cognition, and the lexicon (Text, Speech and Language Technology 48), 13–24. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. & Oatley, Keith. 1989. The language of emotions: An analysis of a semantic field. Cognition & Emotion 3(2). 81–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice (Typological Studies in Language 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1997. Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1(3). 279–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. H. & Bang, S. W. & Kim, S. R. 2004. Emotion recognition system using short-term monitoring of physiological signals. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 42(3). 419–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koh, Ann Sweesun. 1990. Topics in colloquial Malay. Melbourne: Department of Linguistics & Language Studies, The University of Melbourne. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990. Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 2007. Morphosyntactic vs. morphosemantic functions of Indonesian ‑kan . In Bresnan, Joan W. & Zaenen, Annie & Simpson, Jane & King, Tracy Holloway & Grimshaw, Jane & Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes, 229–251. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, Martha Blanche. 1952. Translation and composition exercises for Malay students. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
. 1968. Teach yourself Malay. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Muhammad Nabil Fikri Jamaluddin & Siti Z. Z. Abidin & Nasiroh Omar. 2016. Classification and quantification of user’s emotion on Malay language in social network sites using latent semantic analysis. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS), 65–70. New York: IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne & Koskela, Anu. 2010. Key terms in semantics. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Simon. 2001. Non-subject arguments in Indonesian. Melbourne: Department of Linguistics & Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Nik Safiah Karim & Farid M. Onn & Hashim Hj. Musa & Abdul Hamid Mahmood. 2015. Tatabahasa Dewan [The Dewan grammar]. 3rd edn. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.Google Scholar
Rajoo, Rajesvary & Chee Aun Ching. 2016. Influences of languages in speech emotion recognition: A comparative study using Malay, English and Mandarin languages. ISCAIE 2016: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Computer Applications & Industrial Electronics, 35–39. New York: IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shamsiah Abd Kadir & Anitawati Mohd Lokman & Mokhtar Muhammad. 2018. Identification of positive and negative emotion towards political agenda videos posted on YouTube. In Lokman, Anitawati Mohd & Yamanaka, Toshimasa & Lévy, Pierre & Chen, Kuohsiang & Koyama, Shinichi (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research 2018, 758–767. Singapore: Springer Singapore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, James Neil & Adelaar, K. Alexander & Djenar, Dwi Noverini & Ewing, Michael C. 2010. Indonesian reference grammar. 2nd edn. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling & Nomoto, Hiroki. 2009. Progressive aspect, the verbal prefix meN-, and stative sentences in Malay. Oceanic Linguistics 48(1). 148–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The Malay verbal prefix meN‑ and the unergative/unaccusative distinction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20(1). 77–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Degree achievements, telicity and the verbal prefix meN‑ in Malay. Journal of Linguistics 51(1). 147–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Malay-Indonesian. In Comrie, Bernard (ed.), The world’s major languages, 791–818. 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Teeuw, Andries. 1962. Some problems in the study of word-classes in Bahasa Indonesia. Lingua 111. 409–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. The morphological system of the Indonesian adjective. NUSA 31 ( Miscellaneous studies in Indonesian and languages in Indonesia, part II ). 1–18.Google Scholar
Wee, Hock Ann Lionel. 1995. Cognition in grammar: The problem of verbal prefixation in Malay. Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Talking about emotions: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognition and Emotion 6(3–4). 285–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winstedt, Richard Olof. 1913. Malay grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1986. Formal Indonesian. 2nd edn. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. The development of the passive verb with pronominal prefix in Western Austronesian languages. In Nothofer, Bernd (ed.), Reconstruction, classification, description: Festschrift in honor of Isidore Dyen, 15–40. Hamburg: Abera Verlag Meyer & Co.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha. 2011. Referential and non-referential uses of nominalization constructions in Malay. In Yap, Foong Ha & Grunow-Hårsta, Karen & Wrona, Janick (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 96), 627–658. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2003. From causatives to passives: A passage in some East and Southeast Asian languages. In Casad, Eugene H. & Palmer, Gary B. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo-European languages (Cognitive Linguistics Research 18), 419–446. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha & Ahn, Mikyung. 2019. Development of grammatical voice marking in Korean: On the causative, middle and passive uses of suffix ‑i . Lingua 2191. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar