Prosodic Features of ‘lah’

Aloysius Ang U1130454E

Prosodic Features of ‘lah’

Aloysius Ang

Chan Wei Jie

Jeremiah Teo

Teo Xing Zhi

Valerie Sum

Abstract

In this paper, we seek to find out if prosodic features of Singapore Colloquial English (SCE)

clause-final particles would affect the imperativeness of SCE statements. We surveyed 32

SCE speakers on their willingness to comply with pre-recorded SCE imperative statements

differing only in pitch and vowel length of the clause-final particle ‘lah’. We found out that

the pitch of SCE clause-final particles is important in determining the imperativeness of SCE

statements. Furthermore, prosodic features of SCE particles imbues SCE statements with

different emotions and indexical messages providing compelling evidence that SCE is a

complex and rich language.


Introduction

Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) often called ‘Singlish’ is a variety of English with

unique pronunciation patterns of intonation and grammar that are very different from the

Standard Singapore English (SSE). It co-exists with SSE in a “Fergusonian diglossic”

situation with SSE used generally in formal settings while SCE in all informal exchanges

(Leimgruber, 2011).

A key differentiating feature of SCE from SSE is its various clause-final discourse particles.

These monosyllablic clause-final particles such as ‘wat, leh, lor, lah, ya’ used in SCE serve a

discourse pragmatic function (Lim, 2007). Much research has been carried out regarding their

pragmatic usage in discourse; how and why they are used and in what situations (Wee, 2010).

‘Lah’ can be considered the most well-known of all SCE clause-final particles as it has

become a stereotype of SCE. Pakir (1992) suggested that ‘lah’ expresses the emotive attitudes

of speakers. The Oxford English online dictionary (2000) describes ‘lah’ as a particle used in

various kinds of pitch to convey different emotions.

Prosodic features such as pitch, speech rates, vowel length and loudness have significant

linguistic functions in speech communication, such as question versus statement intonation

and helps convey the speaker’s emotions (Anders, 2006). However most previous research

did not take into consideration what effect different prosodic features would have on the

different types of emotions conveyed by these clause-final particles. Moreover, the type of

clause-final particles and the prosodic features they carry varies between the type of

sentences they are used in i.e. statements, imperatives and questions.

Thus this study addresses the gap in previous researches through the investigation of how

vowel length and pitch in clause-final particles would affect the perception of imperativeness

of a SCE statement. The focus is on the clause-final particle ‘lah’ as its common usage will

likely allow results to become applicable to other clause-final particles. Leimgruber (2011)

viewed “lah’’ as a mood marker which appeals for accommodation, hence we limit the scope

of our study to the measurement of the imperativeness of statements with ‘lah’ as a clause-

final particle and how different prosodic features on it would affect the listeners’ will to

comply. In our study, the independent variables are: pitch (low versus high) and vowel length


(short versus long) in the clause-final particle. The dependent variable is the degree of

imperativeness of the statements.

Based on our intuition as native SCE speakers, it is expected that ‘lah’ with lower pitch and

longer vowel length would have the greatest effect on the perception of imperativeness. We

understand that a parade often commander use a low pitch to appear more commanding. In

addition, a lengthened particle in daily usage of SCE often indicates frustration and anger

thus enhancing the imperativeness of the statements. Hence we hypothesise that (1) the

longer the vowel length of the clause-final particle, the greater the effect of

imperativeness; and (2) the lower the pitch of the clause-final particle, the more

imperative the statement would be perceived to be.

A survey of Singaporean SCE speakers on their willingness to comply with pre-recorded

SCE imperative statements differing only in pitch and vowel length of the clause-final

particle ‘lah’ is carried out. In this paper, we will analyse the participants’ responses to see if

pitch and vowel length of SCE clause-final particles would affect the imperativeness of the

statement. Our study is likely to have an effect on people’s view of SCE and future prosodic

analysis of it. SCE has often been criticised for its many perceived ills, such as impairing

speakers’ learning of the Standard English and threatening the nation’s competitive edge

(Leimgruber, 2011). Nevertheless, it is something that is uniquely Singaporean and merits in-

depth studies into its specific structure.


