Singapore Colloquial English or more lovingly known as Singlish – contains a figure of matter-of-fact atoms that have come under much examination and treatment over the old ages. These atoms have received much attending, and go a typical representation of Singlish.

Many surveies have been done over the old ages on the usage and maps of these atoms ( Platt 1987 ; Platt and Ho 1989 ; Wong, 2004 ; Gupta, 2006 ; Lim 2007, 2011 ) . Much work and research have been done on the categorization, history, beginnings and grounds for the outgrowth of these atoms in the usage of Singlish ( Lim 2007, Gupta 1992 ) . Gupta ( 1992 ) proposed a graduated table of assertiveness of which 11 SCE atoms could be placed on in footings of different grades of assertiveness. Wee ( 2002 ) nevertheless, took a different stance, and sought to foreground and confirm the development and possible development of Singlish atoms in his analysis of the atom lor utilizing the grammaticalisation model developed by Traugott ( 1982, 1988, 1989 ) . Platt ( 1987: 392 ) gave a more simplified account on the map of these matter-of-fact atoms, and claimed that in a sentence, these matter-of-fact atoms ‘convey extra significance over and above that expressed by the remainder of the vocalization ‘ . This meant that a atom holds by itself independent significance, and when different atoms are attached to an vocalization, it would bring forth different significances.

Lee ( 2007: 2 ) illustrated this point by utilizing the undermentioned illustration ( 1 ) :

( 1 )

a. I want to imbibe mah.

b. I want to imbibe lah.

c. I want to imbibe leh.

d. I want to imbibe lor.

e. I want to imbibe hor.

f. I want to imbibe a.

In this illustration, the caput clause of ‘I want to imbibe ‘ does non alter. Harmonizing to Lee ( 2007: 2 ) , ‘the clause-final atoms are syntactically and semantically optional, as their skip affects neither the grammaticality nor the basic significance of the matrix clause ‘ . Therefore in SCE, each clause would possess a different significance and communicative map by virtuousness of the clause-final atom attached to it.

For illustration in 1 ( a ) , mah performs what Gupta ( 1992: 43 ) calls a ‘contradictory map ‘ . By adding mah, the clause would propose that it is a contradictory response to a anterior vocalization, by showing what is being said as an ‘absolute and obvious fact ‘ . In contrast, while lor in 1 ( vitamin D ) can execute a similar map to mah of showing what is being said as an obvious fact, it generates and encompasses other different significances. Harmonizing to Gupta ‘s ( 1992: 43 ) definition once more, ‘the cardinal map of the more mildly self-asserting lo is to tag a directive or to make a suggestion ‘ . In my sentiment, the point that Gupta makes about a atom holding a ‘central map ‘ is non needfully accurate, as a atom ‘s use is based on users ‘ penchants and picks, and non based wholly on the effectivity of a atom in an vocalization – as suggested by Gupta in her allocating of a primary helping map to the atoms. Traveling back to the chief point, 1 ( vitamin D ) can now intend that the talker is proposing an activity ( to imbibe ) , likely in response to a inquiry such as ‘What do you desire to make at that place? ‘ . Therefore, it is clearly apparent that these atoms can alter the full significance of an vocalization.

1.2 Tone in SCE Pragmatic Particles

However, the interesting thing about these matter-of-fact atoms is that they, separately, possess many tonic discrepancies. Gupta ‘s suggestion that the atoms have a ‘central map ‘ besides reflects the grounds that these atoms have multiple significances and maps. Taking the much studied atom lah for illustration, Loke and Low ( 1988 ) identified a sum of nine tonic discrepancies of lah, sorting them into three major groups termed ‘high ‘ , ‘mid ‘ or ‘low ‘ . However there is a general deficiency of understanding in footings of recognizing the tonic quality of atoms. There have been surveies that suggest the alternate position is true ( Detarding, 1994 ) , and that a atom, ‘especially when sentence concluding, maps as the bearer of the modulation contour of the vocalization ‘ ( Gupta, 1992 ) . This dissension meant the ‘number of different atoms lah remain a enigma ‘ ( Wong, 2004: 760 ) . However, what is clear from this is that it is really possible for a atom to hold at least two different significances and maps – which some have argued, is differentiated by tone.

