formal speech acts as one discourse

7/28/2019 Formal Speech Acts as One Discourse

1/24

Formal Speech Acts as One Discourse

Author(s): Signe HowellReviewed work(s):Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 79-101Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2802648 .

Accessed: 16/01/2013 14:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:11:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2802648?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2802648?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/24

FORMAL SPEECH ACTS AS ONE DISCOURSESIGNE HOWELL

Universityf dinburghUnlike the situation n America where the proponents f ethnographyf speaking orperformative olklore)have revitalised hestudyof the roles of formalisedpeech n society,British nthropologistsaveshown ittle nterestnthis rea. This articlettempts o developthe

ideasgenerated ythe thnographersfspeaking.Based on datacollectedmongtheChewong,an aboriginalgroup n theMalay Peninsula, method s proposedfor xamining ll manifes-tations f formalpeech ctsof a society s a totaldiscourse; tudyingachgenre n tsrelation othe thers. hus, myths, ongs ndspells re llexamined ccordingo a setofcriteria-concern-ing origins, orm, ontent, erformancetc. It is found hatwhilemyths nd songs emerge swhollycontrasted, he pellsoccupya synthesisingositionwithregard o mostcharacteristics.This conclusion s linked to indigenous pistemologywherein effective' nowledge s mosthighly alued. Whilemythsndsongsare constitutivef traditionalnowledge, ongs nd spellsare nstrumentaln achieving ction. Unlikesongs, however, pellsdo so inthemselves-theyrepresent ords as actors n their wnright.

WithinBritish ocial anthropology herehas been notably ittle nterestnformal peechacts1as a fieldof study.This neglecthas been attributed yFinneganto two main factors: he theoryof unilinear volution,and thefunctionalismfMalinowski Finnegan 969). BecauseTylor,Frazer ndLangwereactivemembers f theFolk-lore ociety, he tudy fmythwas, from hevery beginning, loselyassociatedwiththenineteenth-centuryvolutionarytheory fman;and withthedemiseofthat heory,hetheoreticaloundationsforthe studyof mythalso collapsed. Subsequent anthropological ttitudestowardsmythology ere nfluencedythenarrow iewsofMalinowski ndhisconcept f myth s charter', erving o maintainhe xistingocialandpoliticalorder Malinowski 948a). Therewas, however, nothertrandnMalinowskiwhich was not so readily ncorporatednto the British radition, amelyhisinsistencenregardinganguage samode of ction atherhan s a countersignof thought (1948b: 243-5I; 1935: II); and his stress upon the theoreticalsignificancefthe context f the situation' f anguage.Thushe states, Thetext,of course, s extremely mportant, utwithout he context t remainslifeless . . The whole nature of theperformance,thevoice, themimicry, thestimulus nd theresponse f the audiencemeans as much to thenative s thetext' 1948a:82). Itwas, however,not untilmuch ater-and inAmerica-thatthese deaswere tobe taken panddeveloped seee.g. Ben-Amos& Goldstein1975: 2). Over the past two decades we can observe a renaissance n theAmerican tudyof folk-lore'.On thewhole,theBritishhave shown as littleinterestn thisnewdevelopmentsinMalinowski's deas onlanguage.ManN.S.)21, 79-101

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24

8o SIGNE HOWELLThus, the main genreof formal peechto receive ttentionn Britainwasmyths, ndtheseweretreated ot for heir wn ntrinsicnterest, ut to further

the particularheoretical oncerns fthe writers:n the one case to validateparticularheory fman; ntheother ovalidate particularheory f ociety.Levi-Strauss's uggestion hatmyths an tellus about theproperties f thehumanmind s, nthefinal nalysis, et notherxample fa theoreticiansingmyths osubstantiateisownparticularrgument. owever,the ublication fhis earlyessays on the structuraltudyofmyth ogetherwiththe four ub-sequent olumes fMythologiquesI963; 1970; 1973; 1978; I98I) resultedn arevivalof nterestnmythologynBritain, ndthe tructuralnalysis f textswas attempted yseveral.Two notable xponents fthemethod re LeachandWillis.The former, avingpublished,nthenineteen-sixties,iscontroversialstructuralnalyses f ncidents rom heOld TestamentLeach 969), returnedto thesame theme n I983 (Leach& Aycock I983). Willispublished everalstructuralnalyses fFipa spoken rt' I967; I98I) and,mostrecently, roughtto the attention f the English-speakingworld the work of the BelgianAfricanistnd committed evi-Straussian,uc de Heusch,through isanno-tated translation f the latter's nalysisof CentralBantumyths de HeuschI982). But, despitetheir nitial nterestn the structuraltudyofmyth, heBritishwere neverfully onvinced yLevi-Strauss'srgumentsseee.g. LeachI967; Kirk 970), and,byand arge,myths,ogetherith ther orms foraltraditions, ontinued o be ignored.Certainly, he oral implications f thenature f oralliterature're ittle onsideredsee Finnegan 977) although heappearance f the OxfordLibrary fAfrican iterature assomewhat ectifiedthesituation.n a related, utsomewhatdifferentein,one mustmention hework on literacy nd non-literacyone by Goody (e.g. Goody 1977). WhileFinnegan as undertakeneveraldetailed tudies f thedifferentenres f oralliterature'nAfricaFinnegan967; 1970; 1977) andconsiderso some xtenttheMalinowskian context fsituation', hetreats achmanifestationf oralliterature'-legend, poetry,drama,riddle nd proverb-as a separate nter-prise.The purposeof this rticles to suggest differentpproach,namely otreat ll thegenres fformalpeech ctswithin nyonesociety sonediscourse.The situation n America evolved rather ifferentlyromthat n Britain.There one maywitness long and continuous raditionn thestudyofwhattends o be called folklore.Over theyears,mainstreamnthropologyecamedivorced fromfolklore tudies,and untilrecently he theoretical oncernsreflectedhis eparation.The text, n isolationfrom tssocialsetting,was theobjectof study;either hrough hematic lassification,r by formal nalysisinfluenced oreby Propp 1958) than yLevi-Strauss.With hepublicationfseries farticlesyDell Hymes I962; I964; I967 etc.),however, fruitfulmerging f nterests etween olkloristsndanthropologistsesultednthenew'ethnographyfspeaking'or performativeolk-lore'.Here we canobserveshift rom he tudy f text o the tudy f the ontext ftheperformancefthefolkloresee also Dundes I964). New keyterms uch as context, erformanceand communicationmergenwhat sbecoming study f thedynamics f theencounter etween udience ndperformer.The taskoftheethnographerfspeaking s to identifynd analyzethedynamic nterrelationshipsmongthe



4/24

SIGNE HOWELL 8ielementswhichgo to makeup performance,owards the construction f adescriptive heoryof speakingas a cultural ystem n a particular ociety'(Bauman & Sherzer 974: 7). Inthewords of Abrahams I975: 288), one oftheearlyadvocates and practitionersf the approach, the folklorist as beentraditionallyoncernedwiththestylisticsf hismaterial, nd it is out of thisbackgroundthat we have generated ur own perspectives. xploring thestructure fthe temsofperformance,nd,morerecently,herelationshipfthese tems to theoperationof theirperformance,heperformance-centredfolklorist as been scertainingheplaceofcreative ndstylisticommunicationinthe pecific roup'.In otherwords,we note shift o the ocial setting fverbal ommunication,andto tsplace nthewider deologyofthegroup.With his hangenfocus, naccompanying nterestn the definition f what can legitimately e said toconstitute olklore as also emerged, nd to thetraditional enresof myths,legends, olk-talesnd theballad,have beenadded riddles, roverbs, reetings,dittiesnd ongs see .g.Abrahams972; Ben-Amos972; Dundes t l. 1970).Commontoallthepublicationswhichhave resulted rom he ethnographyfspeaking' s a firm thnographic ase. Each is an in-depth tudy of, mostcommonly, one genre of formal peech act withinthe social setting f itsperformance.t seems to me that he tudies allbroadly nto two mainkinds.First, hose which attempt o discover he groundrules' for peech activitieswithin nyone cultureseeBauman& Sherzer974: 89).This nvolves detaileddescriptionf theactualsetting f theperformance. ence, much more thanthe anguageused on suchoccasionshas to be studied.Certainly, he actualnarratives f the raconteurmustbe transcribed,ut so mustthe nterruptionsfrom he udience nd theresponses ytheperformer.n suchstudies here s astrong mphasis ponthe ituational rame. ontext, mbiance nd theprevail-ing external onditions re noted,andoften he analyst ries o record everaldifferenterformancesf the ame text ndseeksto accountfordifferencesntheperformancend therelationship etweenthosepresent e.g. AbrahamsI982; Basgoz 1975; Hymes1975; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett975).