Methods

To find out if pitch and vowel length of clause-final particles in SCE have an effect of the

imperativeness of a statement, we used recordings of imperative SCE statements as well as a

questionnaire to find our participants’ willingness to comply.

Statements (Scripts)

To test if pitch and vowel length of SCE clause-final particles affects imperativeness, we

used 4 different variation of the SCE clause-final particle ‘lah’:

1. High pitch +Long vowel length

2. Low pitch+ Short vowel length

3. High pitch + Short vowel length

4. Low pitch+ Long vowel length

We generated 4 sets of statements. Each consisting of 36 statements: 12 imperative

statements (3 from each category) and 24 filler statements. By having four different sets of

statements, we allow for different participants to be surveyed through different imperative

statements thus reducing the possibility of biasness due to the nature or structure of the

statements. Furthermore, the statements are constructed by reviewing casual usage of SCE in

daily speech to make sure they are natural. Most of the imperative statements are short and

regarding common topics. (See Appendix A)

Recordings

The recordings of the speakers were carried out in a sound-proof recording room to minimise

external noise disturbance hence ensuring an optimal recording environment. 1 male and 1

female speaker, aged 22 and 20 respectively, were recorded uttering the given imperative

statements. We recorded both genders so as to reduce as well as investigate gender biasness.

Ng & Cavallaro (2009) discussed in their study that people tend to have negative attitudes

towards females speaking SCE. As such having the representation of both genders could

allow us to investigate if this is applicable for clause-final particles in SCE.

We generated 4 different sets of recordings, one for each set of statements. The sequence of

the statements were randomised and placed into four different sets to ensure that participants


would not be hearing similar statements consecutively. This ensures that there would be no

priming hence the survey would be less biased.

In each approximately 9 minutes long recording, there are 36 statements: 12 imperative

statements and 24 filler statements. Filler statements were randomly placed between the

imperative statements so as to prevent the participants from guessing what we were testing

for and skewing the results. Each statement will be repeated after a 2 second interval

followed by a 10 seconds interval for participants to answer the question. The recordings

were edited with software Wave Editor and Audacity so as to give the correct time intervals.

The software PRAAT (version 5.3.13) was used to ensure that the clause-final particle of

each imperative statement was of the ‘right’ category i.e. the ‘right’ pitch and vowel length.

As there is limited research done on prosodic features of SCE particles, we do not have a

clear boundary of what is considered high and lwong pitch or long and short vowel length in

SCE. Furthermore, we did want to fix the pitch and the vowel length as it will cause the

clause-final particle to sound unnatural and thus affect the listeners.

We made use of PRAAT to ensure that the ‘lahs’ in the high pitch category are relatively

higher in frequency than those of the low pitch (see Fig.1a and 1b). Fig. 1a is of a higher

pitch of approximately 132Hz while Fig. 1b is of a relatively lower 93Hz approximately.

Similarly, the particles in the long vowel length category are longer than those in the short

vowel length category. In Fig 1a and Fig 1b, both the vowel lengths (0.4s approximately) are

longer in comparison to Fig 1c (approximately 0.2s). Fig. 1a, b, c show the spectrograms

generated by the software PRAAT for the imperative statement “Come lah” by a male

speaker.


Fig. 1a –High pitch, Long vowel length

Fig. 1b –Low pitch, Long vowel length

Fig. 1c – High pitch, Short vowel length


Questionnaire

We created 4 different sets of questionnaires to correspond to the 4 different sets of

recordings (See Appendix B). Each questionnaire comprises of 36 questions: 12 for

imperative statements and 24 for filler statements. For each imperative statement, a

corresponding simple but indirect question will be given to participants. We chose to

indirectly test the imperativeness of the statements by having participants answer indirect

questions such as “Will you eat?” on a Likert scale for the statement “Eat lah” instead of

asking participant how imperative the question is.