Focus has tended to be placed more on Singlish atoms as a group, instead than dissecting their assorted significances and grammaticality separately. While there is now turning attending and research done in analyzing single Singlish atoms ( Wee, 2002, 2003 ; Wong, 2005 ; Lee, 2007 ) , informations and analysis are still missing in footings of measure. In this paper I will concentrate on the atom leh, which is sometimes besides written as wreath.

However, while I am of the position that matter-of-fact atoms in SCE do possess tonic discrepancies, I would wish to dispute the impression that the different significances and maps leh can be categorised into merely tonic discrepancies ( Lee, 2007 ) , and I argue that there are really two different atoms in leh, which possess tonic discrepancies of their ain. This is a important differentiation because these two atoms of leh, can be produced with the same tone, yet their significances differ. I besides seek to add on and complement old research in this country of survey.

2. Neglected discrepancy of leh

2.1 Unpopular leh?

Leh is apparently a less often used atom, and Wong ( 2004 ) suggests that less popular atoms such as leh – as compared to atoms such as lah – could be less popular due to it ‘lacking certain constituents that allow users to show their cultural norms of interaction in mundane address ‘ ( 2004: 764 ) . In fact, an analysis of the ICE-SIN principal ( incorporating about 600,000 words ) showed leh to be the 3rd least normally used atom out of 10 atoms selected ( Ler, 2005 ) . The atom ‘s apparently low happening in Singlish vocalizations and conversations could besides be one of the grounds for a deficiency of attending and research in this country.

2.2 /lE›/ and /le/

It is noteworthy, and besides the cardinal point of focal point in this paper, that leh exists in more than one signifier. By signifier, it is meant that leh possesses a different version of itself which differs in non merely tone, but pronunciation, and besides in intending. When the atom leh is mentioned, the typical representation of it is that of /le/ . In this paper, I seek to convey added attending to its heteronym, /lE›/ . It must besides be added that within the two separate versions of leh, different significances and signifiers of use can be derived every bit good, depending on context.

Surveies in the yesteryear have typically mentioned or focused merely on the /le/ version of leh, neglecting to separate the difference between the two versions ( Gupta 1992, 1994 ; Lim, 2004, 2007 ) . Even when the difference in map and significance is noticed and investigated, a differentiation between them fails to be made ( Lee, 2007 ) , therefore haltering farther analysis of /lE›/ as a separate atom. I contest that old premises are wrong, and will seek to demo the pronounced differentiation in the use of /le/ and /lE›/ in this paper.

I believe one of the chief contributing factors for the deficiency of differentiation of these two different atoms, is due to them holding an wholly similar Romanised signifier of leh. I have mentioned earlier that these two atoms function as heteronyms. Due to the fact that they have indistinguishable Romanised signifiers, and tone is frequently non encapsulated in a Romanised book, it breeds a sense of the two atoms being the same. While they do portion certain traits in footings of significance, I would wish to turn out in this survey that the scope of their significances would indicate to them being separate, independent atoms.

It is besides deserving observing that the fact that small attending has been paid to the /lE›/ signifier of leh could perchance be attributed to it being a slightly recent development. As mentioned by Lim ( 2011: 13 ) , ‘Singlish is capable of exposing a continuum of possibilities in prosodic phonemics, of more mesolectal and more basilectal characteristics ‘ , and ‘Singlish may in fact be viewed as changing, in the more Sinitic-dominant ecology of the recent epoch, to expose more Sinitic characteristics ‘ . It is therefore deserving speculating that alteration had perchance occurred to the atom itself, in the procedure altering its pronunciation and scope of attitudes conveyed. This nevertheless, will non be the chief focal point of the paper.

