Challenging The Myth Of Monolingual Corpora 1st Edition Arja Nurmi Tanja Rtten Pivi Pahta

Challenging The Myth Of Monolingual Corpora 1st
Edition Arja Nurmi Tanja Rtten Pivi Pahta
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/challenging-the-myth-of-
monolingual-corpora-1st-edition-arja-nurmi-tanja-rtten-pivi-
pahta-51627554
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Challenging The Myth Of Gender Equality In Sweden Lena Martinsson
Editor Gabriele Griffin Editor Katarina Giritli Nygren Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/challenging-the-myth-of-gender-equality-
in-sweden-lena-martinsson-editor-gabriele-griffin-editor-katarina-
giritli-nygren-editor-51808798
Challenging The Myth Of Gender Equality In Sweden 1st Edition Lena
Martinsson Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/challenging-the-myth-of-gender-equality-
in-sweden-1st-edition-lena-martinsson-editor-36509314
The Expert Learner Challenging The Myth Of Ability Stobart Gordon
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-expert-learner-challenging-the-myth-
of-ability-stobart-gordon-12026796
Southern Craft Food Diversity Challenging The Myth Of A Us Food
Revival Kaitland M Byrd
https://ebookbell.com/product/southern-craft-food-diversity-
challenging-the-myth-of-a-us-food-revival-kaitland-m-byrd-51808612

Racial Profiling In Canada Challenging The Myth Of A Few Bad Apples
Frances Henry Carol Tator
https://ebookbell.com/product/racial-profiling-in-canada-challenging-
the-myth-of-a-few-bad-apples-frances-henry-carol-tator-51913078
Racial Profiling In Canada Challenging The Myth Of A Few Bad Apples
Paperback Carol Tator Frances Henry Charles Smith Maureen Brown
https://ebookbell.com/product/racial-profiling-in-canada-challenging-
the-myth-of-a-few-bad-apples-paperback-carol-tator-frances-henry-
charles-smith-maureen-brown-10530950
Challenging The Myths Of Autism Jonathan Alderson
https://ebookbell.com/product/challenging-the-myths-of-autism-
jonathan-alderson-4672774
Loving And Hating Mathematics Challenging The Myths Of Mathematical
Life Course Book Reuben Hersh Vera Johnsteiner
https://ebookbell.com/product/loving-and-hating-mathematics-
challenging-the-myths-of-mathematical-life-course-book-reuben-hersh-
vera-johnsteiner-51952556
Excuse Me Professor Challenging The Myths Of Progressivism Reed
https://ebookbell.com/product/excuse-me-professor-challenging-the-
myths-of-progressivism-reed-11946246

Challenging the Myth of Monolingual Corpora

Language and Computers
Studies in Digital Linguistics
Edited by
Christian Mair (University of Freiburg, Germany)
Charles Meyer (University of Massachusetts at Boston)
Editorial Board
Mark Davies (Brigham Young University)
Anke Lüdeling (Humboldt University)
Anthony McEnery (Lancaster University)
Lauren Squires (Ohio State University)
Volume 80
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/lc

Challenging the Myth of
Monolingual Corpora
Edited by
Arja Nurmi
Tanja Rütten
Päivi Pahta
LEIDEN | BOSTON

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0921-5034
isbn 978-90-04-27668-0 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-27669-7 (e-book)
Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV , Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA . Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2017027646

Contents
Preface vii
List of Illustrations viii
1 How Many Languages are there in a Monolingual Corpus? 1
Arja Nurmi and Tanja Rütten
2 Indian English or Indian Englishes? Accounting for Speakers’
Multilingual Repertoires in Corpora of Postcolonial Englishes 16
Claudia Lange
3 Mono- and Multilingualism in a Specialized Corpus of New Zealand
Stories 39
Alexander Onysko and Marta Degani
4 What Happens to Ongoing Change in Multilingual Settings? A Corpus
Compiler’s Perspective on New Data and New Research Prospects 58
Mikko Laitinen
5 Multilingual Speakers, Multilingual Texts: Multilingual Practices in
Learner Corpora 80
Marcus Callies and Leonie Wiemeyer
6 Multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca: Flagging as an Indicator
of Perceived Acceptability and Intelligibility 95
Niina Hynninen, Kaisa S. Pietikäinen and Svetlana Vetchinnikova
7 English Commonplace Books as Multilingual Receiver Corpora 127
Thomas Kohnen
8 Multilingual Practices in the Corpus of English Religious Prose:
Annotation and Access 153
Tanja Rütten
9 Semi-automatic Discovery of Multilingual Elements in English Historical
Corpora: Methods and Challenges 172
Jukka Tyrkkö, Arja Nurmi and Jukka Tuominen

vi contents
10 ‘Multilinguality’ in Learner Corpora: The Case of the MILE 200
Rolf Kreyer
11 Multilingualism and Quotations from a Corpus-Linguistic
Perspective: A Case Study of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Biographia
Literaria 220
Mark Kaunisto

