USP Undergraduate Journal | 32

More than One Lah!

Tan, Angela Hui Ying

In the following exchange, A just told her friend W that she is considering moving to a ! ird World country.

Example 1:

1 A: I thought everybody knew about Cambodia (0.5) like it’s quite advanced =

2 W: is i:t:

3 A: I always thought so la:h i [( )]

! e most outstanding feature of this exchange is the ‘lah’ that punctuates turn 3. ‘Lah’ is a particle that is ubiquitous in Singlish, the equivalent of Singapore Colloquial English (SCE), but it has no one distinct defi nition. In Singapore, the vanguards of Singapore Standard English (SSE) discourage the use of SCE; they view Singlish as a deviant strain of English that hinders communication with the Native English speakers. As Goh Chok Tong, then Prime Minister and current Senior Minister of Singapore pithily de-scribes in his 1999 National Day Rally speech, “We learn English in order to communicate with the world… if we carry on the using Singlish, the logi-cal fi nal outcome is that we too will develop our own type of pidgin English, spoken only by three million Singaporeans, which the rest of the world will fi nd quaint but incomprehensible.” Although there has been extensive research on Singlish, it can be inferred that even that at the turn of the century, the persistent fear of unintelligibility remains, especially from offi ce holders of the country. Yet, the fact that SCE speak-ers are intelligible to each other indicates that there is an order to the Singlish lexicon, and some researchers (Lionel Wee, Anna Kwan-Terry, Anthea Gupta) have shown that SCE, especially its particles, have as intri-cate systems of grammar, tone and discursive rules as Standard Written English.

! e aim of this study, however, is not to answer the question of where or why the SCE speakers use ‘lah.’ While this would indubitably be an interesting and meaningful exercise, it would surpass the scope of this paper. Instead, this study hopes to augment the formulation of a methodology that would help answer this ultimate question. To do so, this inquiry would compare the claims of various SCE researchers that are made impressionistically to the empirical data col-

lected from the naturally occurring speech of various SCE speakers. ! rough this comparison, the impres-sionistic claims of the functions of ‘lah’ are found to be incongruous with the data collected from natural spontaneous discourse.

Previous Study of Lah

‘Lah,’ in linguistic terms, is known as a particle. ! e Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED) de-fi nes a particle as:

Any of a set of words (sometimes treated as a minor part of speech and sometimes including affi xes) that are typically short and indefi nable; a function word. Also: a prefi x or suffi x. (1997)

! e Oxford Concise Companion to English Lan-guage further defi nes a particle as “a word that does not change its form through infl ection and does not fi t easily into the established system of parts of speech” where ‘parts of speech’ refers to grammatical categories or classes of words, such as pronouns, nouns and verbs (Oxford Concise Companion to English Language, 2005). Other than ‘lah’ being a function word which cannot be infl ected, it is also “syntactically optional in that [its] omission does not aff ect the grammaticality of the sentence” (Wee 2004: 117).

Furthermore, although SCE particles are not obligatory, they are not semantically meaningless. Most linguists believe particles serve the purpose of certain discourse functions in speech and do not pos-sess inherent semantic meanings. Hence, ‘lah’ can be considered in the same category as function words, such as “the” or “a,” rather than content words, such as “cat” or “ball.” However, while linguists are informed of the meaning of the various function words like “a” and “the” in the English lexicon, the defi nition of ‘lah’ is still relatively indistinct.

In spite of that, many people have attempted to explain the pragmatic uses and function of ‘lah’ par-ticle. According Mr. Brown, one of the prominent Singaporean bloggers, ‘lah’ is but one of the eleven particles in Singlish. It has distinct functions and is not interchangeable with other particles. He cites four examples:

Example 2: (Mr. Brown 2005)

(a) “! ere’s something here for everyone lah.” (“! ere IS something here for everyone.”)

(b) “OK lah, bye bye.” (“OK then, bye bye.”)

(c) “You see my husband’s not at home lah. ! at’s the problem, ah.” (“You see my husband’s not at home, you understand. ! at’s the problem, you see.”)

Volume 2, Issue 1, August 2009 | 33(d) “Her price is too high for me lah” (“Her price is too high for me, I am afraid.”)

Each ‘lah’ possesses a diff erent connation. As Mr. Brown does not explain his examples, I attempt a brief interpretation. (2a) indicates that ‘lah’ is used assert-ively in a statement to underline one’s certainty. In (2b), ‘lah’ is used with a sense of fi nality and closure to the closing remark. ‘Lah’ in (2c) elicits a certain “plea” for understanding from the interlocutor and ‘lah’ in (2d) has a hint of exasperation.

" e notion of the assertive ‘lah’ in example (1) is echoed by Anthea Fraser Gupta, a sociolinguist from University of Leeds. While she has documented empirical data of ‘lah’ among other particles, she has chosen to discuss these particles primarily as pragmat-ic particles without a distinct methodology. In her dis-cussion of ‘lah,’ she alludes to an argument between two sisters, who are fi ghting over paint sets. EG is try-ing to take one of YG’s paint cards:

Example 3: (Gupta 1992: 53)

Turn Utterance

1 EG: Mei-mei h-I help you paint.

...

4 YG: Aiya, you paint your own la.

5 EG: I help you paint na.

" e numbers on the left of the utterances indi-cate the turn number in Gupta’s analysis. In her ex-tract, ‘lah’ functions as the “assertive” particle (Gupta 1992). YG seems exasperated with EG’s off er to help in turn 1 and asserts her power in turn 4 by asking YG to paint on her own.

" e assertive particle argument is also mirrored in Lionel Wee’s work on ‘lah’ used to persuade or object. In his article, Wee asserts that ‘lah’ is used to com-municate a certain mood or attitude (Wee 2004). He quotes and analyses some examples from OED on-line:

Example 4: (Wee 2004: 118)

(a) Come with us lah.