Secondly,there are studies which examine the manipulative ossibilitiesavailable to theperformer, hether hisbe a story elling vent e.g. Basgoz1975), greetingonventionse.g. rvine974; Salmond974), or henterplayfjokes or riddlesbetweenmembers f a peer group e.g. Bauman& McCabe1970; Ben-Amos 976; Dundes1970). Throughout,hewritersttemptoclarify ppropriateermsndconcepts o conduct uch nalysis.Yet another reoccupationmaybedetected,which, would argue,hasbeenlessdeveloped han he ther wo. Thisconcerns he ncorporationfthe peechevent ntotheother ultural ategories f the ociety, rgroup, nquestion, othat,notonlymustone take ccountofthe ocial context f theperformance,one must also place thespeechactwithin he deologicalframework f thegroup. Some writers averecognised he heoreticalignificancef cosmology(see e.g. Toelken1975; Abrahams 975) but t srarelymadean ntegral art fthe nalysis. t s one of themajorcontentions fthis rticle hat,nnon-literatesocieties, cosmological verview s of crucialmportance.As thesophisticationf the nterpretationndpresentationf actual peech



5/24

82 SIGNE HOWELLevents s mproving,mostofthewriters ocus heir tudies n selected enres ffolklorewithin particular ociety.Most commonly negenre s examined ngreat etail,with ittle r no referenceo other enres lso presentnthe ociety.Occasionally two, or more, genresmaybe contrastedn orderto illustrateparticular oint.Thus, Fox, in hisstudy fRotinese itualanguage, xaminesdifferentategories fsuch anguage,buthismain nterests to demonstratetheir ormaldentity, eing ll based ondyadic ets Fox 1974).To my knowledge,Willis is alone in attempting o providean orderedexpositionof thetotality f a society'sformal peechacts. Taking the fourgenres of Fipa 'spoken art' he setsup a matrixof the totalsemanticfield,reminiscent f the grid-groupmatrix reated y Douglas (I973), inwhichheconsiders two modal parameters-formal-linguisticnd social-structural'(Willis1978: 8). Whilehis s anoriginal pproach,Willisunfortunatelyoesnotdevelopthemodel nany detail, nd hencedoes notconvincinglyemonstrateitsvalidity.Moreover, heresnoattempttplacing heFipaformalpeech ctsin a dynamicrelationship. he mainpartof thebook consists f numerousverbatimxamples f thefour enres ogether ithbriefntroductoryemarksconcerninghegeneral haracteristicsfthe ocialcontext ftheperformancefeach.Whilethese nthropologistsndfolkloristsaveclearly dvanced ur under-standing f the social significancef language,and moreparticularlyf thevariousgenres f folklore', here emain everalmportantssues nconnexionwith thestudyof formal peechacts. I suggest hat nsteadoftreatingachcategoryfformalpeech cts sa separate nterprisenany neculture,makingwhatever ocial, symbolicor structuralonnexions s maybe appropriate,llgenres fformalpeech ctswithin societyhouldbe ookedattogethersonediscourse.t was whilepreparingor ublicationhe eventy-oddmythswhichhad collectedduringmyfieldworkwiththeChewong oftheMalay Peninsula(Howell I982), that realised hat o understandheplaceofmythnChewongsociety nd cosmology,and their pistemological ignificance,t was insuf-ficient o ookatthemn solation.Theyconstitutenepart f larger iscoursewhich ncludes llChewong genres f formalpeech cts-in their asemyths,songsandspells.By treatingllthree s a totality,hemeaning feachemergesin relation o therest, nd theoverall ignificancefthediscoursewithin heideology tself ecomesapparent.TheChewongTheChewongarea smallgroupof boriginal eople ofthe ropical ainforestftheMalay Peninsula.They totalsome 260 individuals, nd today they aredivided ntotwomainparts.Whereas neparthasbeen drawn o some extentinto the widerMalaysian society, heother ives deep insidethe forestwherethey ractise unting, atheringndshiftingultivation,nd their ontactwiththeoutsideworld sminimal-confined otheoccasional aleofjungleproduceinorder obuy knives, alt,cloth ndtobacco. t was among this atter ection(theEasternChewong) that conductedmostofmyfieldwork nd it s aboutthem shallbespeaking.The EasternChewong ive nsmall ettlements idely



6/24

SIGNE HOWELL 83scatteredhroughoutn area ofabout 90 squaremiles whichtheyregard stheir raditionalerritory.he settlementsrechanged very ne to three ears,new onesbeing clearedby the lashand burnmethod.Theyhave no domesticanimals ndrely n theforest osupply hemwithmeat ndother oods.Theyfrequentlybandontheir ields ordays,or evenweeks, n order ogo huntingand foraging.The compositionof any one settlementndergoescontinualchange,butmostfrequentlyach consists ftwo or three ousesoccupiedbyanelderly oupleandoneor twooftheirmarried hildren ith heir amilies.Kinship s cognatic, nd social organisations extremelynformalwithnofixedgroupsorpoliticalhierarchies. here snomachineryf aw andpunish-ment oundedn human ociety.Rather, largenumber f differentategoriesof superhuman nd non-humanbeingsare drawn ntotheconduct of dailyaffairs ia the medium of a set of ruleswhich inform nd directhumanbehaviour, hetransgressionfwhichresultsnnon-human etributionntheform f llness fallkinds r natural atastrophes'. heChewong recognise oexplanationfor such events outside the superhumandomain, and I havesuggested lsewhereHowell I984) that, t one level ofdiscussion,Chewongsocietymustbe regarded s consisting otonlyof the 60 individuals, utalsoof thenumerous uperhuman eingswho inhabit heir niverse. onsiderationofthesebeings nfluences lmostevery ndividual nd collective ction.Thiswider ocialuniverses maintained nd recreatedhrough rocesses fexchangewhichoccurdaily s well as undermoreformal ircumstances.he myths,hesongs and the spells all feature,with varying mphasis,both human andsuperhumanbeings. In view of this it is not meaningful o distinguisha sacred-profane ichotomy.An analyst'sdistinction etween ritual' and'mundane' concerns nd activities annotbe identified;hese re intertwined-both on the evelofthoughtnd on that faction.Arising rom his, wishtoarguefurtherhat t sunhelpfulo makeananalytic istinction etweenmythsand legendsas is commonlydone (see Kirk 1970 for a discussionof issuesinvolved in definitions).All Chewong 'tales from ong ago' are formallysimilar.All display omehuman andsuperhumanlements; very ctionandcharacters invariablyxhibitingosmological onsiderations.shallthereforeuse the ermmyth o refero allChewongtales.The nterpretationMyths, ongsandspellsconstitutehe otality fChewong formal peech cts.Othercommonly oundgenres uchas drama,poetry, allads, peechmaking,proverbs, iddles rgreetings re notpresent.Moreover, hey re notparticu-larly nterestednlanguageor anguagemanipulations such. Skilfulanguageuse n an ndividual snothighly alued as it s in many ther ulturessee PeekI98i) and punningor otherreflexiveanguage uses are virtually nknown.People do single out theirmyths,songs and spells, however, as havingsomething n common which distinguishes hem from ordinary peech.Interestingly,he threeformal peechacts are thought f as similar s muchbecauseoftheir ontentsbecauseoftheir orm. here sno overall erm or hethree.Nor, as far s I cantell, re there ny inguisticinksbetween heterms



7/24

84 SIGNE HOWELLused for ach;kitra uidui telling tories romong ago2) s theexpression or'myth';ninghaegenxpresses oth he ctof inging s well as the ong tself;ndtankalfrom heMalay3meaning talisman rcharm)means n ncantation,r'spell' andis also a verbalform.None of these erms s linguisticallyelated oklugnlanguage s wellas the ctofspeaking) rbaddto say).During my early investigations nto these three genres, one was oftenexplained n terms f another. was told,for nstance, hatsongsare ust likespells'or, spells re ike ongs',or spells re ike tories', r more mphatically,'songsarespells'. The questionthen riseson what basis theChewongmakesuch tatements.An examination f the myths, ongsand spellsreveals hat hesedo in facthave much n common. They areall saying omething,nd this omething salways ntimatelyinked o what heChewongcalltheirtraditionalnowledge'(haeratensal, strictlyknowledge/knowing riginal'from the Arabic, viaMalay, asal, origin,history).Whattheymeanbythis s knowledge bouttheChewong universe, roviding xplanationsorwhythingsretheway they reand why nd howspecificvents ccur nd, arising ut ofthis, rescriptionsoraction. In any society,knowledge s the resultof social processes;a socialachievement hichmustbe lookedat from diachronicswell as a synchronicperspective,s well as from heperspectivef ndigenousdeasconcerningt.Knowledge changesover timedepending n individuals, vents,outside n-fluencesndmany ther actorsnd t sone manifestationf society's dentity.One oftheways that society'sbodyofknowledge s transmitted,ecreatedandchanged s via that ociety's raltraditions. thermedia re,ofcourse, hesocial nstitutions,hekin ystemndvariousritual ractices.Traditionalknowledge s transmitted,owever, n ordinary peech acts aswell. The choice of subjectmatter s therefore ot sufficiento explaintheconceptualinkmade between he hree hewong genres fformalpeech cts.WhatdistinguishesheknowledgeofChewong myths, ongsandspellsfromthe knowledgeof ordinary onversations the factthateach of the threeexpressesthe content n a formalisedmanner.Thus, although anguage isemployed n all cases, in formalisedpeech,the anguageused conforms ocertainrestrictive xpressiveconventions. n his introduction o Politicallanguagendoratoryn traditionalociety,loch4proposes definitionf anidealtypeof formalisedpeechact' by contrastinghis o an idealtypeofordinaryspeech ct' (Bloch 1975: 12). Formalisedpeech cts re characterisedy: fixedlanguagepatterns,xtremelyimited hoice f ntonation,omesyntacticormsexcluded, partialvocabulary,fixity f sequencing, llustrations romcertainlimited ources, .g. scriptures, roverbs, tylisticules onsciously pplied tall levels' 1975: 13). His mainconcerns todemonstratehat ormalisationflanguagemaybe usedas a form fpowerandcoercion-an aspectwithwhichamnot concerned ere,but onewhich s dealtwithby manyof theethnogra-phersof speaking.Chewong myths, ongsandspellsall conform,nvaryingdegrees,to Bloch's definition f formalised peech acts. I would add onecriterionwhich n myview is integral o anysuchdefinition, amely hat fperformance. y third oint nestablishing hytheChewongmake concep-tual inkbetween heir hree enres fformalpeech s this act hat heymust ll