We used indirect questions as to elicit a quick and accurate representation of the participants’

feeling while not giving away the intent of our study. The participants’ response would be in

the form of a Likert scale, ranging from 1-6. A Likert scale is preferred because it would not

restrict the responses of the participants thus accounting for more accurate responses.

Furthermore, even-numbered scales are used so that there participants would not be able to

give any neutral response as attitudes should not be neutral.

Participants

The survey was administered to 32 Singaporean University undergraduates, 16 males and 16

females. They were fellow students of Nanyang Technological University persuaded to

contribute to the noble cause of linguistics. Equal number of males and females were chosen

so as to obtain a good representation from both genders. The participants’ age ranged from

19-25 years old. The participants were first interviewed so as to ensure that they have been

living in Singapore for the past 10 years as well as are able to speak and comprehend both

SSE and SCE. This was to ensure that our participants have sufficient experience in daily

interactions that involved SSE and SCE thus ensuring their usage of SSE and SCE are of a

good level of competency.

Procedures

Participants were gathered in an air-conditioned and quiet room to ensure comfort and high

sound clarity. They are all briefed on the procedures and duration of the survey. Each

participant was seated to one laptop with a set of noise-isolating headphones and a set of

questionnaire and pen. The recordings were played using laptops through headphones so as to

cancel out potential external noise. Every participant had an individual experimenter that

assist in the smooth running of the survey.


Sixteen of the total thirty-two participants will listen to the male voice recording while the

other half will hear the female version. The selection of participants who will be hearing the

male or female version is completely random, thus eliminating gender from being a potential

confound to the study. Each participant only listen to the recording once. During the 10

second break in between statements, they circle their answers regarding how willing they are

to comply with what they have heard. Once the participants are done, they were told to leave

their particulars; their gender, age and proficient linguistic codes. We also carried out a post-

survey interview to gather feedback regarding the survey so as to further improve our

methodology.

Once all these are done, we collated the participants’ responses on Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet. (See Appendix C)

Predictions

The hypotheses of this study are (1) the lower the pitch of the clause-final particle, the more

imperative the statement would be perceived to be and (2) the longer the vowel length of the

clause-final particle, the greater the effect of imperativeness.

Based on our intuition as native SCE speakers, it is expected that Low pitch and Long vowel

length will have the greatest effect on the perception of imperativeness. However, there is

also a possibility that the results may be of the exact opposite in nature thus supporting the

notion that High pitch and Short vowel length SCE clause-final particles give the

statements greater imperativeness.

Furthermore, the two variables may interact in several scenarios; one exerting dominance

over another, contrasting and cancelling/ reducing out each other’s effect on imperativeness

or complementing and enhancing each other’s effect on imperativeness.

It is also possible that neither pitch nor vowel length of SCE clause-final particles are of any

significance when accounting for the SCE statements’ imperativeness. If this happens, it

would hint that perhaps other factors are playing a more important role at determining the

imperativeness of the SCE statements. Some of such possible factors are the intonation of the

entire statement and the environment of the SCE particle i.e. the words preceding ‘lah’.


Results

In this study, we seek to find out if prosodic features of Singapore Colloquial English (SCE)

clause-final particles would affect the imperativeness of SCE statements.

Our hypothesis 1: the lower the pitch of the clause-final particle, the more imperative the

statement would be perceived to be, seemed to be well supported by our results. As seen in

Fig. 2a, the average imperativeness of statements ending with the low ‘lah’ is approximately

3.70, while the average imperativeness is only 3.30 approximately for the higher pitched ‘lah’

statements. Furthermore, we ran our results through the 2-way ANNOVA statistic test and

found that pitch as a variable is statistically significant, with a p-value of (0.029< 0.05) as

seen in Fig. 2d. Therefore we can conclude that the pitch of SCE clause-final particles plays

an important in determining the imperativeness of SCE statements.