(b) Wrong lah.

(c) No lah.

For Wee (2004), (4a) indicates persuasion, while the (4b) indicates annoyance and (4c) shows strong objection.

On the other hand, ‘lah’ can be used to mitigate

potential hostility in an assertion. " ese potentially provocative statements, such as (4b) and (4c), seem more polite with the usage of ‘lah’ (Wee 2004: 119).

Interestingly, the OED also has its interpretation of ‘lah’:

As shown below in Example 5, ‘lah’ can be “used with various kinds of pitch to convey the mood and attitude of the speaker.” (1997)

Example 5: [OED Online 1997]

(a) “Persuasion. lah with a fall in pitch. Come with us lah!”

(b) “Annoyance. lah with a rise in pitch. Wrong lah! Tsch! Write again here!”

(c) “Strong objection. lah with a sharper fall in pitch. A: Shall we discuss this now?

B: No lah! So late already.”

" e ongoing discussion regarding the functions of ‘lah’ is usually centered on the pragmatic usage of ‘lah’ as well as its connotations of the mood and atti-tude of the speaker. It seems to alienate the function of ‘lah’ from its sentence position. Some linguists argue against this division by formulating certain ‘rules.’ For instance, Wee (2004: 117) argues that “CSE particles typically occur in sentence-fi nal positions”; ‘lah’ can-not appear with a polar interrogative, nor can it ap-pear with a declarative functioning as a question, as in (6a) and (6b) below.

Example 6: (Wee 2004: 119)

(a) *Is that your hat lah?

(b) *" at’s his car lah?

(c) Who’s you friend lah?

(d) What’s inside the box lah?

However, ‘lah’ can appear with Wh-interrogatives, as in (6c) and (6d). Yet, these constraints are not ac-counted for in the explanation of SCE particles.

" e discussion above seems to coalesce around the idea that ‘lah’ has a multitude of functions with some constraints on their sentence positions. In relation to that, Anna Kwan-Terry (1992: 63) asks an astute ques-tion:

“If there more than one la, one le, and one hoh, etc, then what are the features that distinguish the dif-ferent la’s, le’s and hoh’s?”

USP Undergraduate Journal | 34

Objective of Present Study

I have discussed in brief about some of the major claims of ‘lah’ in the literature. It is now imperative to investigate the validity of these claims as most of the literature I have cited does not off er a quantitative nor empirical ethnographic study of ‘lah’. " ese impres-sionistic propositions should be juxtaposed against real-life data in order to ascertain their legitimacy.

To examine these claims, I have chosen to use the method of Conversation Analysis (CA). CA was founded by a group of sociologists, and in particular the ethnomethodologists. " e term “ethnomethodol-ogy” refers to the study of “ethnic” (participants’ own) methods of production and interpretation of social action (Levinson 1983: 295). " erefore, CA practi-tioners are interested in how members in their own groups use and understand certain rules and formulae in naturally occurring talk.

Due to its origins from ethnomethodology, a ‘bottom-up’ approach using natural occurring data is emphasized. " e role of CA practitioners lies in the analysis of these naturally occurring data so as to ar-rive at substantial evidence for their claims about how an entity is ‘understood’ or ‘functioning’ in talk. " e evidence from the data must include the display be-haviour of the participants to one another at that par-ticular moment of talk being analysed. CA thus high-lights a marked emphasis in ‘experimental’ research that involves naturally occurring data.

" is approach has three main assumptions: (1) in-teraction is structurally organized; (2) contributions to interaction are contextually oriented and (3) these two properties inhere in the details of interaction so that no order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant (Heritage 1984). In short, everything that happens in talk arises from context and competent participants’ methods of inter-action. No detail should be shelved as an anomaly as the features in talk are assumed to be structured and identifi able.

An example of CA is the analysis of Adjacency Pairs (APs). An AP is a sequence of two utterances that are (1) adjacent; (2) produced by diff erent speak-ers; (3) ordered as a First Pair Part (FPP) and a Second Pair Part (SPP) (Levinson 1983). " ey are paired ut-terances of which question-answer, greeting-greeting and off er-acceptance etc., are typical (Levinson 1983: 303). One example of an AP is a request-grant be-tween a father and a child:

Example 7: (Levinson 1983: 307)

Child: Could you .hh could you put on the light for my .hh room

Father: Yep

" e fi rst utterance made by the child is a request, and it forms the FPP in the AP. " e second utterance by the father is a grant of the request, which is the SPP of the AP. Each AP should contain two utter-ances minimally, one FPP and one SPP. Another ex-ample of an AP is the question-answer sequence. In the extract below, B is asking to borrow J’s gun for a performance:

Example 8: (Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 57)

J: Yuh gonna be doin’ it up on stage in front of the whole school?

B: No:: no no::

J utters a questioning FPP. B’s answering SPP fol-lows subsequently. However, not all the pair parts occur immediately adjacent to each other; some of the pair parts are delayed signifi cantly. " is may be caused by an insertion sequence, which is also an AP, being inserted in between another AP. " e following example illustrates this:

Example 9: (Levinson 1983: 304)

A: May I have a bottle of Mich? (Q1)

B: Are you twenty one? (Q2)

A: No (A2)

B: No (A1)

Q1 is the fi rst question and A1 is the answer to the fi rst question. While Q1 and A1 form an AP, the FPP, Q1, does not immediately receive its SPP, A1. " e SPP is delayed by the insertion of another AP made up of Q2 and A2, where Q2 is the FPP and A2 is the SPP in a question-answer sequence.