8/24

SIGNE HOWELLbeperformed. heyareall clearlymarked ff rom rdinary erbal ommuni-cations y the reation f particularettingnwhich ne ormorepersons ivesa performancenfront f therest.Furthermore,uchperformancesreput onfor ome specialeffect. thereforegreewithHymes,when he states, Mostimportantor hepresent urpose s the howing hat erformance,s culturalbehaviour orwhicha person ssumesresponsibilityo an audience, s a quitespecific, uitespecialcategory. erformances not awastebasket, ut a key tomuchof the differencen meaningof lifeas betweencommunities . . thetraditionxists artly or he akeofperformance;erformances tself artlynend' (1975: I8/g9).A performancefChewong formal peech cts s set apart nboth pace andtimefrom hat fordinary peech cts.Blochsays hat,Formalisation emovestheauthoritynd the eventfrom hespeakerhimself,o thathe speakswhenusingformalisationess and less forhimself nd more and more forhisrole'(1975: i6), and I would suggestthat thismay be broughtto bear on theperformativespect.A rolemustnecessarilyeperformed.t sthusnotjust heform nd the ontent f formalisedpeech ctswhich rerestricted,utalso thetime and theplace of theirperformance. heirutterances thereforeloselylinked to specific ocial contexts. t is thisaspectthat the ethnography fspeakinghasbrought ut so convincingly.I shallbeginbysetting ut the haracteristicsccording owhich achformalspeech category s to be judged. The criteria re derived argelyfrom theChewong themselves, utI have added some ofmy own, particularlyhosepertainingo theformalspects. then ompare wotypes f peech ct-mythsand songs.Next I assess thespells, o that detailedmatrix f nformationsestablishedwhich allows eachcategory fspeech o be located nterms fthetotaldiscourse.Thisreveals hat he pellsgenerallyccupy medianposition,i.e. they isplay mixture fthe pposedcharacteristicsoundnboth ongs ndlegends.Occasionally, hey hare he denticalttributefonlyone (seefig.foran exposition fthe characteristicsf eachgenre).Finally, discussthe valueattached ytheChewong toeachofthe hree enres. hepurpose fmythsstoperpetuate nowledge;thepurposeofsongsis to allow the addition f newknowledge and also to apply thatknowledgeto maintain elationswith thesuperhuman orlds nd torestore rder; pellsuseknowledge o achieve omespecific bjective.This, I suggest, s consistent iththehigher alue attachedto the pells s compared o theother enres f formalisedpeech.I haveinvestigatedhefollowing haracteristicsseefig. ): How does eachgenre ome ntoexistencearethey reated y ndividuals rdo they onstitutereceivedknowledgefrom hepast)?Who owns the verbalproducts aretheyexclusive rcommunal)?Whomayperformhem?What ubjects nd charactersareconsidered uitable ordifferentenres?What s the emporaletting?Whatis the mportance fthenarrativeequence?May the content e alterednanyway? Closely linked to content s the questionof form. Here I considervocabulary,metre, yntax, hythm,omprehensibilityndsequencing.Thenfollow uestions o dowithperformance:s this inked ospecificccasions?Arethere estrictionss to time ndplace?What s therole of the udience?What sthe ctualmodeemployedbytheperformer,ndwhatritual bservationsmust



9/24

86 SIGNE HOWELL

I=: 04

u:5 r.o 0 -0 uC). -,: a r,-" uU X uu u. 0-0OUM u - (I 0 u uu0 u uo o-l:$- > :;> m0

:5 u o ouv4-), Z 0 0 Z Z 'V-)

FobD

:5-aW u:5 Wu-0-1: O.-u -,:s -a

x 0u Q-r-4., > Xto0 4., 4., -:$ 0u u u4.1 bD 0 u-18 u u O.- 0 O u O94 4 r-L4 O v, V) U -L4 Z (.X 4U v.u40Xut+- 0

0

> .44.,

CL4 Wu 0 >1 u-u u0 u U-C.- uu U > u u M0-0 CL4 0 U Wu cl W ) >C). cl u0 >, I:L, 1.0 >1 >"W u1.4 4., 4., 1.4 1.4cl i Cl 4- ur. >1 Z r. r. u u1.4 - cl -e-0 4., r. u -0 u> W.4 0 z 0 W 1.4 u 0r-L4 'OOZ V. a4u 0 z r-'L4 )0uxu(n0

.u0 0

0

1.0 uD tn0 u

bD clO 0u 0 bD u u 13rU 4., . g O u

bD(D c) 0 u V') V-) u V) 9L4 r-L4 2t



10/24

SIGNE HOWELL 87be adhered to? What is thepurpose of theperformance?see Appendixforexamples f a Chewongmyth, ong, andspell).Mythsnd ongsa. Origins nddurability.ccording to the Chewong, themyths ame intoexistencenthedistant ast.Theyhaveexisted, nchanged,hroughoutime obe told ntothefuture. heyarepassedfrom enerationo generationndtheirauthors reunknown, heir ery nonymityontributingotheir uthenticity.Theyare tories boutevents hat rethought ohaveoccurred,ndarenothingmore than therecordof those who witnessed hem.The Chewong refer omyths s 'telling romongago' and nsist hat hese reone of thechiefmeansbywhichtheygain their ollectiveoriginal nowledge'. Ifwe do notremem-ber thestories romong ago, we do not know how do things roperly',s acommonstatement, nd I was often old how importantt is to tell each talerepeatedly o the children o that hey earnthem, ndlearnfrom hem.Themyths rea commonheritage rom he ncestors.Songs, bycontrast, reregarded s individual reations, heorigins fwhichareneverthelessuperhuman. song sgiven oan ndividual ya superhumanbeing n an encounter. he encountermay takeplace in a dream, n a tranceinducedduring singing eance, or in a wakingmeetingn the ungle. Anyobject or being may reveal itself s a consciousbeing (i.e. endowed withconsciousness, uwai), ndwhen tdoes so itbecomesthat erson's pirit uide(ruwai).The relationship,which is described s one of husband-wife r ofparent-child,s cemented ythegift fa song,andthepersonwhohasreceiveditacknowledges herelationship ysinging t on futureeremonial ccasions.Subsequent dditionsmaybe madetoa song by tsowners.New descriptionsmaybe inserted fbeingsencounterednd events xperienced uring rancestateswhen the soul' of the ingerruwai) ravels.b. Ownership. ythsbelongtoeveryChewong,oldandyoung.They are giftfrom heancestors, nd represent majorpart of Chewong group dentity.Beingwithout uch socialcategories s guardians fknowledge roverseers fbehaviour, veryone s drawndirectlynto theprocessof ensuring hecon-tinuation fsociety. uchknowledge snotexclusive, athert snecessaryhateveryChewongknows the correctway tobehave,theunderlyingeasonsforprescriptionsnd theexpectedresults ftransgression.he myths onstituteone stable meansofensuring orrect ehaviour nd musttherefore e every-one'sproperty: nownby all,toldbyall.The songs,bycontrast,re ndividual roperty. nce a newsonghasbeenmadepublic n a singing eance t sthencefortheferredoas the ong ofX'. Asongmayalso be passed from ne person oanother, sually ogether ith heassociated pirit uide. Suchsongsmay be sungbytherecipientnly afterhedeath ftheoriginal wner. amuncertain,owever, boutthe ransmissionfsongs.My feelings that,deally, tshouldnever ccur;that ongs iveonlyaslong as theiroriginators.More importantly,t is maintained hatonly the