3. Previous Surveies

3.1 Gupta ( 1992 ) , and Lee ‘s ( 2007 ) statements against Gupta ( 1992 )

Gupta ( 1992 ) analysed a sum of 11 different atoms in Singlish, and categorised them on a graduated table of assertiveness. Gupta ‘s claim is that these atoms can be marked as belonging to three chief classs of ‘contradictory ‘ , ‘assertive ‘ and ‘tentative ‘ . Harmonizing to her, contradictory atoms are used in instances where there is an expressed contradiction to something that had been antecedently said. In her footings, these atoms are maximally self-asserting. Following down the graduated table is the self-asserting group, this group consists of atoms which ‘express talkers ‘ positive committedness ‘ ( Gupta, 1992: 37 ) to a peculiar vocalization. Finally, there is the minimally self-asserting probationary group. Particles in this group present a less positive committedness as compared to the self-asserting group.

Gupta ‘s effort to categorize these atoms on a graduated table of assertiveness have met with some contention and dissension ( Wee, 2002 ; Wong, 2004 ) . In peculiar her pick of labelling Singlish atoms as being self-asserting in nature has been challenged, and Wong ( 2004 ) suggests that this categorization displays an ethnocentric position in that Gupta is taking an ‘Anglo cultural position ‘ ( Wong, 2004: 752 ) . Furthermore, I will non be covering with the contention environing Gupta ‘s graduated table of assertiveness in this paper.

Gupta ( 1992 ) besides included a non-pragmatic categorization of leh ( appears as wreath in Gupta ‘s paper ) , which she lists as being ‘used in x-interrogatives which do non hold a wh-word, and recaptures a contextually understood ancestor ten ‘ ( Gupta, 1992: 36 ) . This version of leh in inquiry is classified as a high-ranking tone leh ( Platt 1987 ; Platt and Ho, 1989 ) , and Gupta claims in this manner, leh can be translated as ‘What about? ‘ when used as a inquiry atom. This is a position foremost mentioned by Platt ( 1987 ) , but is non an accurate analysis of the atom. As mentioned by Lee ( 2007 ) , this interlingual rendition ‘ can non adequately capture the significance of every happening of leh ‘ . As with many other matter-of-fact atoms in SCE, contextual factors play a immense function in the reading of the significance of the atom. While leh can transport the significance of ‘What about? ‘ , it is by no agencies restricted to such a definition. Lee ( 2007 ) takes issue with this peculiar definition of the inquiry atom leh, and tried to explicate how ‘What about? ‘ can non be used in certain contexts with inquiry atom leh. I list out two illustrations he used to exemplify his point:

Lee ( 2007 )

( 2 )

A: Everyone ‘s here. Let ‘s travel.

Bacillus: Wait. Siew Lian leh?

( 3 )

A: Alan will pass over the tabular arraies, and John will brush the floor.

Bacillus: Then Siew Lian leh?

Lee ( 2007 ) claims that in ( 2 ) , the vocalization with leh should be ‘Wait. Where is Siew Lian? ‘ , and in ( 3 ) it would so take the suggested interlingual rendition of ‘What about? ‘ . He goes on to state that this is cogent evidence of how high-ranking tone leh does non needfully transport the significance of What about? ‘ . What he is seeking to explicate is that how an vocalization is shaped with the usage of leh will be shaped by the context of which it is used in. I agree with this position, nevertheless, I disagree with how he illustrates his point.