As demonstrated above, CA adheres rigidly to the idea of “proof procedure” where the analysis of APs is done structurally. " rough the analysis of APs, the conversation analyst can interpret and ascertain the meaning of an utterance to participants in their discourse via the use of real-life data. As such, the ob-ject of this paper is to apply the analysis of this rigor-ous participant display (via “proof procedure”) to the impressionistic claims that are currently made about the SCE particle ‘lah.’

Methodology

To apply CA, I have collected two sets of data. " e age group of all the participants falls between 16 to 23 years old, and they were randomly chosen. " e names of these research participants have been replaced with

Volume 2, Issue 1, August 2009 | 35initials in the transcripts. Participants were also re-quested to sign an agreement giving their consent to be part of the research. ! e fi rst 10 minutes of the data are disregarded for the participants as they may initially be self-conscious in front of the recording de-vices.

! e fi rst set of data is a videotape of a conversation of four people (with some leaving and rejoining the conversation) in a bedroom. ! ese four participants are cousins and two of the four, S and W, are sisters. It was taken in August 2007 with a video camera set up on a tripod that tried to include every participant in the frame. ! e second set, A, is an audio record-ing between two friends over a quick lunch in a fast-food restaurant. ! e data was recorded with an MP3 player placed in between the two participants. ! e researcher was involved in both the recordings and all the participants were aware of the presence of the re-cording devices. Relevant sections of the conversation are transcribed using an adapted version of the tran-scription notation from Ochs et al (1996).1

A numbering system is used to identify the ‘lahs’ in the transcripts. Usually, more than one ‘lah’ ap-pears in the transcript and there are only a few excep-tions where only one ‘lah’ appears.

Example 10:

1 W: she’s quite a (0.5) i think this is (0.2) quite a big ( [client] )

2 C: [so diff erent] (0.2) diff erent groups (0.5) propo:se

3 W: she was the managi:ng (0.5) director (“or something”:.) and then she came

4 down wha:t then (0.4) then we presented our (0.2) pitch to her la:hii erm (.)

5 “you know”:. about an adidas “sh[oe range]”:.

6 C: [every (.) every (.)] class: like (pause) does it o:r one grou:p=

7 W: =every shoot (.) e-er “every shoo:”:. e(hh)very class has (0.5) several

8 groups then we all pitch our=

9 C: =and she will choose one ha:

10 W: (1.8) not say choose one la:hiii but (1) she will help “grade you

11 se[e:]”:.

12 C: [oooo]orh=

13 W: = so what happened to our group wa-i don’t know what happened “but we

14 got call back”:.

15 C: (you got call back)

! e superscript found on the top right-hand corner of ‘lah’ indicates its unique identity. In the example above, there are two ‘lahs’ found in the transcript la:hii and la:hiii. ! e superscripts uniquely identify the ‘lah’ it is attached to: one ‘lah’ is as distinct from the next in terms of context, sentence position, length or tone. ! is system is used for ease of reference: each ‘lah’ can be effi ciently identifi ed without cumbersome references such as “the ‘lah’ found in turn X of Tran-script Y”.

! e utterances in the transcripts are ordered ac-cording to the number of turns in the transcript and not the actual number of lines in an utterance. A number is placed to the left, marking the start of a new turn, which may consist of more than one line. An example is illustrated below:

Example 11:

5 W: no we were saying turn the tv to face the wall la:hiv she will pa (2.2) if not (0.5) hur my TV is: (.) up on the rack lo:r: climb lo:r you come out lo:r you [fall]

6. A: [drop] (hhhh)

Example 11 has four lines of the transcript, where number 5 marks the start of W’s turn, called turn 5, but it continues for another two lines before A be-gins her turn in turn 6. Additionally, the length of each ‘lah’ is also necessary for this study. As such, the length of each ‘lah’ is measured thrice and a mean is taken.

Analysis

A. Position of Lah

Claim 1: “CSE particles typically occur in sen-tence-fi nal positions”. (Wee 2004: 117)

It seems an established fact that ‘lahs’ almost al-ways occur in sentence fi nal positions. However, the data collected does not support this view entirely. ‘Lah’ is used 25 times in sentence fi nal positions, 4 times in sentence medial positions and 6 times in am-biguous positions. ! e table below classifi es all the ‘lahs’ according to their sentence positions.

USP Undergraduate Journal | 36One instance of ‘lah’ occurring in sentence medial

position is in the exchange between two friends, A and W, who are discussing a movie, Sunshine, which

depicts the end of the world when the earth stops rotating. W just explained to A how the absence of momentum would cause Earth to stop spinning altogether.

Example: 12

1 A: [so it] will just be stationary lah:v basically =

2 W: = eh >no no< it wil- it will go round the sun but only one side will face the 10 sun forever “you know”:.

In turn 1, lahv is sentence medial in position, be-tween the clause “it will just be stationary” and an ad-verb “basically.” While it can be argued that naturally occurring speech is not a series of complete sentences and the adverb may be an afterthought to supplement the preceding sentence, it contradicts the well-estab-lished claim that ‘lah’ characteristically occurs in sen-tence-fi nal positions. “Basically” cannot be construed as another clause by itself as it forms part of the FPP in turn 1 that receives an answer in the SPP in turn 2. While most of ‘lahs’ in Singlish occur as sentence-fi nal particles, it is imperative to note that ‘lah’ in a sentence-medial position may serve functions unre-lated to attitude or mood. Rather, when considering the dynamics of discourse, these ‘lahs’ could even be used as a fi ller.