11/24

88 SIGNE HOWELLownerscan understand he meaningof their ongs (thiswill be returned obelow). Songs are ntensely ersonal: hey renot only private roperty, utthey lso represent rivate nowledge.c. Content. yths re stories bout people withwhom theChewong can easilyidentify,nd about ordinary vents-but peopleand events f thedistant ast.Some lay down first rinciples xplaining ow individual ndsocial existencefirst ame about. Otherscan be seen as case studies f the variousruleswhichgovern ehaviour-so importanto the onduct f ocial ifen a societywithnoinstitutionalisedhains of authority. uch mythsdescribe ransgressionsfvarious ules, ndtheir epercussions. thersdescribe eats fpeoplepossessingesoteric nowledge putao)5andtheir elationship ith he uperhuman eings.All themyths re centred n human existence nd the main charactersrealways humanbeings. They also confirm heinvolvement f superhumanbeings in ordinary ife, thereby ffirminghe epistemological onjunctionbetween he ocial andthe osmological. ndaily ife, heChewongrefer otheirmythswhenthey eed to provide vidence or particulartatement. yths realso used to ustify arents' emands f their hildren.Whenever mythsare told, it is of the utmost mportance hattheybereproduced orrectly. he incidentsmustbe relatedn their roper equence,and all the appropriate etailsmustbe included.No additions r subtractionsmaybe made. When visited heWestern hewong, recorded ntape ome oftheirmyths.The EasternChewong on myreturnwereverydismayed o hearthe tapes. Whereas most of the events relatedwere known to them,theraconteursnthewest had,as itwere,reshuffledhem ntodifferentequences.After heirnitial urprise,heEastern hewongbecamevery cornful,they onotknow the raditionaltories orrectly',hey oldme,andsoon ost nterestnlistening o them.The songs are not primarily bout humansand theirpreoccupations, utdescribe he ctions nd habitats f the uperhuman eings.The informationsnot presenteds one narrativenfoldingnfront f the udience.Rather, achsong smade upof everal elf-containedequences ften ncompletenterms fthe information r story given, and variouslydescribing he superhumanworlds nd/or he ncounters f the inger s s/he xperienceshem.The songsarethus medley fmanydifferentnd unconnected arts, achmergingntothe next-all somehow ntertwining itheachother.While derived rom hebodyof commonknowledge, hecontent fsongs spresentednwayswhichare ncomprehensibleo the outsider-and tomanyChewongas well. Songscontain nvocations to spirit guides and dead ancestors, ll of whom arerequested o attend he eance ndhelpthe ingersn their articular uest.Themainpurposeof thesepassages s to attract heir ttentionnd enlist heir elp.The singers endtheirsoul' (ruwai) ut ona potentially angerousjourneyndare dependentupon superhuman o-operation. ometimesthespiritguidesthemselvespeakthroughhe ong describingheirwayof ife; ometimes thersuperhuman eings nterrupt;ometimes hesingersdescribe hebeingsandplaces their ruwaiencounter.Much of the content s implicitor obliquely



12/24

SIGNE HOWELL 89referred o through llusions. n all theserespects he songs differmarkedlyfrom he myths n which plot s developed n a waythat heWesternistenercaneasilyfollow-once theculturallypecific oncepts re understood.At theexplicit evel, each myth contains only one plot, and this is introduced,developed nd concluded na straightforward,ogicalmanner.In the ase ofahealing eance, he ingermaydescribe ow s/he oes n searchofthe ost ruwai f thepatient, nd f /he indst, /he escribes hebeingwhohas abducted tand what s demanded nexchange or hereturn f theruwai.Throughout, the spiritguides warn of impendingdangers threateninghetravellinguwai f the inger swellas thepeopleback at home keeping p thedrumming nd chorus.The parts of a song are umbled up together, utwheneveromething asbeen ung, hent s vital hat,nfuture erformances,all previousutterances re repeated verbatim.At each performance veryexisting art fa songmustbe faithfullyendered, utthe ctual equencing fthese sunimportant. ew partsmaybe inserted etween xisting arts.Each newsong,or newpart fa song, ntroduces ew nformationboutthesuperhumanworlds. New chains fcausalitymaybe established. hisknowl-edge s then ncorporatedntopublicknowledge.As such,the ongsconstitutethe hiefmedium or hangenChewong deas asthefollowing xample hows.During theJapanese nvasion of the Malay Peninsula,the Chewong sawaeroplanes or hefirstime s these lew verthejungle.One manmet heruwaiofonesuchplaneand t becamehisspirit uide, ementingherelationship iththegift f a spell.The restbecame aware of thisnewcategory fsuperhumanswhentheman ncluded descriptionfthe ncounternhissong.The songsthen re innovatorywhereas hemyths restatic.One presentsnew knowledge,the otherpreserves he old. The events of themyths replaced outsidehistorically xperienced ime, those of the songs withinthepresent.As 'myth nchors hepresentnthepast' Cohen I969: 349),so songsproject hepresentntothefuture.The songsandmyths an be said to be interactive;hey uildoneach other'scontent.Without hemyths, nd the first rinciplesaid down in them,thesongswould have no material.The imagery sed, and thepremisses iven,derive argelyfrom themyths.But the informationbout thesuperhumanworldsprovided n themyths s notverydetailed.They are,as itwere,theskeleton fChewong knowledge, nd the ongswith ll their ich etail rovidetheflesh. he store f detailed nowledge sconstantly eing ncreasedhroughthe songs. Conversely,one mustassume that muchdetail s lost with thedisappearance fsongs.I regardt as quite ikely,however, hat heres also aflowof informationn theopposite direction,with details ntroducedn thesongs being ncorporatednto newmyths. his goes against eceivedwisdomconcerninghe tatic ature fmyths, utonewhich find nconvincing.haveheardeventsbeingrelated bout living,or recently ead, individualswhichconform o the tructure fa myth nd which ncorporatedmuch nformationabout the non-humanworlds. Such storieswould be unlikely o obtain thestatus f traditional nowledge'until ll thecharactersnvolved re ongsincedeadandforgotten.o asnewknowledge ecomesgenerallyvailable hroughthe ongs,theres no reasonnotto assume hat t sincludednnewmyths. he



13/24

go SIGNE HOWELLrelationship etween myths nd songs is, therefore, processof continualnegotiationfknowledge.d. Form.Closely connected o the content f thesecategories f formalisedspeech s the form n whichthey represented. he first nd most obviousdifferences thatmyths reprose ndsongsare n verse orm. hese are iterarytermsmposed by me;no suchdistinctions madebytheChewong-thoughthey appreciate he formaldifferences etween the two modes. The prosenarrative f a myth s thatofordinary peech.Thereis an introduction f atheme,tsdevelopmentnd tsconclusion.The narrative lows n a consecutivemanner; achact nd event eads ogically ntothenext. nterms ftheir ormallayout,Chewong myths re similar o myths ound n allpartsof theworld.Furthermore,he vocabulary ndsyntax sed arethoseofordinaryanguage.The songs, however, re poetry': hythmndrhyme laya largepart ntheirconstruction;he entences remuch horter han hoseofordinary peech; hesyntaxs often ifferent;hey elymoreonimageryhan nprecise escription;andmeaningless nterjectionsrefrequentlynserted orformal easonsratherthan hoseofmeaning. ongs, however,have a beginningwhich smarked ndconforms o clearpatterns iscerniblen all. It consists f nvocations o spiritguidesand dead shamans'to listen ndtohelp.The remainder f the ongs sextremely ifficulto understand-not only for me but forthe Chewongthemselves hosaythatmuch feach ong s n spiritanguage' klugn uwai) rina 'differentanguage' klugnmasign),ndas such t s incomprehensibleoallbutthe inger o whom themeaning as beenexplained ythebeingwho gavethe ong. t sthereforeotpossible o obtain xplanationsf ongsfromnyonebut the owner. Whenapproached or larifications,therswould claimnot tounderstand. comparison f several ongs revealed,however, hat heyhavemuch ncommon ntheir eneral tructure,nthekinds fthings eing eferredto, and in theway in whichevents and superhuman eingsare described.Althoughmuchof the vocabularyused was differentrom hatof ordinaryspeech, twas farfromdiosyncratic. he collective iction f theuniquenessand ncomprehensibilityfeachsongwas neverthelessigorouslymaintained,thereby nderlining he individualistic haracter f songs. Songs representsubjective nowledge.While themyths low ikeordinary peech,thesongsare tuneful nd veryrhythmic,nhancedby repetitions,horus ndby accompanying rums.Theactualform fthe ongs s thereforenfluencedytheir oleasmusic, ndeachsong ssaid tohave a differentrumming atterninked o t.e. Performance.he occasionson whichmyths re told are not imitedn anyway.Not onlycanthey etoldby anyone, heymay lsobe told nywhere,ndat anytime-often whena groupofpeople is gathered ogether nformally.Typically, his s inthe vening fter he astmeal. At suchtimes hemenworkon their lowpipes nd thewomenmakemats ndbaskets.Visitors rom earbyhousesoften rop nfor n hourorso before oing osleep.Thensomeonemayfeelherselfhimself)moved totell tale fromong, ong ago'. Other ommonoccasions for story-tellingre those when several people are engaged in