Preface
This volume came about as a continuation of the Are there monolingual cor
pora? (Computer says no) workshop at the 36th ICAME conference held at the
University of Trier in May, 2015, organised by Arja Nurmi and Päivi Pahta. Tanja
Rütten was one of the presenters at the workshop and in this volume we bring
together our joined interests in multilingualism and the issue of corpus design
and annotation. During the workshop it became evident that there was need
for further discussion on multilingual practices in supposedly monolingual
corpora. Many of the papers within these covers are versions of presentations
given at the workshop, but several were solicited from authors we knew to be
working in fields of English corpus linguistics where the question of multilin-
gualism is (also) present. The volume as a whole benefitted immensely also
from the contributions and discussions of presenters who, for one reason or
another, could not publish their presentation here.
One of the starting points for the workshop and this volume was the Multi
lingual Practices in the History of Written English project, funded by the Acad-
emy of Finland 2012–2016 (project number 258434). The project was led
by Päivi Pahta, and Arja Nurmi was a senior scholar involved in the project.
Among the authors, also Jukka Tyrkkö and Jukka Tuominen were associated
with the project. We would like to thank the Academy of Finland for funding
the project. We also thank the degree programme for English language, litera-
ture and translation studies at the Faculty of Communication Sciences at the
University of Tampere for financing the hiring of Ms Veera Saarimäki, MA, as
our editorial assistant in 2016–2017. Without her painstaking eye for detail, the
volume would not be what it is today.
Finally, we are grateful to Brill and the editors of the Language and
Computers, Studies in Digital Linguistics series, Professors Christian Mair and
Charles Meyer, for publishing the volume.
The Editors
Tampere and Cologne
April 2017

List of Illustrations
Figures
1.1 Multilingual and multivoiced practices 4
2.1 South Asian language families 25
4.1 Covering the informational-interactional continuum of genres 65
4.2 Ratios of core per emergent modals in the six corpora 69
4.3 Patterns of situational variation in written and spoken ELF
corpora 70
4.4 Order of frequency of core modals in BrE/AmE and in ELF 72
4.5 Order of frequency of emergent modals in BrE/AmE and in ELF 74
9.1 Flowchart of the Multilingualiser tagging process 182
9.2 Dictionary cross-checking 183
10.1 A facts sheet on Hong Kong 201
10.2 Materials and task description, student’s original text and text
without expressions that can be found in the materials 208
10.3 The lexical frequency profile aggregated over all 16 texts before the
deletion of common lexis and after (left); change of proportion after
deletion (right) 212
10.4 The change rate for individual frequency bands after deletion of
common lexis 213
10.5 Original collocations (in boxes) and collocations from materials and
task descriptions (underlined) in two sample texts 215
Tables
2.1 Overview of ICE-corpora and their sampling of speakers’
metadata 23
2.2 Typological distribution of the 122 scheduled and non-scheduled
languages of India in the 2001 census 26
2.3 Representation of language families in ICE-India 33
2.4 Words marked as ‘indigenous’ in ICE-India and the OED edition in
which they were first mentioned 34
4.1 Key characteristics in compilation 63
4.2 Frequencies and ratios of modals in two native varieties and in
non-native use 67

ixList Of Illustrations
4.3 The most frequent modal types in written and spoken non-native
corpora 72
8.1 The genre network structure of COERP 155
8.2 Coding schema for multilingual elements in COERP 165
10.1 Paraphrases in three grades of intermediate learners of English 203
10.2 The estimated composition of the MILE 205
10.3 The composition of the sample for the present study 206
10.4 Proportion of content words from materials in exam texts 207
10.5 Number of collocations based on materials and task descriptions per
words for each text (left) and per 1000 words (right) 214
11.1 The numbers of words in languages other than English in Biographia
Literaria 228
11.2 The ten most quoted authors (in English) in Biographia
Literaria 230
11.3 The numbers of words in passages translated from foreign languages
in Biographia Literaria 231
11.4 The frequencies of most commonly occurring personal and
possessive pronouns in the quotations and Coleridge’s own text in
Biographia Literaria 234