Fig. 2a Fig. 2d

3.296875

3.697916667

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

High Low

Imp

era

tive

ne

ss

Pitch


However, our Hypothesis 2: the longer the vowel length of the clause-final particle, the

greater the effect of imperativeness, is less apparent in our results. As seen in Fig. 2b, the

average score of imperativeness for ‘lah’ with long vowel length is 3.49 approximately,

which is almost the same as the average score for ‘lah’ with short vowel length 3.51

approximately. It appears that the difference in vowel length alone contributes little to the

imperativeness of the statements. After running the results through a 2-way ANNOVA test

for significance, from Fig. 2d, we can see that the p-value for the variable vowel length is

(0.465>0.05), lower than the required level of statistical significance. Therefore, we cannot

conclude that vowel length does not have any considerable effect on the imperativeness of the

statement.

Fig. 2b Fig. 2d

3.489583333

3.505208333

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

Long Short

Imp

era

tive

ne

ss

Vowel Length


Oh the other hand, vowel length may seem to have a cross over effect with the pitch variable

seen in Fig. 2c. If a long ‘lah’ is high pitch, it is significantly less imperative (3.20) as

compared to the low pitched one (3.73). Conversely, pitch seem to have a smaller effect on

‘lahs’ with shorter vowel lengths. The high short ‘lahs’ scored an average of (3.43) compared

to the low short ‘lahs’ which scored (3.63). This difference seem minimal and less significant.

We ran the results through a 2-way ANNOVA test to acertian if this interaction between

pitch and vowel length is significant and found the p-value to be (0.041<0.05) as seen in Fig.

2d. Hence it suggest that pitch and vowel length does interact to certain extent to affect the

imperativeness of the statement.

Fig. 2c Fig. 2d

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

High Low

Imp

era

tive

ne

ss

Interaction of pitch & vowel length

Long Short


Discussion

Our study started out to find out if pitch and vowel length of SCE clause-final particles would

affect the imperativeness of the statement. We hypothesise that (1) the lower the pitch of the

clause-final particle, the more imperative the statement would be perceived to be and (2) the

longer the vowel length of the clause-final particle, the greater the effect of imperativeness.

Implications

Our hypothesis 1: the lower the pitch of the clause-final particle, the more imperative the

statement would be perceived to be, was well supported by our results and statistically

significant. Thus we can conclude that the pitch of SCE clause-final particles plays an

important in determining the imperativeness of SCE statements. Additionally, our results can

contribute to the findings by (Hirst & Di Cristo, 1998) whereby in their survey of twenty

languages found that the French imperative intonation pattern is one whereby that rapidly

drops from high to low pitch and this pattern of falling pitch is evident in many different

languages in the world. This also shows that SCE is a complex and rich language comparable

to established ones like French and its features definitely worth looking into by researchers.

However, our Hypothesis 2: the longer the vowel length of the clause-final particle, the

greater the effect of imperativeness, is less supported. Our result showed minimal difference

in imperativeness between SCE clause-final particles of different vowel lengths and was

statistically inconclusive.

Although vowel length alone as a variable did not seem to be impactful on the imperativeness

of SCE statements, we realised that it has a cross over effect with the pitch variable. When a

SCE clause-final particle has a long vowel length, pitch seems to be the determining factor of

the imperativeness whereas pitch seems to have a smaller effect on ‘lahs’ with short vowel

lengths. This was shown to be statistically significant as well.

A possible explanation for this is that different pitch and vowel length carries different

indexical features. High pitch and long vowel length is deemed to be annoying and whinny to

SCE speakers therefore imperativeness is rated very low. While for a low pitch but still long

vowel legnth SCE particle, annoyance is not embedded aand the statement carries indexical

feelings of persuasion and plea. Perhaps more in-depth surveying on other feelings such as


annoyance, persuasiveness and arrogance that SCE particles possibly evoke can be done in

future larger scale studies so as give more encompassing and comprehensive conclusions.

Limitations

We do acknowledge that there are a few shortcomings in our study that could be improved on.

Firstly, SCE clause-final particles are unique as they can be easily modified by the speaker to

generate different meanings and to suit different rhythms of speech. Hence by merely,

creating 4 categories for the different “lahs” may be too narrow a scope. Therefore, future

researchers working on this topic may go into the specifics such as the exact frequency or

duration of the vowel lengths as well as look at the overall intonation of the entire statement

instead of just the clause-final particle.