14/24

SIGNE HOWELL 9Icommunalwork that equiresittle hysicalmovement.Once one talehasbeentold, someone else usuallystarts nother.Frequently n eventof the dayprompts he hoice fthe irstmyth,when henarratorssociates he ventwiththepertinent ointof t. Whatever heoccasion, t smarked y ts nformality.The prime easonfor ellingmythssthe njoyment-of narratornd audiencealike.As the aconteurs avea certainmount ffreedomn thewaythey ell hestory, heres somescopefor ndividual reativity,nd some ndividualswereopenly acknowledged s moreaccomplished torytellershanothers.Devia-tions or omissions from the known sequencesare, however, mmediatelycorrected y the audience. The renderingmay be interruptedt any time toclarify particular ssue, or simplyfor someone to make a point. Childrenfrequently reak n to pose questions, ndpeople laugh at theactionsof thecharacters.urthermore,performance aybebroughto a temporaryaltbysomeextraneous vent o be resumed ta later ime-or not. notherwords, neasy,relaxed nd nformaltmosphereharacterisesheoccasion.The performance f songs is verydifferent.hey areperformed nly onceremonial ccasions. These are ofthreemaintypes:healing eances held inorder oretrieve he ost soul' (ruwai) fthepatient; unerals hentheghost'ofthedeceased is carried o theAfterworld;nd at any other timewhen theChewongfeel heneedtocontact he uperhumaneings.Variouspreparationsmustbe done before seancecanbe held. Special eaveshave tobe gathered odecorate hehouse andprovidetheresting laceforvisiting pirit uides. Themen make eaf rowns nd bandolierswhilethewomen decorate heir aces ndupperbodies withprinted lower esigns ndgatherweet melling lowers owear nthehair.The adornments fboth exesmirror hose f the uperhumanbeings.A singing eancecanonly akeplaceatnight.nthe uperhuman orldsdaytime orresponds o humannight-timendviceversa.Duringa perform-ance all lights nd fires reextinguishedndeverything ustbe done in totaldarkness nside thehouse. Once the seance has begunit must continueun-interruptedntil awn. As soonasonesinger eases, nothermmediatelyakesover.Throughout, bowl ofspecial ncense s keptalive.The smokefrom tis anofferingothehelpfuluperhumans.Duringa singing eancethewholecommunity articipates.t s a communalefforttestablishingontactwith the uperhuman eings.Anyonewho has asong usually ings tat somepointduring henight, ndtherest ccompany hesingeron bamboo drums and repeateach line in chorus.The interactionbetweenperformernd the udience sbothmoreformal nd moredirect hanthatpertaining henmyths re told.The singers annotperform ithout herest fthe ommunity. heyaredependent pon thedrumming ithoutwhichtheruwai sunable o eavethebody i.e. go into rance),ndthe ound sneededtoguide heruwai ackafterwards. o other orm f udience articipation aytakeplace. No interruptionsr comments reallowed once the actual essionhasstarted. he musical, rrhythmical,spects fsinging etsthe ongs apartfrom heperformancefstorytelling,nd this s reflectednthe ffect seancehas on theparticipants.ven though veryone oesnotgo into a trancenthesense of sendingtheirruwai ut of theirbodies, theexperienceneverthelessseemsto have a strong motionalmpact. It s ikedreaming, utdifferent',s a



15/24

92 SIGNE HOWELLtypical omment; r, 'once you have started o drum and sing, youwanttocontinue. t s not difficultokeep goingallnight'.Clearly, ransformationsnemotional tates o occur t suchtimes cf.Needham 967). No such ffectsreclaimedfor theperformance f the myths.These are merelydescribed senjoyable nd good for elling s aboutthewaythings sedto be'. (Forfurtherdetailsabout Chewong cosmology and attitudes o healthand illness,seeHowell I984.)Havingmentioned eancesand soul ourneyingcf.Eliade I964) I oughttoaddthat, mongtheChewong, anyonemaybecome shaman'.Any ndividualwhohas hadat eastone encounter ith superhumaneing nd has beengivena song is, theoretically, personof esotericknowledge putao)who has theability osendouthis her)ruwai. he individual sa passive gentwaiting o beapproachedbya potential pirit uide. t s also possible,however, ctively oseek suchknowledgeby frequently oing into trance nd by studyingwiththose whose storeof esotericknowledge s larger.As some individuals rerecogniseds better tory ellers,o some ndividuals rebettertcontactinghesuperhuman orlds ndhave a larger umber f ongs.Although othmen ndwomencan-and do-obtain songsand go intotrance,menseemed,duringmy tay, o bemore ctive n ndividual ingingwhile hewomen sawtheir olemainly s drummersnd chorus.This, however, s not a rule,but more ofanempirical endency.No such sexual divisionwas noticeable t storytellingevents.Summaryf haracteristicsf ongsndmythsMythsare anonymous,buthuman n their rigin;from he point of view ofthe Chewong theyexist through ime unchanged nd unchangeable; heyrepresent large partof Chewong 'traditional nowledge'; they re publiclyperformednd freelyvailable to all; theirmaincharacters re human beingsinvolved n ordinary ctivities, ut withsuperhuman eings drawn nto theplot; they re prosenarratives ith plot beingdeveloped n a straightforwardmanner; hey re deliveredn ordinary anguage,vocabulary nd syntax; hestorylines more important han the actualwords and the raconteurmayimprovise p to a point; he equencing ftheplotmaynotbe tamperedwith;audienceparticipations very nformal; heymaybe toldanywhere, nytimeandby anyonewithout ny specialrequirements.he songs display ppositecharacteristics.heyareofthepresent; hey repersonally evealedby super-humanbeings o an ndividual; hey rethepropertyfthatndividual; hey retransient; heyare innovatory oth in form nd content; dditionsmay beinserted nd sequencingof theparts s unimportant;he main characters resuperhuman eings;they rea medleyofseveral ntertwinedhemeswithnostoryline eingdeveloped; hey re nverse orm; hevocabularyndsyntax redifferent romthose of ordinary peech; theyare reservedforceremonialoccasions; theycan onlybe performedt night;theirperformance equirespreparations nd ritualparaphernalia; heyare sung and accompaniedbydrumming;ndaudienceparticipationsformalised.Fromthepointof view of ndigenous pistemology othgenres revital: he



16/24

SIGNE HOWELL 93mythspropagateeternal ruthwhile thesongsproviderefinementsnd ad-ditions o thebody ofknowledge.The Chewong believethatknowledge sabsolute and finite.Throughindividual nteractionwith those who knowmore' the superhuman eings-it is assumedthat, vertime, heChewongwill amassmoreand moreknowledgeuntil ucha time s theywill be abletocontroltheir ives and theirenvironmentbsolutely.Such a time will becharacterisedythe bsenceofdeath,disease ndvariousmishaps nd naturalcatastrophes'. espitewhatever ther spectsmaybe associatedwiththetwogenres,uch senjoyment,here sstrongmphasis n their ole sperpetuatingand increasing nowledge.Whilemyths uideeveryday ctions, hey annotinfluence vents.Songs, on theotherhand, by enlisting hehelp of super-humans, rea mediumfor ction.SpellsIf examinedaccording to the same criteria, hewong spells occupy an in-termediateositionbetween heother wo formal peech ategories,ncorpor-atingnmost nstances oth heir haracteristics.irst, owever, moregeneralpointwill be made concerningheplaceof spells n Chewongideology. Thislinksdirectlywiththefinal nterpretationf theirrelative lace in the totaldiscourse.Unlike themyths, nd muchmorethan thesongs,thespells areassociated with specificpurposes,namely to control nd to dispelharmfulinterferenceynon-human eings.As suchthey reusedbyhumans norder omaintain,ndrestore, heboundaries etween uman xistencendnon-humanexistence.Any uncontrolledmixingof elementsfromdifferentpheres sinvariably armful.The spells can eitherprevent uch occurrences t timeswhenthesemight eexpected, rrestore hebalance fterhey ave taken lace.Spells are uttered nly at times when humansneed to protect hemselves.Typically hese re a) attimes f llnesswhen he ight pell annegate he ffectof the non-humancause; (b) at life crisessuch as birth nd death; and (c)whenever heChewong find hemselvesn ocations rsituations hereharmfulbeingshaveattacked, rmight eexpected odo so.a. Originsnddurability.here aretwoways nwhich pellsbecome knowntoan individual.Some spellsare, ikemyths, imeless nd regarded s 'originalknowledge'. No one knows who first amebythem.These spells arepassedfrompersonto person.Otherspells, ikesongs, come intoexistence s giftsfrom person'sspiritguide. Ifthese arehanded overto someoneelse, theyeventuallybecome part of the traditional ody of knowledge. Spells thuspreserve ld knowledge nd are a mediumfor ntroducing ew; they re bothstatic nd nnovatory.b. Ownership. pells are thepersonal and exclusiveproperty f those whostudied hemorweregiventhem.To be given a spellby someone nvolvesprocedurewhich inChewongterms)sfairlyomplex.Thepersonwishing olearnmustapproachthepossessor of thespell and formally equest t. The'teacher' pendsenoughtimewiththe student' o ensure hat /hehas fully