! e six ambiguous cases complicate the issues of the positions of ‘lahs’ in sentences. Intriguingly, fi ve of these six examples (in diff erent contexts) contain “but,” which is preceded by ‘lah.’ ! e examples,

which will not be analyzed in detail, can be found in Example 13 below:

Example: 13

1 C: hey you still do a lot of fi lming in school is it?

2 W: not so much lah:vi but we’re ( [doing some] )

Example: 14

5 W: =every shoot (.) e-er “every shoo:”:. e(hh) very class has (0.5) several groups then we all pitch our=

6 C: =and she will choose one ha:

7 W: (1.8) not say choose one la:hiii but (1) she will help “grade you se[e:]”:.

8 C: [oooo]orh=

Example: 15

5 C: =”or whatever”:. ya: “like that lah:vii”:. there are people la:h:viii (.) mmm but the thing is that we have to take the (0.2) the fi rst step to go and JOIN these “kind of things”:. which you that say you don’t have time ah: i also understand(3.8)

Sentence Final Either Sentence Final or Sentence Medial

Sentence Medial

i iii iiiv vi vvii viii xixxixiixiiixivxvxvixviixviii

Table 1: Breakdown of Sentence Positions for Lah

Volume 2, Issue 1, August 2009 | 37Example: 16

4 W: = i mean but (.) twelve is not say ingenious lor it’s not ingenius lah:ix but (1) the clue was (.) like (1)

Example: 17

5 A: = so: he didn’t die they didn’t say they - they just fi lmed like (.) it’s a(.)

there’s this mom (0.2) with the: handheld device right that has >like a< place

lah:x [0.2] and then with the kid <and then it was a really nice day >you

know< (.) and then he-she saw the message (0.5) “ya”:.

! e ambiguity that surrounds the sentence-medial position of ‘lah’ requires an explanation. One stand posits that ‘lah’ closes off a clause and ‘but’ simply begins a new clause. ! is claim is supported by a brief interview with three native speakers of SCE: they perceive the utterance to be made of up two distinct sentences, with ‘lah’ punctuating the fi rst. However, from a CA perspective, there are no clear indications that these ‘lahs’ should be treated directly as sentence-fi nal particles. ! e only discernible pause that marks the preceding unit as an intonation unit is the micro-pause that occurs after ‘lah’ and before ‘but’ in Ex-ample 15. ! e longer pauses (1 second each) actually occur after ‘but’ in Examples 14 and 16. Conversely, it is not the purpose of this discussion to highlight this at length. ! e purpose of this fl eeting mention of the position of ‘lah’ is to underscore the impressionistic assumptions which can be easily made about ‘lah.’

B. Length of Lah

i) ! e Long Lah

Claim 2: “La … especially when prolonged and given prominent tone have the eff ect of putting for-ward the proposal more aggressively than a.” (Gupta 1992) [emphasis mine]

Claim 3: “La is more likely to be used where there is a knowledge of controversy, hence it is likelier to at-tract negation.” (Gupta 1992)

Claim 4: “La can be spoken in the low level tone (extended in duration), as in

“You tell him la, I’m so scared of him.”

“No need to count la. I’m sure the number

is right.”

“Go la. Keep me company la”

where it contributes an attitude of gentle persua-sion to the utterance. La can also be spoken in the mid-rising tone (extended in duration) as in

“You tell him la; he’ll listen to you la”

“No need to count la. ! ere are 365 la”

“Go la. It’s good for you la”

where the particle suggests a note of slight irrita-tion on the part of the speaker, although the attempt to persuade is still present.” (Kwan-Terry 1992) [em-phasis mine]

Claims 2 and 3 made by Gupta highlights her stance on the length and tone of ‘lah,’ and how these two entities, otherwise separate, cohere to give an indication of aggression on the part of the speak-er (Gupta 1992). While she is comparing the use of ‘lah’ with ‘ah,’ we can still infer that a longer ‘lah’ which carries the prominent tone would be more as-sertive than a shorter one which is less pronounced in tone. ! is claim supports Kwan-Terry’s proposition in Claim 4; when the tone of ‘lah’ is mid-rising and ex-tended in duration, there is a note of irritation embed-ded within the utterance, even though the attempt to persuade still remains (Kwan-Terry 1992). ! erefore, according to the two linguists, the length of ‘lah’ is pivotal in determining the attitude of the speaker.

Kwan-Terry’s position seems to have made exten-sive use of impressionistic examples. However, real-life data refl ected that a longer and tonally more promi-nent ‘lah’ may not necessarily indicate hostility or ag-gression. In terms of AP analysis, it is crucial that any utterance of aggression on the part of the speaker is indicated in utterance that follows. In other words, the hearer of the utterance containing the ‘lah’ would have to demonstrate his knowledge of the antagonism that is claimed to be contained within the longer and tonally more prominent ‘lah.’

To examine these claims, I have chosen to anal-yse the exceptionally long ‘lahs’ which are deemed to be markers of potential aggression: only particles that measure more than 0.4 seconds are considered: lahxvi (which we will examine later in a later transcript) and lahxi, ! e extract below provides one of the longest ‘lahs,’ la::h:xi. In this interaction, 3 cousins, A, C and W, are discussing dating prospects in everyday situa-tions. C just invited A to join speed dating with her.

USP Undergraduate Journal | 38Example: 18

1 C: i think those like (.) quite interesting leh >i mean< there a::re like:. (0.8) i dunno (when you do?) comm servi:ce (0.5) then there’s also like (.) if you go fo:r cycling: trips abroad=

2 A: =mm=

3 C: =”or whatever”:. ya: “like that la:hvii”:. [< 0.2] there are people la:hviii (.) mmm but the thing is that we have to take the (0.2) the fi rst step to go and join these “kind of things”:. which you that say you don’t have time ah: i also under stand (3.8)

4 A: you have time no:w?=

5 W: =are there people who actually go by the books? (0.8)

6 A: a:h

7 W: (0.5) like (.) oh okay when i go the:re i must fi rst thi:ng (0.2) go up to the 13 person smile big=

8 C: =ha:::ve [of co:urse la::h:xi]

9 W: [like (.) shake hands with the per son] (0.2) and then introduce myself fi :rst 16 (0.2) then everything is like (.) very standard kind of=

10 C: have la:hxii sure one lor

In this data, 4 APs are found:

AP (1): Made up by turns 1 and 3

AP (2): Made up by turns 5 and 8

AP (3): Made up by turns 6 and 7

AP (4): Made up by turns 9 and 10

Turn 2 is a continuer and AP (3) is an insertion sequence found within AP (2). Turn 4’s SPP is found later in the data that is not part of this particular tran-script. AP (2) actually constitutes one of the longest ‘lahs,’ lahxi, collected in the data, standing at 0.598 seconds. ! e tone of this particular ‘lah’ is rising, which makes it a suitable candidate for Gupta’s analy-sis. ! is pair is a question-answer pair where the FPP in turn 5 requests information and the SPP in turn 8 provides the information requested.