Another possible weakness in our study is that the voices of our speakers might have

influenced results to a certain extent. Although statistically gender has no effect on the

perception of imperativeness, post-survey interview found some participants deeming the

male voice to be more “crude”. Perhaps only having 1 speaker of each gender being recorded

was too minimalistic and future studies can have more speakers to give greater variation in

speech styles and more conclusive results would be observed.

Conclusion

In conclusion our study showed that prosodic features of SCE particles play a significant role

in imbuing SCE statements with different emotions and indexical messages. Hence it is an

important and interesting for future researchers to look into. More importantly, our study has

provided some compelling evidence that SCE is a complex and rich language comparable to

established ones.


References

Pakir, A. (1992). Dictionary Entries for Discourse Particles. In Pakir, A. (Ed.), Words in a

cultural context (pp. 143-152). Singapore: Singapore UniPress.

Daniel, Hirst& Albert, Di Cristo. (1998) Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages.

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Cambridge University

Press.

Wee, L. (2003). The Birth of a Particle: Know in Colloquial Singapore English. World

Englishes, 22, 5-12.

Anders, S. (2006). Affective and Linguistic Processing of Speech Prosody: DC Potential

Studies. In Understanding Emotions, (pp. 269 - 270). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Leow, B. G. (2006). Statistical Release 1: Socio-demographic and economic characteristics.

General Household Survey 2005. Singapore: Department of Statistics.

Harada, S. (2009). The Roles of Singapore Standard English and Singlish. Tokyo: Waseda

University.

Ng, B. C., & Cavallaro, F. (2009). Between Status and Solidarity in Singapore. World

Englishes, 28, 143-159.

Wee, L. (2010). The Particle ya in Colloquial Singapore. World Englishes, 29, 45-58.

Leimgruber, J. R. E. (2011), Singapore English. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5: 47–

62.


Appendix A: 4 different sets of Imperative statements with filler questions.

*Note

(H) indicates high pitch while (L) indicates low pitch.

A long vowel length is represented by ‘laaah’, a short vowel length by ‘lah’.

Filler statements are indicated by F)

Block A

1) Let’s go lah. (H)

F) Take off your headphones.

F) Stand up uh.

2) Go away lah. (H)

F) Get out leh.

F) Jump off the bridge.

F) Put down your pen.

F) Follow me k.

3) Study lah. (L)

4) Come lah. (L)

F) Close the door uh.

F) Join me k.

F) Read it ya.

5) Eat lah. (L)

F) Wear the T-shirt leh.

F) Tell me your name.

F) Draw a happy face k.

6) Drink lah. (L)

7) Sleep laaah. (H)

8) Hurry up laaah.(H)

9) Do your homework laaah. (H)

10) Quiet laaah. (L)

F) Open the window leh.

F) Relax leh.

F) Support this ya.

F) Print the paper leh.

F) Sing a song.

11) Pay attention laaah.(L)

F) Fight.

F) Pay up uh.

12) Move aside laaah. (L)

F) Make me sandwich.

F) Sit down leh.

F) Stand up.

F) Say something leh.

F) Close your eyes.


Block B


2) Go away lah. (H)

F) Get out leh.






F) Follow me k.

F) Stand up.


F) Stand up uh.

6) Drink lah. (L)


F) Join me k.

F) Read it ya.



F) Pay up uh.



F) Relax leh.

3) Study lah. (L)

4) Come lah. (L)

5) Eat lah. (L)

F) Support this ya.


F) Sing a song.


F) Sit down leh.


F) Close your eyes.

F) Fight.

9) Do your homework laaah.(H)

7) Sleep laaah. (H)



Block C

F) Sing a song.


F) Sit down leh.

F) Stand up.


F) Close your eyes.

F) Fight.


2) Go away lah. (H)

3) Study lah. (L)

4) Come lah. (L)


F) Relax leh.

F) Support this ya.