17/24

94 SIGNE HOWELLlearnt t, at whichpointthe student andsovera gift n return orthe spell.Casual learning fspells s notpossiblebecause oftheway they re performed(see below).c. Contentndform. ll the pellsthat came acrossfall ntotwo distinct arts.The first art onsists f a narrativebouta humanbeing nvolved n hisor herdailyactivities. his section s told nordinary escriptiveanguage.There ssomedevelopmentf theme.The secondpart s nrhythmicalerse orm. henarrative s abandoned in favour of statements nd repetitions. he oralpresentationfa spellchanges ramaticallyrom slow, conversationalone nthefirst art o a much morerhythmicecitationn the econd.Also, thechiefcharacters ecomesuperhuman eings thosewhom the pellcancontrol), ndmuch of the vocabularyceases to be that of ordinary peech and becomes'different's in thesongs. Indeed,thepeoplewho gave me their pells onlypartially nderstood hem.This contrasts iththe ongswhich heownercanunderstand. o be efficacious, spellmaynot be changednanyway.Neitheradditionsnor subtractionsmaybe made. No improvisationsreallowed,theutterance f a spell mustbe in completeconformity ith ts original tate.Failure fa spellto achieve tspurpose sfrequentlyttributedo thavingbeentamperedwith n someway.Those who knowspellspractise hemwhenalonefor ear fforgettingnypart fthem.Theirpowerdoes notdependupontheirbeing understoodbut in theirbeinguttered orrectly. hus, possessionofknowledge-as representednspells-is demonstratedy knowingwhat o sayregardless f understanding. hewong spells are an example of words asobjects,or rathers actors,notasmeaningmakers.A similar oint smade byPeek nhis discussion fAfricanverbal rts'whenhesays, thepowerofwordsis notmerely n abstract oncept.We findmanyAfricanocieties espondingvery iterallyo verbal rt.Wordscanaffectheir peaker, nd the peakermusttakeprecautionsoguardhimself rom he dverse ffectsfthewords' power'(I98I: 37). This san mportant oint owhich shallreturnater.Songsarethe hiefmedium or ontactinghe pirit uides ndengagingn anactiverelationship ith hemwhich ometimes eads tothe inger nteringhesuperhumanworlds.The spells,whilefocussed ponthe uperhuman orlds,arenevertheless ot a mediumforcontactingmembers f thoseworlds.Thedesiredpurpose maybe achieved implybythe correct tterance f thespell.The speaker oesnot eek n altered tate fconsciousness. urthermore,nliketheall-purpose ongs,eachparticular ccurrenceillness,mishap, ctual andpotential alamities) as ts own spell. Through inging nd soul ourneying,personmaybe able to effectomespecificim such sinvoking cure.There s,however,no guarantee f this. The singer s at themercyof all kinds ofunforeseendventures hichmayfrustratehe im.The utterancef he orrectspell nevitably btainsresults.The problem s one ofpossessing he correctspell.d. Performance.he performancef spells reflectsheir pecific eleologicalcharacter. n integral artoftheperformancefsongsand egends s audienceparticipation.heseareoccasionsfor njoyment. heperformancef spell, n



18/24

SIGNE HOWELL 95the otherhand, takesplace in isolation. n the case of illness,theoperativerelationship s thatbetween speaker, attacker nd patient. n the case ofprotectivemeasures, tis between hespeaker ndthepotential ttacker. herest fa Chewongcommunitysuallyknowswhenever omeone sperforminga spell,but hey emain nconcernedince hey avenorole oplay.Besides, heperformancef spelloffersoenjoyment.t sutteredapidlyn a semi-audiblewhisper.Nobody shouldoverheart.While theactualperformance f a spell s separated rom hecommunity,thoseon whose part t is uttered evertheless ave certain bligations.Thesecome intoeffect oth before nd after heperformance. ariousprohibitions(pantang) hichdifferccording ospell ndpurpose,mustbeobserved. nthecase ofa sickperson, hepantangpply onlytohimorher, althoughnsomecases relativesmaybe involved lso.Whenever hewholecommunitys atrisk,such s at times fdeath r mpendingnatural' atastrophes,verybody resenthas to observe hem.Hence, despite ppearances o the ontrary,heperform-anceof a spelldoes have wider ocialsignificance. nlikea singing eance,theperformancef a spell requiresno ritual bjectsor acts,although performerwill frequentlymploy ncense moke,and occasionallywater nd leavesforrubbing hebodyofa patient. hese aresupplementaryids,not ntegralo theutterance fspells.The spellsmustbeperformedither t dawn ordusk, .e. atthe ransitionalointsbetweennight ndday;orat times pecificallyesignatedbythe ontext.Withregard o mostcriteria,t has emerged hatChewong spellsdisplaycombination ftheopposing ttributesfsongsand egends.Theythusgener-allyoccupya medianpositionbetweenthe two extremes.n a few nstancesspellsmanifest n overlapwith ust one of the othertwo, as in the case ofownershipsee fig. ).ConclusionThe rangeof attributesssociatedwiththe threegenres fChewong formalspeech ctsfallsntonoticeable atterns hichwould nothave emerged ad onenot ooked at allthegenresnrelation oeachother. he firstoint onote s thattwo ofthe ategories, amely ongs ndmyths,onsistentlyppear orepresenttwo sets of opposing positions. Secondly,most spells appear to combinecharacteristicsromthe two extremepoles. As such theyoccupy a medianposition.Theyconstitute synthesisfattributesresentnChewongformal-ised anguage genres.To accountfor his return o Chewongepistemology,and thecultural aluesassociatedwith t. I haveargued nthis rticle hat hethree enres fformalpeech ctsfoundnChewong society reregarded ytheChewongthemselves s constitutingrelated etofphenomena. eopleexplaineach in terms feither, r both,the other wo; they xplicate imilaritiesnddifferences.o far haveavoided nydiscussion frelative alue. t s,however,unquestionablehat superior alue sattributedospells.To be thepossessor fa largenumber fspells s more desirable hanknowingnumerousmyths rsongs.The question hen riseswherein his alue ies. t snotbyvirtue ftheirentertainmentalue, or fromany aesthetic onsiderations. oth songs and



19/24

96 SIGNE HOWELLmyths core higher n these ounts. t s, I would argue,within herealms fknowledge haeraten)ndattitudesoknowledge, hat he nswermaybefound.

It s ofutmost mportanceo theChewongto be able to understandhaeraten)their nvironment. nderstandings thefirstteptowards ontrol. t will beremembered hat nvironment,ociety nd cosmos constitute co-extensiveuniverse, ased on identical rinciples f order.To be able to maintain rder,and to reestablisht whenever t is upset, s a matter f vitalconcern.This isachievedby knowing bout the universe nd its workings.Mostly t s learntfrom ongs and myths.Paradoxically, hespells-which confer ittleknowl-edge about theuniverse nd appropriate ehaviourwithin t-representthemost effective ind ofknowledge.Whenever omethings seriouslywrong,thenthesurestway to set trights to know theappropriate pell. Knowing(haeraten)s still heoperativeword;but n the ase ofspells,notknowinghowand/orwhy,butknowingwhat-what that s, to say.Withtheright pellatone's disposal,a personmay, ntheory, ccomplish nything. his attitudesreflectednassertionshat hegreatestshamans' rethosewho,to be abletoactupon theworld,have no need ofsinging eanceswith their ssociatedritualparaphernalia. he mythologysfull f referencesopeoplewho attained heiresoteric oal simply ytheutterance f a spell.This raises pointmadebyTambiah n hisre-examinationfTrobriandpells(Tambiah 968). The mainthrustf hisargument,s I see t, s to demonstratethat, espiteMalinowski's ssertion o thecontrary,pells renotmeaninglessjumblesof words which nform either he peaker, herest fthe ommunity,northe anthropologistbouta wider discourse fmeaning.He suggests hatMalinowski and othershave elevatedthe importance f the word to theexclusion f another ital ngredientfritual, amely ction.Allritualmustbeexaminedas a 'complexofwords and action including he manipulation fobjects)' I968: I84). The nature f their nterconnexion ustbedemonstratedto establish he innerframe'ofmagicalbehaviour, he semantics f ritual'(I968: I88). Using Jacobsen'sdistinctionetweenmetaphoric nd the meton-ymic operationsn language,Tambiahperformsn analysis f certain rob-riand pells nd their ssociated itual bjects nd deeds, nd haveno hesitationin agreeing hat urunderstandingf Trobriand pellshas been enriched, ndthat heres ndeed system f nterlinkingdeasunderlyingheir erformance.Malinowski's assertion hatTrobriand pellsare an exceedingly bscure ndconfused oncatenationf deas' is notvindicated. oes this nalysisdemon-strate, owever, hat the avagemind . . rather han eing onfused y verbalfallacies ractingndefiance fknownphysicalaws, t ngeniously onjoins heexpressive nd metaphorical roperties f language with the operational ndempirical roperties ftechnical ctivity'I968: 202)? In otherwords, s therealways ninterconnexionetweenwords and actions?

