Interaction plots between age and ethnicity
Applying Poisson regressions to the data on clause-final particles, Figures 6.1 to 6.3 show the interaction plots with the factors of ‘age’ and ‘ethnicity’ for lah, leh, and lor. Since English dominance is an important predictor of colloquial variants
Figure 6.1 Interaction between age and ethnicity for discourse particle lah
in Chapter 5, ‘English dominance’ was included in the Poisson model so that the differences observed between different factor groups are above and beyond what can be explained by the factor of English dominance.2
As shown in Figure 6.1, since the 95% confidence intervals for middle-aged adults and young adults do not overlap, it is clear that young adult speakers use clause-final lah more frequently than middle-aged speakers. The interaction plot also suggests possible differences between ethnic groups amongst young adult speakers. It is likely that Malay speakers use clause-final lah the most frequently, followed by Chinese speakers and then Tamil speakers.
From Figure 6.2, we can see that young adult speakers use clause-final leh more frequently than middle-aged speakers. The interaction plot also suggests possible differences between ethnic groups amongst young adult speakers. It is likely that Chinese speakers use clause-final leh the most, followed by Malay speakers and Tamil speakers.
From Figure 6.3, it is clear that young adult speakers use clause-final lor more frequently than middle-aged speakers. The interaction plot also suggests possible differences between ethnic groups. As the 95% confidence intervals do not overlap, it is highly likely that young adult Chinese speakers use clause- final lor the most, followed by middle-aged Chinese speakers and then other ethnic groups.
Figure 6.2 Interaction between age and ethnicity for discourse particle leh
Figure 6.3 Interaction between age and ethnicity for discourse particle lor
The interaction plots from Figures 6.1 to 6.3 indicate that both ‘ethnicity’ and ‘age’ are important factors that influence an individual’s frequency of clause-final particles lah, leh, and lor. In what follows, we will examine in greater detail the use of each of these clause-final particles in terms of ethnicity and age.
Quantitative analysis of the use of lah, leh, and lor
Figure 6.4 shows that the average number of tokens of lah per person for Chinese speakers is 80.7 tokens per person; 104 tokens per person for Malay speakers; and 40.5 tokens for Tamil speakers. All speakers in each ethnic group used at least one token of lah in the duration of their sociolinguistic interview which lasts between 40 and 65 minutes long.
Figure 6.5 shows that the average number of tokens of lah per person fox- middle-aged speakers is 62.9 tokens per person, and 97.7 tokens per person fox- young adult speakers. All speakers in each age group used at least one token of lah in the duration of their sociolinguistic interview.
Figure 6.6 shows that the average number of tokens of leh per person for Chinese speakers is 2.33 tokens per person; 0.75 tokens per person for Malay speakers; and 0.00 tokens for Tamil speakers. Five of twelve Chinese speakers used
Figure 6.4 The average number of tokens of lah per speaker according to ethnic group
Figure 6.5 The average number of tokens of lah per speaker according to age group
Figure 6.6 The average number of tokens of leh per speaker according to ethnic group
Figure 6.7 The average number of tokens of leh per speaker according to age group
Figure 6.8 The average number of tokens of lor per speaker according to ethnic group
at least one token of leh in the duration of their sociolinguistic interview; two of eight Malay speakers used at least one token of leh in their interview; and zero of four Tamil speakers used at least one token of leh in their interview.
Figure 6.7 shows that the average number of tokens of leh per person for middle-aged speakers is 0.182 tokens per person, and 2.62 tokens per person for young adult speakers. Two of eleven middle-aged speakers used at least one token of leh in the duration of their sociolinguistic interview, and five of thirteen young adult speakers used at least one token of leh in their interview.
Figure 6.8 shows that the average number of tokens of lor per person for Chinese speakers is 13.0 tokens per person; 2.63 tokens per person for Malay
Figure 6.9 The average number of tokens of lor per speaker according to age group
speakers; and 0.00 tokens for Tamil speakers. Eleven of twelve Chinese speakers used at least one token of lor in the duration of their sociolinguistic interview; four of eight Malay speakers used at least one token of lor in their interview; and zero of four Tamil speakers used at least one token of lor in their interview.
Figure 6.9 shows that the average number of tokens of lor per person for middle-aged speakers is 5.27 tokens per person, and 16.4 tokens per person for young adult speakers. Six of eleven middle-aged speakers used at least one token of lor in the duration of their sociolinguistic interview, and nine of thirteen young adult speakers used at least one token of lor in their interview.