This is because in seeking to reason for the flexibleness of high-ranking tone leh, he has neglected to admit a similar flexibleness in footings of significance for ‘What about? ‘ every bit good. For illustration in ( 2 ) , ‘Wait. What about Siew Lian? ‘ can still be construed and understood as a inquiry inquiring for the whereabouts of Siew Lian. It does non needfully hold to be framed as an expressed inquiry demanding for the whereabouts or location of Siew Lian in ‘Where is Siew Lian ‘ . The converse is true for ( 3 ) , and we can toss Lee ‘s ( 2007 ) claim against himself by demoing that ‘what about Siew Lian ‘ could besides be translated explicitly as ‘Then what would Siew Lian ‘s responsibilities be? ‘ . Thus, similar to high-ranking tone leh as a inquiry atom, ‘What about? ‘ is besides dependent on context. This can be farther illustrated in the followers:

( 4 )

A: We will all be traveling to the party at 10.

Bacillus: What about Tim?

B ‘s vocalization can be understood as inquiring whether Tim would be traveling to the party every bit good. However, saying Tim has fallen really ill and needs person to be by his bedside. Both A and B know it would be near impossible for Tim to travel to the party, and the most immediate concern would be holding person expression after Tim. In this instance, B ‘s vocalization would be taken to be inquiring ‘Then who ‘s traveling to take attention of Tim? ‘ . Therefore, we can see that ‘What about? ‘ maps likewise with high-ranking tone leh in that they depend upon contextual factors for a right reading. As such, Lee ‘s ( 2007 ) use of a narrow definition of ‘What about? ‘ as an statement is non conclusive grounds for the incorrectness of this definition for high-ranking tone leh.

However, this is where the similarities between them end. Using the undermentioned illustration:

( 5 )

A: If Sam comes this evening, we can complete.

Bacillus: Then he do n’t come leh?

In ( 5 ) , ‘What about? ‘ can non be used any longer. In such a scenario, ‘What if ‘ would be more appropriate, as in ‘What if he does n’t come? ‘ . ‘What if ‘ and ‘what about ‘ have markedly different significances, and while we will non dig deep into their scope of significances and maps, it can be agreed that they do non transport the same significance. As we can see so, high-ranking tone leh can be used more than as ‘What about? ‘ . As such, it is wrong – as suggested by Platt ( 1987 ) and Platt and Ho ( 1989 ) – to interpret high-ranking tone leh as merely ‘What about? ‘ . While leh in this signifier can possess such a significance, it does non needfully ever interpret to such a definition.

Gupta ( 1992 ) besides included the ‘maximally self-asserting ‘ leh, and claims that ‘both indicative moods and jussive moods with leh often, but non ever, map as directives ‘ ( 1992: 42 ) . She besides manages to recognize and place the /lE›/ signifier of leh when she used the undermentioned informations:

( 6 )

[ YG finds passing-out parade image ]

YG: Soldier is like that one leh? [ high rise ]

AG: Yes

She stated that in ( 6 ) , it meant the statement with leh was made with an look of surprise. In her words in such a instance, the talker ‘makes an observation, of which there is no uncertainty, but which is unexpected ‘ ( Gupta, 1992: 42 ) . This is different from leh the inquiry atom, and leh the self-asserting atom which she identifies in her paper. Despite placing this, she fails to separate the difference between /lE›/ and /le/ , and treats it as a divergence of the significance of leh as a consequence of context, instead than see it as a separate atom. Lee ( 2007: 6 ) brings up another point of contention when he suggests this illustration is a instance of ‘misguided initiation, caused by the inadvertent usage of an stray illustration ‘ . He goes on to state this is most likely a ‘performance mistake, whereby the atom is being misused ‘ , and claims this is ‘typically unacceptable to a native SCE talker ‘ .

First of wholly, it is non clear as to which pronunciation of leh Gupta is mentioning to in her extract. If the version of leh used is /le/ , so so the atom does look out of topographic point in the vocalization. In this instance, I would hold with Lee that there is a public presentation mistake. However, saying the /lE›/ version is the 1 used by the talker, there would be nil incorrect at all, and it is decidedly acceptable. As I will demo further in the survey, there are illustrations of native SCE talkers reproducing this leh in other cases. Lee ( 2007: 6 ) besides continues and suggests the usage of the atom meh alternatively – in topographic point of leh – as being more appropriate. This is extremely wrong, as this would give the vocalization an wholly different significance. Since this survey does non concern the survey of meh, I will non brood on this issue.