Itwould appearfrommyexposition fChewong formal peech cts hat hisisnotnecessarilyo. Chewong spellsdonotconform o Tambiah'sdefinitionfritual.The utterancef a spell may nvolvetheutilisation f ritual bjects ndactivities, utas we haveseen,these reminimal. urthermore,henever heyareemployed, hey re lways he ameones and hence hedegree ffit etweenthe wo modes ofexpressionnanydeeper ense theinner rame')s ikely o be



20/24

SIGNE HOWELL 97trivial.But, more mportantly,heultimate owerof a spell ies n thewordsalone. Not only are deeds andobjectsresortedoonly by the ess knowledge-able, but the wordsmay nfactbe mumbo-jumbo o every ivingChewong,althoughpossiblynot to the superhuman eing whom they re intended oaffect.n this astrespect, am inagreement ithTambiahwhenhesays aboutthe Sinhalesemantra hat, lthough hey re argelyn demon anguage',they'do notfall utside herequirementsf anguage sa system fcommunication'(I968: I78). We are more likelyto be successfuln an examination f therelationship etween hewordsemployed n a Chewong song and theobjectsand actions f a singing eance. t mustbe borne nmind,however, hatwhilethe ongs change, herituals ccompanyinghemdo not. The objects nd actsare,moreover, denticaln all nstances egardlessfthe ntention fthe eance.From one perspectivethere is a strongintentionalityssociated withChewong formalisedpeechwhichfinds tsstrongestxpressionn spells. nterms fknowledge haeraten),enerated yeachcategoryftheformalpeechacts,we find hat heydiffer idely. Myths upply heknowledgeof and theknowledgefor, hereby reatingheframework ormeaningfuluman ction.While hey reconstitutive,hey renot nstrumentalnachieving ction.Theyembodyknowledgewhich, f dhered o, preventsheChewongfrom ommit-ting cts or thoughtswhich would lead to illness rmishapof variouskinds.There s thus preventivespect o themyths. heknowledge iven nthems,however,far fromexhaustive, nd theChewong are fully ware that theircontrol ver themselves nd their nvironments limited, ndthat hings relikely o go wrongfrom ime otime.Songs are majormeansfor opingwithillness nd mishapsonce theyhaveoccurred.Theyare also theonlymeans attheir isposal oenternto ctive elationships ith he uperhuman eings, ndthroughhese ncounters,oth o ncrease heir nowledge nd to enlist hehelpofthe uperhumans. ongsare constitutiveand byextension reventive)nsofar s theymay providenew informationeading o increased nderstanding.They are also instrumentaln so faras theyare the means forrequestinginterventiony superhuman eings. Things maybe put right hrough heperformancefsongs.Spells,while notconstitutive,re both nstrumentalndpreventive, ut nsignificantlyifferentaysfrom he ther wogenres. heyareuseddirectlyoprevent nd avertdanger s well as to remedyts effectsnd toobtain pecificobjectives.The spells repurelymechanisms or chieving esired nds.Theydo not nvolvethe uperhuman eings, nd the ctual nformationontainednthemhas no reference r usefulness utside hecontext f theutterance f thespell itself.They are the most efficacious f the threegenresof formalisedspeech.Whereasbothmyths nd songs are aboutdescribing heworld andthrough escription elpinghumans oactproperly ithint,andsongscanbeused to changemisfortune,hespellsare exclusively bout actingupon theworld. Just s thespells combine both means forprevention nd cure, thussynthesising yths ndsongs, they lso combinemostof thecharacteristicsfthese wo. There sthereforecongruenceetween he wo sets frelationships-both on the evel ofthought ndaction.Whereas rom hisperspectivehespells can, however,be seen to stand n a medianposition,fromanother



21/24

98 SIGNE HOWELLperspective,he songsandspellsmay be classedtogethern opposition o themyths. heyareboth nstrumentalnachievingction.Thus,from hepoint fview of whateach genredoes, themyths imply tate,while both songs andspellsdo. But songscan effectction nlywith he nterventionf superhumanbeings,whereasspellsact on their wn. The highervalue attached o spellsmakes ensewithin heframework fknowledge samechanismor ontrolledaction.By treatingll Chewongformal peech cts s a totaldiscourse, ach genre sunderstoodmorerichly, eingviewedin itsrelationship ith all the others.Each does not stand lone nexpressing nowledge,but achieves tsparticularidentity nly nrelationshipo the est, ndtheir verall lace nthe osmology.

NOTESFieldwork mongtheChewong was carried ut between 977-79 and was supported y theSocial Science ResearchCouncil. A return isit n I98I was madepossiblebythe SusetteTaylorTravellingFellowship 98I-82 awardedby Lady MargaretHall, Oxford;and by a grantfromEquipe de la Recherche 'Anthropologie ociale:Morphologie,Echanges CentreNational de laRecherche cientifique, rance).Earlier ersions fthis aperweregiven tseminarst theLondonSchool of Economics and the nstitute f SocialAnthropology, xford. thank hosepresent ortheir omments nd criticisms. also wish o thank odneyNeedham ndAndrewDuff-Cooper orreading arlier rafts. am particularlyratefulo the woanonymous efereeso Manwho,when

submittedmy originaldraft orconsideration, ointedout the acunae n my knowledgeof theliteraturef theAmerican thnographyf peaking.RoyWillis ndAlanCampbellkindly eadmyrevised ersion ndmade several seful omments. inalresponsibilitys,ofcourse,myown.1 InBritain, arious xpressions avebeenusedtodiscusswhat amtermingormalpeech cts.'Oral traditions's a commonly ound ne,butone that findackingnprecision, speciallyo sinceit mplies hepastonly. Finnegannsists nthe xpressionoral iterature' hich wouldsuggestsacontradictionn terms.Willishas coined spoken art';and verbal rt'and oralart' areyetothervariants.My disagreement iththe ast three s in theemphasis lacedon art.This concept s farfromunproblematic,nd itsusage involves theanthropologistn evaluative ssessments f thevariousgenreswhich, would argue, ies outsidehis or hercompetence. n America he term'folklore' s in current se but thishas derogatory vertones n British nthropology. or mypurposes, he expression ormal peech cts avoidsthe boveproblems. t s derived rom earle,'Speaking language sperformingpeech cts. . . a theoryf anguage spart f theoryf ction,simply ecause peakings a rule-governedorm f behaviour'I968: I6/I7).

2 'Long ago' inChewong usage simplymeans hat eriodprior owhatmaybe called ndividualhistoricalime, .e. the ifetime f thepersonconcerned, r that f dentifiableelativesxtendingback rarely eyondtwo or threegenerations.No temporaldistinctionsre made between themyths, hey ll representventswhichoccurreda longtime go'.3 It maybe pertinentere o clarifyheposition fChewong inguistic tatus nd tsrelationshipwith Malay. WhileMalay is an Austronesiananguage, Chewong belongs to theMon-Khmerfamily fthe Austro-Asiaticanguages. Formally, here s therefore o relationshipetween hetwo. Contactbetween he boriginal eopleandMalayshas, however,probably aken lacesincethe ime fearlyMalaysettlementf thePeninsulac.2000 years go), andmanyMalay oanwordshavebeen ncorporatednto ll the boriginalanguages,ncluding hewong. Most adultChewongcan peak omeMalay. It sextremelyifficultoexplainwhy ome words ndnotothers avebeenadopted. found hat nmost nstanceswherea word (signifier) adbeen absorbed hemeaning(signified) adundergoneometransformation.

4 This collection fessays ncludes n itsbibliographyeferenceo onlytwo works on recentAmerican olklore tudies cf.mycomments n British ack ofawareness).5 I usethe ermshaman'reluctantly. he term nEnglishhas substantiveonnotationsenotinga discernibleategory fpeople.Thisdoes notreflectheChewongsituation. nChewongusage,



22/24

SIGNE HOWELL 99putaos not o much noun as a qualifier o anoun or a verb.Thus theywill ay he s aputaoman' nthe ame way as theywould say he s a strongman'.