If we were to apply Gupta’s analysis to AP (2), it means that C’s SPP in turn 8 is aggressive, containing some hostility towards W. However, W’s response in the FPP in turn 9 is not refl ective of any belligerence. If any form of negativity is felt from C, W should has-ten to repair the utterance or seek clarifi cation in AP (4). However, W’s FPP in AP (4) that occurs after AP (2) does not refl ect any off ence taken. Her FPP in turn 9 is a statement that continues from her previous turn in turn 7. ! is FPP in turn 9 is met with an acknowl-edgement statement as its SPP in turn 10. Within this structure itself, no hint of animosity is detected be-tween the two interlocutors. ! erefore, in returning to Gupta’s analysis, it does not hold true that a longer ‘lah’ with a more prominent tone necessarily entails more aggression on the part of the speaker. In this case, it actually accentuates the assent of C’s SPP in turn 8 in relation to W’s FPP in turn 5.

! is particular analysis also poses a challenge to Claim 2. ! e use of ‘lah,’ according to Gupta, is con-frontational where the speaker’s utterance may elicit dissent. ! is may appear true for lahxi that is analysed above: C is more certain and defi nitive in her response and she expresses her views in a confi dent manner that is refl ected in the ‘lah.’ However, a salient diff erence exists between being aggressive and being defi nitive. ! e former refers to potential confrontational dissent on the part of the speaker, while the latter underscores the confi dence in the speaker’s response. ! erefore, in lahxi, C is certain of what she is saying and she is giv-ing her assent in response to W’s FPP in turn 7; the FPP that begins AP (4) shows no controversy in the preceding utterance. If anything, it seems that W is elaborating on her questions further, only to receive further acquiescence in this pair that follows. ! ere-fore, ‘lah’ is not always used as a tool indicating po-tential disagreement or controversy.

! erefore, the analysis above also disputes Kwan-Terry’s stance that ‘lah’ with mid-rising tone and ex-tended in duration would carry a slight note of irrita-tion. As shown, the interlocutors at the receiving end of the utterance do not detect any irritation from the speaker. If the speaker was irritated, she would have pursued the annoyance and the hearer would pick up on it; none of this is seen in the two APs after.

ii) ! e Short Lah

Claim 5: “What happens when the duration is re-duced? When, instead of the extended form of lah, the reduced form – together with the low, falling tone – is used, as in

“You tell him la.” (meaning I don’t want to tell him myself.)

“No need to count la. ! ere are 365 la.”

“Go la. It’s good for you la.”

Volume 2, Issue 1, August 2009 | 39! e attitude of soft persuasion is lost and in its

place is a certain degree of authoritativeness, with a certain impatience, even annoyance or curtness.” (Kwan-Terry 1992)

In this claim, Kwan-Terry is making a case for the reduced form of ‘lah,’ where when coupled with the low rising tone, it has a degree of authoritativeness and impatience. I have randomly taken one of the shortest ‘lahs’ in my data: lahiv, which incidentally also has a falling tone. In the extract below, two friends, A and W, are discussing a movie, ! e Ring, which focuses on a female ghost named Zhenzi. Prior to this, W was telling A how a character in another movie killed a ghost.

Example: 19

1 A: one- many ways of (.) killing the er the zhen zi the the ring woman ( ) when she try to come out from the TV (0.5) put a fan in front of her (0..2) see what happens to her hair (hhh) o(h)r just carry the TV right (.) to the windowsill and leave it there(h) the(hh)n she will climb and fall o(hh)ut=

2 W: = no we were saying turn the tv to face the wall la:hiv she will pa (2.2) if not (0.5) hur my TV is: (.) up on the rack lo:r: climb lo:r you come out lo:r you [fall]

3 A: [drop] (hhhh)

! is transcript is made up of two APs:

AP (5): Made up by turns 1 and 2

AP (6): made up by turns 2 and 3

AP (6) is not a prototypical AP. While the FPP is an informative statement, it SPP is not a typical ver-bal acknowledgement (“drop” in turn 3 is an overlap of the utterance which can be considered collabora-tive completion where A ‘completes’ W’s utterance). ! e SPP is actually embedded in the laughter of A. Lahiv, is one of the most reduced ‘lahs’ of what we have, standing at only 0.122 seconds. If we were to ap-ply Kwan-Terry’s analysis of ‘lah’ onto this particular ‘lah,’ it indicates that the speaker of the FPP in turn 2, W, is slightly impatient and authoritarian in her speech. However, such ill feeling should be acknowl-edged by the speaker of the SPP but this is not re-fl ected in her response. She merely laughs as indicated by the aspiration in turn 3. With the same framework, another example with a reduced form of ‘lah’ can be examined. ! e example below illustrates a chat be-tween 2 cousins, C and W, regarding W’s academic activities. W has just given A suggestions for making

videos, as she is a Film student.