Furthermore, this confusion highlights one of the jobs of non separating clearly the two different atoms of leh – /lE›/ and /le/ . The fact that one of the discrepancies of leh would be out of topographic point in a vocalization that would be appropriate with the other, farther supports the statement that these two should be treated as two different, separate atoms.

3.2 Wee ( 2004 )

Wee ( 2004 ) in his paper included a different map of leh. He suggests that leh Markss an averment or petition as being probationary, and hence working as a matter-of-fact softener ( 2004: 122 ) . In his analysis, Wee ( 2004 ) used an extract from the GSSEC to expose such a softening map:

( 7 )

A: Actually… come to believe about it really, er, this film speaks really severely about work forces leh.

Harmonizing to Wee ( 2004 ) , leh softens the sentiment that A makes, and signifies that it is a weak sentiment, hence explicating the talker ‘s hesitancy and shamefacedness in doing the statement. However, it is non clear what version of leh the talker used. In fact, both /lE›/ and /le/ can be used in such in case without impacting Wee ‘s reading. Despite this, I argue that /lE›/ and /le/ exhibit different provinces of heads and attitudes of the talker, and as such can non be used interchangeably.

Both versions exhibit a ‘softening ‘ map, nevertheless to different grades. When /lE›/ is used, it suggests more averment instead than softening, and the sentiment is more forceful than when /le/ is used. For this ground, it is assumed that the /le/ version is the 1 Wee ( 2004 ) is mentioning to. Wee ( 2004:122 ) besides used the followers:

( 8 )

( A and B are speaking about a film )

A: But so few people lah, possibly because it has been running for rather some clip lah.

Bacillus: Actually two hebdomads merely leh.

Wee once more uses this as an illustration of leh moving as a softener. Once once more, it is non clear which leh is used. In this illustration, if /lE›/ is used, the averment of it being ‘two hebdomads merely ‘ is much more forceful than that of /le/ . It farther goes to demo how these two atoms should be defined decently. I will turn to the issue of leh being used as a ‘softener ‘ later in this paper.

3.3 Lee ( 2007 )

Lee ( 2007 ) identifies three tonic discrepancies of leh in his paper, and suggests that each atom ‘has its ain matter-of-fact map realised in specific address contexts ‘ . He claims they can be realised in tone 1, tone3 and tone 4 of Mandarin Chinese severally.

In add-on to placing the more normally known /le/ as leh1, Lee ( 2007 ) besides right identifies /lE›/ in his paper. He found two tonic discrepancies of it – leh3 and leh4. However he excessively, makes no reference of the distinction in pronunciation. For the interest of treatment, we will presume that he has made the right differentiation between /lE›/ and /le/ . In taging the discrepancies of /lE›/ , Lee ( 2007 ) categorises leh3 as being a ‘marker of purpose ‘ and leh4 as a ‘marker of averment ‘ . One of the maps Lee ( 2007 ) has accorded the usage of leh3 is that of describing a new province of personal businesss which is ‘assumed to be beyond the addressee ‘s cognition ‘ . However, as I will demo subsequently in the presentation of informations, that this is non needfully true. Even with talkers cognizing that each other has knowledge of a peculiar piece of information, the atom can be used.

Lee ( 2007 ) besides does non to the full expand the subdivision on the use of the leh4 discrepancy that he calls marker of averment. He suggests merely a ‘subtle differentiation between the 3rd of 4th tones of the atom ‘ ( 2007: 15 ) . This is non true, and as informations will demo, leh4 can capture and reflect different significances and attitudes of the talker, including the suggestion of overdone accent or irony. This as a consequence would intend more than merely a elusive differentiation between the two atoms.