AppendixThe following re examples fChewong myths, ongs and spells.While hemyth s complete, hesong nd the pell reboth xtracts rom he omplete exts, ut t shopedthat hey re ufficientoillustratehemain points hat havemade withregard o form nd content.n translationt s, ofcourse otpossible odemonstrate hether hevocabularys different'r ordinary. or renderingofa complete ong n both Chewong and English, ee Howell I984; andfor mythnChewongwith word-for-wordranslation,ee Howell I 982. Fromthepoint f viewof recording xamplesofthedifferentenres fChewongformalpeech cts, hemythswerethe asiest o obtain nd thespells hemostdifficult.his conforms o their elative alue as discussedn the rticle. was givenspells nlyupon myreturn isitn 98I andunder onditions f eclusion. waspermittedo recorda few,however, nd theownerexplained hem o me. The songswere lso recorded. transcribedthem s best could and obtained larificationsrom he wners. did notuse a taperecorderor hemyths, utrelied pon my mother'who was one of thebestraconteurs,nd alsowilling otell hesametalerepeatedly.Myth: Siamangwith inturong'I)A man wenthuntingwithhisblowpipe.He shot leafmonkey,siamang nda binturong. e putall threenimalsnhisbackbasketnd wenthome. On thewayhe saw a tiger.Whenhearrived t theswidden egavethemeat ohiswife o cook.Theyall atethe hreemeats, ut heman'sunclewouldnot eat the binturong ogetherwith the siamang. He was a shaman man. He was afraidofcommittingiger alaiden.n thenight veryone limbed rees o sleep n. They were frightenedtigermight ome. Thenephewbrought isblowpipewithhim.Duringthenight ekickedtand tfell o theground. I am goingdownformy blowpipe'he toldhiswife. Oh, but whataboutthetiger?' aid she. He tookno noticeand climbeddown.Justbeforehe reached hegroundhe feltsomething cratch is egs. Hey,there re otsofthorns!' eexclaimed, ut t was the iger's laws.The tigerwas waiting orhim. The tiger it him at thethroat,nd theman died. I'll sleep n thehouse for herest f thenight', hetiger alled out to thewife,pretendingo be herhusband.Thetiger tethebody and theblood,buthedid noteat thehead.He then ried o climb he ree n whichtheuncle nd his familywere leeping, uthecouldnot do so for heunclehad placed a knife t thebottom f the runk nd utteredpellsover t.The next day the uncle wenthunting.He shot a leafmonkey, long-tailedmacaque and asquirrel. he headofhisdeadnephewfollowedhim hewholeday.He wanted ocapture isuncle'sruwai, uthecouldnot do so for heunclehad saidspells.In the evening he unclewenthome. The head of hisnephewfollowed.The uncle made leafheadbands nd plaited eavesto decorate hehouse.Everyoneparticipatedn a singing eanceforsevennights.Atthe nd of the eventheance, heghost f thedeadmanwas expelled2.' There s a rulethatforbids hemixing f these wo meats.The result s always n attack yatiger: iger alaiden.2 Here both pells ndsongsareemployed.The uncledid not have the ppropriatepell oexpeltheghost, o he hadto make a singing eance.Song: BongsofromountNynyed'... Not easy.All therameifruit) riends o.Soleraweaves shaman'swhisk), ono leaves)fromNintjar.Ah,mist like) ono leaves) n the yes.Chachagflowersn thebody)!See the hinurflowersn thehair)!Webathe nder hewaterfall,atheunder he pray.Webathe nder hewaterfall.Walk bout nthe pray,walkabout.Amoi!Ahoi! . . .Spell:Against as a species fharmfuluperhumaneing)Tell of how he wentover there.He wentover there ndhegot ost.He got ostover there. omepeoplefollowed fter im.He came to a house. t was thehouse ofhismother ndfather. ..



23/24

ioo SIGNE HOWELL... They hit, heyhit.They say pells-theyfrustrates.Underfallen ree runkswe stab-they frustrates.They shootus-they frustrates.We stab t thewaist-they frustrates.We stab n the tomach-theyfrustrates.Westab ntheback-they frustrates. . ..

REFERENCESAbrahams, . D. I972. Personal owerand social restraintsn thedefinitionffolklore.n Towardsnew erspectivesnfolkloreeds)A. Paredes& R. Bauman. Austin:Univ. ofTexas Press.

I975. Folklore ndcommunicationnSt Vincent. nFolklore: erformancend ommunication(eds) D. Ben-Amos& K. S. Goldstein.TheHague:Mouton.I982. Storytellingvents:wake amusementsndthe tructurefnonsense n St Vincent.

J.Am. Folki.95, 389-4I4.Arewa, E. 0. & A. Dundes I964. Proverbs nd theethnographyfspeaking.Am. Anthrop.6,Suppl. Dec., 6pt. 2, 70-85.Bauman,R. & N. McCabe I970. ProverbsnanLSD cult.J.Am. Folkl.83, 3 8-34.&J. Sherzereds) I974. Explorationsn the thnographyfspeaking.ambridge:Univ. Press.I975. Verbal rt sperformance.m.Anthrop.7,290-3 II.Basg6z, I. I975. The tale-singerndhisaudience. n Folklore:erformancendcommunicationeds)D. Ben-Amos& K. S. Goldstein.The Hague: Mouton.Ben-Amos, D. 1972. Towards a definition f folklore n context. n Towards ewperspectivesnfolkloreeds)A. Paredes ndR. Bauman.Austin:Univ. ofTexas Press.I976. Solutions o riddles.J.Am. Folk.89,249-54.& K. S. Goldsteineds) I975. Folklore:erformancend ommunication.heHague:Mouton.Bloch, M. I975. Politicalanguagendoratoryntraditionalociety.ondon: AcademicPress.Cohen, P. S. I969. Theoriesofmyth.Man N. S.) 4, 337-53.De Heusch,L. I982. Thedrunkening. loomington:ndianaUniv. Press.Douglas, M. I973. Naturalymbols. ew York:VintageBooks.Dundes, A. I964. Texture, ext, nd context. . Folkl.28, 25I-65.,J.W. Leach & B. Ozkok I970. ThestrategyfTurkish oys'verbal ueling hymes. .Am.Folkl.83, 325-49.Eliade,M. I964. Shamanism;rchaicechniquesf cstasy.ondon:Routledge.Finnegan, . I967. Limba toriesnd torytelling.xford:Clarendon ress.I969. Attitudeso the tudy f oral iteraturen British ocialanthropology. an N.S.) 4,

59-69.I970. Oral iteraturenAfrica. xford:Clarendon ress.I977. Oralpoetry:tsnaturend ignificance.ambridge:Univ. Press.Fox, J.J. I974. Our ancestors pokeinpairs:Rotineseviewsof anguage, dialects, nd code. InExplorationsn the thnographyf peakingeds)R. BaumanandJ.Sherzer.Cambridge:Univ.Press.Goody,J. 977. Thedomesticationf he avagemind. ambridge:Univ. Press.Howell, S. I982. Chewongmythsnd egendsMonogr. R. Asiat. Soc. II). Kuala Lumpur:RoyalAsiatic ociety.I984. Societynd osmos:hewong f eninsular alaysia.Oxford:Univ. Press.Hymes, D. I962. The ethnography f speaking. In Anthropologynd humanbehavioureds)T. Gladwin& W. C. Sturtevant.Washington: nthropologicalociety.I964. Languagenculturend ociety. ew York:Harper& Row.I967. Models of the nteractionf anguage ndsocial setting. . social ssues 3, 2), 8-28.(Revisedversion n:J. J. Gumperz& D. Hymes (eds) I972. Directionsnsociolinguistics;heethnographyf peaking. ew York:Holt,Rinehart Winston.)I975. Breakthroughnto performance.n Folklore, erformancend communicationeds)D. Ben-Amos & K. S. Goldstein.The Hague:Mouton.Irvine, . I. I974. Strategies f statusmanipulationn the Wolof greeting. n Explorationsn theethnographyfspeakingeds)R. Bauman andJ.Sherzer.Cambridge:Univ. Press.



24/24

SIGNE HOWELL IOIKirk,G. S. I970. Myth: tsmeaningndfunctionsn ncient otherultures.ambridge:Univ. Press.Kirshenblatt-Gimblett,. I975. A parable n context: social nteractionalnalysis fstorytellingperformance.n Folklore: erformancend communicationeds) D. Ben-Amos and K. S.Goldstein. he Hague:Mouton.Leach, E. (ed.) I967. The structuraltudy f mythnd totemism:A.S.A. Monogr. 5). London:Tavistock.I969. Genesissmythndotherssays. ondon:Cape.& D. A. Aycock. 984. StructuralistnterpretationsfBiblicalmyth. ambridge:Univ. Press.Levi-Strauss, . I963. The structuraltudy fmyth. n Structuralnthropology.armondsworth:Penguin.

I970. Mythologiques: The raw nd he ooked. ondon: Cape.I973. Mythologiques: From oneyo shes. ondon: Cape.I978. Mythologiques3:he originf ablemanners.ondon:Cape.I98I. Mythologiques: Thenakedman. ondon:Cape.Malinowski,B. I935. Coral ardensnd heirmagic,ol. 2. London: Allen& Unwin.I948a. Myth nprimitive sychology.nMagic, cience ndreligionndotherssays. oston:Beacon Pr. (Originally ublished 926).I948b.The problem fmeaningnprimitive ociety. nMagic, ciencendreligionndotheressays.Originally ublished 923). Boston: Beacon Press.Needham,R. I967. Percussion ndtransition. an N. S.) 2, 606-I4.Peek,P. M. I98I. Thepowerof words nAfrican erbal rts.J.Am.Folkl.94, I9-43.Propp, V. I958. Morphology f the olktale.Bloomington: ndiana Univ. Research Centre nAnthropology,olklore ndLinguistics.Salmond, A. I974. Rituals of encounter mong the Maori: sociolinguistic tudyof a scene. InExplorationsnthe thnographyf peakingeds) R. Bauman& J. Sherzer.Cambridge:Univ.Press.Searle, . 968. Speech cts.Cambridge:Univ. Press.Tambiah,S. J. 968. Themagicalpower of words. Man N. S.) 3, I75-208.Toelken,B. I975. Folklore,worldview, nd communication.nFolklore:performanceandcommunica-tioneds)D. Ben-Amos& K. S. Goldstein. he Hague: Mouton.Willis,R. I967. The head and the oins:Levi-Strauss ndbeyond.Man N.S.) 2, 5I9-34.I978. Therewas certain an: pokenrt f he ipa.Oxford:Clarendon ress.I98I. A state n themaking:myth, istory,ndsocialtransformationsnpre-colonial fipa.Bloomington: ndianaUniv. Press.

formal speech acts as one discourse

Documents