Example: 20

1 C: hey you still do a lot of fi lming in school is it?

2 W: not so much la:hvi but we’re ( [do ing some] )

3 C: [what are] y’all mm learning now ah:.=

4 W: =now? er (1.5) there was (.) this semester there was advertisi:ng (.) media research methods

5 C: eh interest[ing leh (.) ad]vertising

Two APs are found here:

AP (7): Made up by turns 1 and 2

AP (8): Made up by turns 3, 4 and 5

AP (8) has a three-part structure, where the third pair part is actually feedback for the FPP and SPP in AP (7). AP (7) is question-answer in structure and it contains lahvi. Incidentally, lahx also has a falling tone and a reduced form. ! erefore, it should conform to Kwan-Terry’s description of this type of ‘lah’ as being slightly impatient and more authoritarian. However, no such severity is detected in W’s speech in the SPP and it is certainly not detected by C’s FPP in the next AP. ! erefore, with only impressionistic examples, just as what Kwan-Terry has employed, a genuine picture of the ‘lah’ situation in SCE cannot be accounted for. An ethnomethodological approach would account for these uses of ‘lah’ in a more lucid and telling manner.

Another instance of a reduced ‘lah’ in a diff erent AP can be examined. In the following example, the speaker of ‘lah’ uses it to punctuate an assessment in a conversation between two participants, A and W. ! e discussion is centered on two movies, Ocean’s Eleven and Ocean’s Twelve. A just told W that she liked Ocean’s Twelve.

Example 21:

1 W: “what”:.

2 A: I like that one (1) <twelve i dont know leh i have no in- i have no recollection of it (0.5) i like twe:lve ‘cos it’s=

3 W: = i mean but (.) twelve is not say ingenious lor it’s not ingenius la:hix but (1) the clue was (.) like (1)

USP Undergraduate Journal | 404 A: eleven was very good

5 W: eleven they were (.) oh: the: (.) the bank one right: ya::

6 A: ! at was amazing ah:

! ere are three APs in this transcript:

AP (9): Made up by turns 1 and 2

AP (10): Made up by turns 2 and 3

AP (11): made up by turns 4, 5 and 6.

Turn 2 has two pair parts in it: “I like that one” is the SPP to turn 1 while “I don’t know … like twelve” is the FPP to turn 3. ! e SPP in turn 3 is a downgrade in assessment with regard to Ocean’s Twelve. Turn 4 is an assessment FPP which is not immediately met with a SPP; W begins the next turn, turn 5, with a clarifi -cation request that is abandoned when she interrupts her own request with an ‘oh’ that marks a change in state. ! e SPP in turn 5 relevant to the FPP in turn 4 only begins after the “oh” with a closing sequence “… ya.” ! e SPP in turn 5 is an assent to the assessment in the FPP in turn 4. ! is AP is followed up by a closing third that is an upgrade in the assessment.

! e AP that is of particular interest is AP (10). It involves the usage of the reduced form of ‘lah’, lahix, in the data, standing at only 0.093 in length. ! us, Claim 4 is not relevant here. In AP (11) where the couple goes on to discuss Ocean’s Eleven, the ‘animos-ity’ that otherwise would have been carried in the SPP of AP (10) has not spilled over to AP (11) at all. While A may want to avoid any unpleasantness by chang-ing the in turn 4, the topic change could very well be just a closing of an exchange (AP(10)) and the begin-ning of another in AP (11) in terms of CA. ! e topic change is not constitutive of any redressive action.

C. The Attitude of Lah

Claim 6: “‘Come with us’ and ‘Wrong’ are respec-tively requests and assertions that are made more po-lite by the presence of lah. ! is has led some scholars to suggest that the particle is best treated as a marker of solidarity… the particle can under specifi c circum-stances function to mitigate face-threatening speech acts.” (Wee 2004)

An in-depth discussion of the quotation above would lead us into an examination of polite-ness, another fi eld in discourse analysis that cannot be discussed at length here. Generally, face threatening acts (FTAs) occur when a participant in an interaction feels unappreciated, excluded or even disliked. In AP (10) above, this may very well be occurring to A when W downgrades her assessment of Ocean’s Twelve, thus

making A feel underappreciated. ! erefore, it suffi ces to say that lahix in Example 21 may have been used to mitigate some form of disagreement here; by using lahix in AP (10), a form of kinship and solidarity can be established to alleviate any potential ill-feeling that may arise due to the downgrade in assessment in the SPP in turn 3. ! is analysis takes us further from the reduced form of ‘lah’ that asserts authoritativeness. If anything, it actually underlines the desire to acquaint oneself with one’s interlocutors.

D. Sentence Types

Claim 7: “ … in the case of an assertive particle like la its use in an interrogative marks a functionally complex utterance…” (Gupta 1992)

Claim 8: “… the particle … cannot appear with a declarative functioning as a question. But lah can ap-pear with Wh-interrogatives. At present it is not clear how these constraints can be accounted for.” (Wee 2004)

From the two claims above, it is patent that both linguists, Gupta and Wee, agree that ‘lah’ can appear in Wh-questions. However, Wee qualifi es the usage of ‘lahs’ in interrogatives: they cannot appear with a declarative functioning as an interrogative. However, in the data collected, there are three instances of ‘lah’ which actually appear with declaratives functioning as interrogatives. ! e data I have randomly selected for analysis depicts three cousins, A, C and W discuss-ing W’s mother in her younger days. C just asked S and W if their mother was a ‘bad girl’ in her younger days.

Example 22:

3 S: (0.3) rebellious ki:d (0.8)

4 C: the bad girl a:h

5 S: ( )

6 W: she’s like the pastor’s daughter la:hxiii

7 C: ah (.) but she’s the bad girl la:hxiv

8 W: (1) more like do it out of like rebel- lion kind of [thing]

9 C: [a:::h mm::]

10 W: ya(::)h so like (pause) there were other people who were writing let- ters to her also(:) then:. (pause) [but]

11 A: [wa(::)h]

Volume 2, Issue 1, August 2009 | 41! ere are three APs here (turns 3 and 4 are omitted

in the analysis due to the inaudible utterance from S in turn 5):

AP (12): Made up by turns 6 and 7

AP (13) made up by turns 7, 8 and 9

AP (14): Made up by turns 10 and 11.