5) Eat lah. (L)

6) Drink lah. (L)

F) Get out leh.



7) Sleep laaah. (H)

F) Pay up uh.


F) Follow me k.


F) Stand up uh.



F) Join me k.

F) Read it ya.








Block D

6) Drink lah. (L)

F) Get out leh.





F) Follow me k.

7) Sleep laaah. (H)



F) Stand up uh.


F) Join me k.


F) Read it ya.







F) Relax leh.

F) Support this ya.


F) Sing a song.

2) Go away lah. (H)


F) Sit down leh.

F) Stand up.

4) Come lah. (L)

5) Eat lah. (L)


F) Close your eyes.

F) Fight.

3) Study lah. (L)

F) Pay up uh.


Appendix B - 4 Different sets of Questionnaires corresponding to the 4 sets of

statements in Appendix A Questionnaire A

Please read through the questions and circle accordingly. Q1) Will you go with the person? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q2) Will you take off your headphones? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q3) Will you stand up? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q4) Will you go away? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q5) Will you get out? 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q6) Will you jump off the bridge? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q7) Will you put down your pen? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q8) Will you follow me? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q9) Will you study? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q10) Will you come? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q11) Will you close the door? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q12) Will you join me? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q13) Will you read it? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q14) Will you eat? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Q15) Will you wear your T-shirt? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q16) Will you tell me your name? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q17) Will you draw a happy face? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q18) Will you drink? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q19) Will you sleep? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q20) Will you hurry up? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q21) Will you do your homework? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q22) Will you be quiet? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q23) Will you open the windows? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q24) Will you relax? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q25) Will you support that? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q26) Will you print the paper? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q27) Will you sing a song? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q28) Will you pay attention? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q29) Will you fight? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q30) Will you pay up? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply)


1 2 3 4 5 6 Q31) Will you move aside? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q32) Will you make me a sandwich? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q33) Will you sit down? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Q35) Will you say something? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q36) Will you close your eyes? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Questionnaire B

Please read through the questions and circle accordingly.

Q1) Will you go with the person? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Q3) Will you get out? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Q5) Will you pay attention? 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q6) Will you move aside? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6












Q17) Will you wear the T-shirt? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Q19) Will you pay up? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6












Q31) Will you say something ? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6


Questionnaire C









Q8) Will you go? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6









Questionnaire D















Q14) Will you go? (1- Least likely to comply, 6- Most likely to comply) 1 2 3 4 5 6



Appendix C: Survey results of 32 participants.

Note* Average score refers to the mean of each individual participants score in each category.