? CHAPACTPECR 1fPTT Ai, TRPURA, fl N u|uUHP l. rm/ iNainnd2NrriN_ nn2 CHAPTER 1
How Many Languages are there in a Monolingual
Corpus?
Arja Nurmi and Tanja Rütten
1 Introduction
The monolingual corpus as a monolithic, single-language database, represen-
tative of the language of likewise monolingual speakers or writers, is a tacit
and probably only half-conscious, but convenient, invention by the corpus
linguist. This is in line with the common societal assumptions of western so-
cieties about “one nation, one language” that rose in France during the revo-
lution, dispersed over the nineteenth century in Europe and have dominated
European thinking ever since. In linguistics this has inevitably resulted in an
emphasis on the analysis of single languages, largely in isolation of each other.
The notable exception from early on is research on language contact, examin-
ing the impact of one independent language system on the lexico-grammatical
structure of another. However, not a single of the world’s just over two hundred
countries is monolingual (Deumert 2011, 262), and depending on our defini-
tion of bi- or multilingualism, it could be argued that the vast majority of the
global population is in fact multilingual (see e.g. Edwards 2006, 7 or Li Wei
2007, 3–11). If we zoom in on Europe alone, a recent survey on Europeans and
their languages carried out by the European Commission indicates that 54% of
the population of EU member states meet the criterion for functional multilin-
gualism, i.e. they are able to hold a conversation also in a language other than
their mother tongue. To take an example from another corner of the world, the
Australian census of 2006 lists 388 languages spoken in the homes of 16.8% of
the population (Deumert 2011, 273). Surely, linguistic realities like these must
have an impact on the authentic language data that corpus compilers store
into their corpora. The question, then, arises: Is multilingualism reflected in
our corpora? If it is, how? And how do we as corpus linguists deal with it?
The question of how we define multilingualism is also relevant here (for the
history of the concept, see e.g. Li Wei 2007). In this volume, multilingualism
is seen, not as the traditional ideal of a balanced bilingual with a command
of two languages that he or she has grown up with, but rather in terms of
the speakers’ linguistic resources and repertoires that originate in multiple
Please provide footnote text

Nurmi and Rütten2
languages, and their ability to apply those resources in their speech or writing.
We see the potential for multilingualism both in individuals and in societies.
Even if we do not necessarily agree with the position of Edwards (2006), who
argues that modern speakers of English who are familiar with such individual
foreign-language words such as tovarich or expressions such as Guten Tag are
multilingual individuals, it is obvious that the definition of multilingualism
should be inclusive of a range of abilities. Perhaps the most inclusive definition
is given by Blommaert (2010, 102), according to whom
[m]ultilingualism  … should not be seen as a collection of ‘languages’ that
the speaker controls, but rather as a complex of specific semiotic resourc-
es, some of which belong to a conventionally defined ‘language’, while
others belong to another ‘language’. The resources are concrete accents,
language varieties, registers, genres, modalities such as writing—ways of
using language in particular communicative settings and spheres of life,
including the ideas people have about such ways of using, their language
ideologies.
Even if we adopted a somewhat more restrictive outlook, remaining in the
sphere of different conventionally defined ‘languages’, we can safely say that
monolingualism as a quality of either individuals or societies has always been
a minority phenomenon. People throughout history have gained command of
more than one language through education, professional contacts, personal
interests, or migration—simply by virtue of living in a multilingual society and
having to find ways to communicate with speakers of other languages. Even a
very basic command of a language allows a speaker or writer to incorporate
elements of it into their communication, i.e. to make use of their multilingual
resources.
By way of experiment, if we turn our attention to a standard corpus of
English, such as the British National Corpus, we can easily find many instances
of multilingual practices that fit in an even stricter definition of multilingual-
ism than that given by Edwards. The following examples were retrieved using
random French, German and Latin phrases, and represent both informative
(1, 3) and imaginative writing (2). Some searches reveal lengthier passages in
another language, like example (1), which implies a considerable conversation-
al fluency in the use of multilingual resources. Some hits occur in contexts that
seem to prompt the use of the relevant language in the communicative situa-
tion, including reported conversations with speakers of other languages, as in
example (2); in such contexts it is common to find several successive expres-
sions in the same language. Again, some degree of competence in more than