4. The different signifiers of leh

The informations used and presented in this paper have been taken from colloquial interactions between Singaporeans utilizing SCE. Because of the of course happening fortunes of which these informations have been obtained, they are reliable cases of the usage of SCE ( and therefore the usage of the leh atoms ) . These informations would be analysed and they form the footing of showing the different signifiers of leh in this paper.

In Lee ‘s ( 2007 ) survey, he separated leh into three different tonic discrepancies, where within one tonic discrepancy the atom could take on different significances. I would take a similar attack, nevertheless I make a pronounced differentiation between the /le/ and /lE›/ signifiers of leh.

The analysis would be separated into two major parts, with the first portion being the more commonly known /le/ version of leh, and the 2nd detailing the /lE›/ of leh which I will stand for with lea.

4.1 /le/ leh

The /le/ leh consists of a figure of discrepancies, and I will try to divide them into their peculiar maps.

4.1.1 Leh as a Softener – realised as tone 1 in Mandarin Chinese

As has been categorised by Lee ( 2007: 7 ) , this leh ‘occurs in the 2nd portion of an contiguity brace, whereby the talker is unable or unwilling to supply a preferable response with regard to a proposition introduced by the addressee in the first portion of discourse ‘ . Lee calls this the ‘dispreferred second ‘ ( 2007: 7 ) . Harmonizing to Yule ( 1996: 79 ) , ‘the preferred is the structurally expected following act and the dispreferred is the structurally unexpected following act ‘ . Therefore, dissensions and refusals are following Acts of the Apostless which are unexpected. Christmas ( 1996 ) has found that in English, vacillation and forewords are used to do a response ( as a dispreferred second ) less disputing to the first, thereby softening an unexpected following act. In SCE, leh performs a similar map.

Therefore every bit mentioned, this leh is used by a talker in response to something said anterior that the talker does non hold with. This does non needfully hold to be an sentiment of which one can blatantly province an understanding or dissension with, but besides requests or false statements. The leh is tagged to the dispreferred second of an vocalization, and therefore execute a map of softening the blow of an unexpected following act.

( 9 )

A: Eh, subsequently after this we go acquire something to eat.

Bacillus: Subsequently? I got something on leh.

In ( 9 ) , A is proposing to B that they go for a repast after their current activity. However, B is unable to do it. In this case, B is offering a refusal to A ‘s invitation. He does non decline the invitation outright. Rather, he answers the inquiry indirectly by saying that he has ‘something on ‘ , which of course would be taken to intend that he would n’t be free for A ‘s meal invitation. This indirect refusal could be taken to be a manner of doing the refusal less disputing. Even so, leh is still used to further soften the refusal.

Leh is able to execute this softening map because the use of leh suggests an attitude of a willingness to compromise, or to negociate a place – whether it is an purpose the talker is seeking to convey or non. For case in ( 9 ) , because the usage of leh softens the unexpected following act of refusal, we see the undermentioned exchange:

( 10 )

A: Eh, subsequently after this we go acquire something to eat.

Bacillus: Subsequently? I got something on leh.

A: Huh? What thing? Eat lah!

Bacilluss: Can non lah.

The usage of leh by B suggests a place of the possibility of dialogue instead than shuting the door on any possibility of accepting the invitation with an straight-out rejection, which explains why A continued by trying to alter B ‘s head and acquiring him to accept the invitation. B clearly did non hold the purpose to negociate because he quickly put an terminal to A ‘s efforts to carry by declining the invitation outright in his 2nd vocalization. Therefore, leh performs a softening map in proposing a place of via media and willingness to negociate, hence doing a refusal or rejection less challenging.

( 11 )

( A and B are discoursing the monetary value of a new phone. A thinks the monetary value is expensive, while B thinks it is a sensible monetary value )

A: Cheap? Then you buy me one lor.

Bacillus: Please leh, cheap besides need money. Buy for you I might every bit good purchase more for myself.