Participant Gender Pitch

Vowel

Length Imperativeness

Average

score Pitch

Vowel

Length Imperativeness

Average

score

1 M High Short 3 4 Low Short 3 3

High Short 4

Low Short 4

High Short 5

Low Short 2

2 M High Short 4 2.667 Low Short 3 2.333

High Short 3

Low Short 2

High Short 1

Low Short 2

3 M High Short 5 5 Low Short 2 2.667

High Short 6

Low Short 3

High Short 4

Low Short 3


High Short 4

Low Short 3

High Short 3

Low Short 4

5 M High Short 3 3.667 Low Short 6 6

High Short 3

Low Short 6

High Short 5

Low Short 6


High Short 5

Low Short 4

High Short 2

Low Short 4


High Short 3

Low Short 2

High Short 4

Low Short 4


High Short 3

Low Short 5

High Short 4

Low Short 4


High Short 1

Low Short 3

High Short 4

Low Short 3


High Short 3

Low Short 3

High Short 1

Low Short 4


High Short 6

Low Short 4

High Short 5

Low Short 4


High Short 3

Low Short 5

High Short 2

Low Short 5


High Short 6

Low Short 5

High Short 1

Low Short 3


High Short 5

Low Short 4

High Short 2

Low Short 5



High Short 2

Low Short 3

High Short 5

Low Short 3


High Short 3

Low Short 5

High Short 3

Low Short 5

17 F High Short 4 4.667 Low Short 3 3.333

High Short 5

Low Short 4

High Short 4

Low Short 3


High Short 3

Low Short 4

High Short 4

Low Short 2


High Short 4

Low Short 2

High Short 3

Low Short 1

20 F High Short 6 4 Low Short 4 2.667

High Short 4

Low Short 2

High Short 2

Low Short 2


High Short 2

Low Short 5

High Short 3

Low Short 4

22 F High Short 6 4.667 Low Short 4 5

High Short 5

Low Short 5

High Short 3

Low Short 6


High Short 2

Low Short 3

High Short 3

Low Short 1


High Short 2

Low Short 1

High Short 2

Low Short 1


High Short 2

Low Short 1

High Short 6

Low Short 4


High Short 5

Low Short 4

High Short 4

Low Short 5


High Short 3

Low Short 4

High Short 4

Low Short 2

28 F High Short 5 5 Low Short 5 5

High Short 4

Low Short 5

High Short 6

Low Short 5


High Short 4

Low Short 4

High Short 4

Low Short 6

30 F High Short 4 5 Low Short 5 4.333

High Short 5

Low Short 4


High Short 6

Low Short 4


High Short 1

Low Short 4

High Short 2

Low Short 1


High Short 3

Low Short 4

High Short 6

Low Short 3

1 M High Long 3 3.667 Low Long 3 4

High Long 4

Low Long 5

High Long 4

Low Long 4

2 M High Long 4 4 Low Long 6 5.333

High Long 4

Low Long 5

High Long 4

Low Long 5

3 M High Long 5 5.333 Low Long 6 5.333

High Long 6

Low Long 5

High Long 5

Low Long 5

4 M High Long 2 2 Low Long 5 5.667

High Long 2

Low Long 6

High Long 2

Low Long 6


High Long 6

Low Long 5

High Long 5

Low Long 2


High Long 3

Low Long 5

High Long 3

Low Long 6


High Long 5

Low Long 4

High Long 4

Low Long 6


High Long 4

Low Long 5

High Long 5

Low Long 4


High Long 2

Low Long 5

High Long 4

Low Long 6


High Long 1

Low Long 2

High Long 3

Low Long 2


High Long 4

Low Long 4

High Long 3

Low Long 5


High Long 4

Low Long 6

High Long 4

Low Long 5


High Long 1

Low Long 5

High Long 1

Low Long 4



High Long 2

Low Long 4

High Long 3

Low Long 4

15 M High Long 3 3 Low Long 3 4

High Long 4

Low Long 5

High Long 2

Low Long 4

16 M High Long 2 2 Low Long 1 1

High Long 2

Low Long 1

High Long 2

Low Long 1

17 F High Long 6 5 Low Long 5 5

High Long 5

Low Long 5

High Long 4

Low Long 5

18 F High Long 1 1 Low Long 5 4.333

High Long 1

Low Long 4

High Long 1

Low Long 4

19 F High Long 3 2.333 Low Long 2 2.667

High Long 1

Low Long 3

High Long 3

Low Long 3


High Long 1

Low Long 4

High Long 5

Low Long 2

21 F High Long 4 4 Low Long 3 2.333

High Long 3

Low Long 1

High Long 5

Low Long 3


High Long 1

Low Long 4

High Long 3

Low Long 4


High Long 4

Low Long 4

High Long 5

Low Long 3


High Long 5

Low Long 4

High Long 2

Low Long 4


High Long 2

Low Long 2

High Long 3

Low Long 3


High Long 2

Low Long 1

High Long 4

Low Long 1


High Long 3

Low Long 2

High Long 3

Low Long 1


High Long 2

Low Long 3

High Long 3

Low Long 4


High Long 2

Low Long 2

High Long 2

Low Long 4


30 F High Long 4 3.667 Low Long 3 3

High Long 3

Low Long 3

High Long 4

Low Long 3


High Long 3

Low Long 3

High Long 2

Low Long 3


High Long 5

Low Long 4

High Long 4

Low Long 5

Prosodic Features of ‘lah’

Documents

Transcript of Prosodic Features of ‘lah’