In AP (12), turn 7 contain two pair parts, with ‘ah’ as an acknowledgement SPP and “but … girl ah” as the questioning FPP. Lahxiv punctuates the declara-tive functioning as a sentence found in turn 7. Turn 7 forms an AP with turn 8, with a follow up in turn 9. Lahxiv is the key to our analysis found in turn 7, and in this turn, C goes on to pose a question about her aunt in the FPP, which requires an answer from W. W answers in the SPP in turn 8 by qualifying her answer. C then follows up with an acknowledgement in turn 9. W proceeds to make another statement about her mother in the FPP of AP (14) and C completes the pair with an acknowledgement in the SPP in turn 11.

! e FPP in turn 7 seems to be an assessment of the situation. While it may be true that C may indeed be assessing the character of her aunt, W does not seem to upgrade or downgrade the assessment, or even accept or reject the assessment in the SPP. Instead, she makes another move that qualifi es her assessment that would require some form of clarifi cation from W in turn 4. ! is requirement is made possible by the punctuation of ‘lah’ at the end of the declarative. Hence, it is more appropriate to view C’s FPP in turn 7 as a declara-tive functioning as an interrogative; it seeks an answer from the interlocutor and is not merely another assess-ment from W. Hence, turn 7 is both an assessment that functions as an interrogative made possible with the presence of ‘lah.’ In other words, lahxiv has an in-terrogative function. Without it, turn 7 would only be seen as an assessment and the SPP in turn 4 would not be directly relevant in response to turn 7. ! us, turn 7 can be rewritten as:

“But she is the bad girl?”

! is would be considered an interrogative in an interrogative mood if “girl” is spoken with a rising tone. ! erefore, this analysis indicates the possibility of ‘lah’ occurring in declaratives functioning as in-terrogatives. ‘Lah,’ in this instance, is the carrier of the interrogative function. ! is ‘lah’ is less than 0.2 seconds long and is has a falling tone. ! is will be discussed later in the analysis.

! e same function of ‘lah’ can also be seen in the following exchange where the cousins discuss the ac-tions taken against infringers of intellectual property. S just expressed anger at ODEX, an anime company, for clamping down on off enders by sending them let-ters that threaten legal action.

Example 23:

2 S: =(hh)they’ll just send a::h:=

3 W: ya:: then they’ll be

4 C: (what does it mean)

5 S: (0.5) ye::ah original ( ) like (.) the odex (.) he license like (.) like (.) free (anime) in singapo:re (0.2) so that if you download it (.) online (1) the::n () if yo::u unlucky:: (.) then they catch yo::u (.) then they sue you la:hxv [0.2]

6 C: ooooooooorh =

7 A: = oh my god=

8 C: =[so they catch] people who are do- ing it la:hxvi =

9 S: [so annoying la:hxvii]

10 S: = ya:h la:hxviii then because their their sa::les (dropped?) by fi fty per cent then they start doing this

! ere are two distinct APs here:

AP (15): Made up by turns 4, 5, 6 and 9.

AP (16): Made up by turns 8 and 10.

AP (15) is not a prototypical AP. In turn 4, C be-gins with a questioning FPP and this is reciprocated by S’s SPP in turn 5. Turn 6 is a feedback to S’s SPP in turn 5 and turn 9 is actually a ‘continuation’ of turn 5 but broken up by the interjections of other partici-pants. Hence, AP (15) can be construed as an AP with a 4-part structure.

! e ‘lah’ of interest is found in turn 8. ! is is not unlike the discussion above; lahxvi, found in turn 8, has the dual function of being both an assessment and an interrogative. In fact, it serves the sole purpose of functioning as an interrogative, which makes relevant the SPP in turn 10, an answer from S. In other words, lahxvi carries the interrogative, which without it would make the FPP in turn 8 appear to be a statement with an acknowledgement instead of an answer in the SPP in turn 10. ! erefore, turn 8 can be rewritten as:

“So are they catching the people who are doing it?” or

“So they are catching people who are doing it?”

where the second rephrase has a rising intonation on “it.”

USP Undergraduate Journal | 42It is interesting to note that lahvii is less than 0.2

seconds in length and is rising in tone. As aforemen-tioned, there are a total of three ‘lahs’ which punc-tuate the declaratives functioning as interrogatives. ! ese three ‘lahs’ are relatively short, all under 0.2 seconds in length, with two of these ‘lahs’ having fall-ing tones while another having a rising tone. However, this analysis of tone and length in this respect cannot be conclusive due to the small sample size. Much re-mains to be said about the tone. With this in mind, I would like to highlight Kwan-Terry’s stand on the tone of ‘lah’ in the next section.

E. The Tone of Lah

Claim 9: “It has been suggested that what distin-guishes the la’s in the above examples is not the tone but the intonation. In other words, the la’s represent one and the same particle, and the diff erence in mean-ing is derived from a diff erence in intonation. ! e ar-gument against this intonational hypothesis is that whereas intonation can be varied in many diff erent ways when used with word to produce diff erent attitu-dinal nuances, tone is invariable as it is the fi xed tonal feature which gives a particle its particular identity and meaning.” (Kwan-Terry 1992)

In Claim 9, two perspectives regarding the tonal properties of ‘lah’ are posited: either there is one ‘lah’ that is spoken in many tones, or there are many kinds of ‘lahs.’ While the data collected cannot hope to con-clusively support either stand, it highlights a contro-versy; the ‘lahs’ that are discussed in section D are spoken in two diff erent tones but serve the same func-tion with no marked diff erence between the attitude of the speakers. ! erefore, I would tentatively suggest that the tone of ‘lah’ may not be a prime factor in distinguishing between the attitudes or even the kinds of ‘lah’ available to the speaker of Singlish. Much re-search still has to be performed to further investigate this aspect of ‘lah.’

With regard to the tone of ‘lah,’ I would like to dis-cuss briefl y the work of Jock Wong. In his article “! e particles of Singapore English: a Semantic and Cul-tural Interpretation,” he classifi ed ‘lah’ into the four tones of Mandarin: lah1, lah2, lah3 and lah4 (Wong 2004). He makes no mention of lah1 in his work and focuses on the last three ‘lahs’ in the terms of tone. Lah2, according to Wong, is the “persuasive lah” with its “mid-rising tone” (Wong 2004: 771); lah3 (the low tone) is the “impositional lah” (Wong 2004: 764) and lah4 (falling tone) is the “propositional lah” (Wong 2004: 768).

In his classifi cation, Wong has not off ered any ethnomethodological evidence to his claims and he did not consider other factors, such as the length of ‘lah’ and the position of ‘lah.’ Instead, Wong fo-cuses on the tone of ‘lah’, which is an excellent start-

ing point. However, after a lengthy discussion of how the present analysis has failed to refl ect how ‘lah’ is used in naturally occurring conversation in Singlish, Wong’s neat compartmentalization of ‘lah’ into three basic tonal functions may be a little too simplistic. As demonstrated earlier, tone itself is not an adequate gauge of the function of ‘lah’; diff erent tones of ‘lah’ could serve the same function and vice versa. ! is suggests that ‘lah’ is multimodal and multifunctional in nature. Any attempt to neatly compartmentalize ‘lah(s)’ without concrete empirical data is tantamount to reckless presumption about the particle.

Limitations

Although this paper has adopted a CA frame-work, it still has its limitations. First, a small sample size is used, which may give rise to atypical results. It is the stand of CA to analyse naturally occurring talk and therefore, for a more precise analysis, a larger sample size of data should be collected and analysed. ! e measurement of the length of ‘lah’ was also done without the use of more advanced equipment. ! is inevitably results in human error in reading and hear-ing. Further research along these lines should endeav-our to use more sophisticated equipment to minimize these errors. Lastly, the writer of this essay is a native speaker of SCE. Although this would aid in elucidat-ing the nuances of this speech variety, the analysis may not be as objective as one from a non-native speaker’s perspective.

Conclusion

! is paper has demonstrated that the particle ‘lah’ is not random or inexplicable. It has used data from naturally occurring conversation to investigate the impressionistic claims of many SCE researchers. Im-pressionistic claims that are not grounded in real-life data are not usually refl ective of how SCE speakers actually use the particle ‘lah.’ While it is meaningful to start with impressionistic ideas, it is demonstrated through CA that the “bottom-up” approach is im-perative in beginning to gain a deeper understanding of ‘lah.’ Although this study has challenged certain claims of various SCE researchers, it has not eluci-dated in detail the multifaceted behaviour of this par-ticle. Much research still has to be done with regard to this fascinating particle and this paper has opened up many opportunities for the further examination of ‘lah,’ such as the tone and sentence positions of ‘lah’ as well as their respective infl uence in the discourse between SCE speakers.

Volume 2, Issue 1, August 2009 | 43

Endnotes

1 See Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra " omson (1996) for the glossary of symbols used in the transcriptions. Some modifi cation has been done to the notation for clarity purposes, namely the symbols for emphasis and marked softness in voice: (a) words which are bolded indicate stress/ emphasis, either by increased loudness or speech. No capital letters or underlining is used to avoid confusion and (b) combination of colon and period (:.) indicates the word preceding it is markedly softer. If more than one word is softer, the words preceding :. that are enclosed in quotation marks are softer.

[ overlap onset ] end of overlap (n.n) pause (in seconds) (.) micropause ? rising intonation : prolongation of the sound word emphasis :. preceding word is softer “words”:. words in quote marks are softer _: infl ected falling intonation : infl ected rising intonation > word < talk is rushed < > talk is drawn out < talk is jump-started hh hearable aspiration (word) uncertain hearing

References

Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1992. " e Pragmatic Particles of Singapore Colloquial English. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 31-57.

Heritage, John. 2003. Presenting Emanuel Schegloff . In Discussing Conversation Analysis: " e Works of Emanuel A. Schegloff , edited by Carlo L. Prevignano and Paul J. " ibault. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfi nkel and Ethnomethdology. New York: Polity Press.

Kwan-Terry, Anna. 1992. Towards a Dictionary of Singapore English – Issues Relating to Making Entries for Particles in Singapore English. In Words in a Cultural Context, edited by Anne Pakir. Singapore: Unipress, 1992..

Levinson, Stephen C.. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mr. Brown. 2005. Mr. Brown tries to explain the Meaning of Lah. www.mrbrown.com. <http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2005/04/mr_browns_meani.html>

“Particle.” " e OED Online. June 2005. http://dictionary.oed.com Path: Particle.

Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff and Sandra " omson. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff and Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289-327.

http://lifeatngeeann.blogspot.com/2005/04/speak-good-singlish.html

Wee, Lionel. 2004. Reduplication and Discourse Particles. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Description, edited by Lisa Lim. John Bejamins Publishing Company.

Wong, Jock. 2004. " e Particles of Singapore English: a Semantic and Cultural Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 739-793.

Angela Tan is a fourth year student majoring in English Language, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, NUS. She is interested in Conversa-tion Analysis, and is enrolled in the University Scholars Programme. This article is a revised version of a paper she wrote for an Indepen-dent Study Module she wrote with Dr Donald Favareau.