3How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
one language can be assumed. Interestingly, the search also reveals instances
like example (3) where multilingualism reflected in the text does not rest on
the speaker’s comprehension of multiple languages, which is a common crite-
rion, used, for example, by Edwards (2006).
(1) After a while he returned, came over to me and, though I half expected a
smack, said, ‘Maintenant, il y a un nouvel relation entre nous. Maintenant
nous serrons camarades.’ We’d done it—(BNC: FS0 1727)
(2) The fräulein smiled and said, ‘Auf wiedersehen.’ Karelius alone used the
old Austrian farewell: ‘Ich küsse die Hand.’ ( BNC: B20 1488)
(3) What puzzles him, and us, is United’s newly disencrusted coat of arms
and its motto ‘ex nihilo, nihil fit.’ I haven’t the faintest what it means (BNC:
K4T 9034)
As is apparent from examples (1)–(3), multilingual practices can also be seen as
multivoiced practices, where quotations can represent the voice of someone
other than the author (1, 3). Such quotations can also perform many of the
same functions regardless of the language used, so that many English elements
bear a resemblance to the French, German and Latin passages illustrated. Such
quotative practices range from literary discussions and academic discourse
conventions to language learning environments, where linguistic items from
textbooks and teaching material are adopted and adapted to the linguistic rep-
ertoire of the learner. In both cases, speakers and writers make use of linguistic
material that, in one sense, can be described as ‘other than their own’ and so
produce a multivoiced text. While these multivoiced practices are not always
multilingual (just as multilingual practices are not necessarily multivoiced),
they bear a great deal of resemblance to multilingual practices, identified both
in spoken language code-switching and written language data, and discussing
them in this context will provide new insight into both phenomena. Figure 1.1
illustrates the relationship of the concepts of multilingual and multivoiced
practices as we conceive them in this volume.
The combination of elements from more than one language, or voice, to a
single communicative episode—whether a conversation or a text—thus ap -
pears much more common than is generally assumed, and may even be the
rule rather than the exception. This point is supported in virtually all contri-
butions collected in the volume at hand, from a historical as well as a pres-
ent-day and cross-cultural perspective. It is also supported by e.g. Mair (2011),
discussing the frequent use of Jamaican Creole in the spoken language of even

Nurmi and Rütten4
educated Jamaican speakers in the ICE-Jamaica corpus. Mair further makes the
point that in corpus-based studies of World Englishes multilingual contexts
have been long ignored, and advocates for a more systematic study of multi
lingualism, both in interactive computer-mediated contexts and in spoken
urban surroundings (2009, 436). On the other hand, recent research on some
corpora compiled for analysing the history of English shows that multilingual
practices are found in written texts from all historical periods (see e.g. Pahta
and Nurmi 2011; see also Pahta et al. in press). So it is time that we addressed
the question of, firstly, just how many languages are there in what we often
assume are monolingual corpora of, say, English, and secondly, how can we
compile corpora that better represent actual language use in contexts where
standard English is just one of the varieties and languages in use?
This volume, then, brings together papers that investigate the presence
of multilingual practices in supposedly monolingual corpora. The corpora
discussed represent a broad range of Englishes and include present-day syn-
chronic varieties of English as well as historical and diachronic perspectives.
Contributions address the corpus compilers’ views as well as the annotators’
and users’ perspectives. Viewpoints range from explicitly multilingual prac-
tices that are consciously taken into consideration in the compilation and an-
notation process to implicitly multi-voiced perspectives, where philological
insight is used in unearthing multilingual practices in what superficially looks
like a monolingual English corpus.
In the next section, we will briefly look at the sociological and language ide-
ological underpinnings of the supposition of monolingualism in corpora (glo-
balisation, superdiversity etc.). Section three presents the guiding questions for
Figure 1.1 Multilingual and multivoiced practices.
Multilingual Multivoiced

5How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
the volume and briefly reviews how individual contributions have answered
them. Assessments range from the perspectives of research on multilingualism
in the traditional sense of the concept to more innovative approaches, where
the notion of multilingualism is extended to voices other than the author’s and
is thus halfway independent of the actual language that is used by the produc-
er of the speech event. Section four rounds up this introduction by discussing
ways to find, distinguish and describe non-English elements in ‘monolingual
corpora’.
2 Monolingualism—Fact or Fiction?
As mentioned above, monolinguals are a minority among the global popula-
tion. Our focus in this volume is on English, hence we discuss the topic from
that perspective, but many of the trends identified in English-speaking coun-
tries can also be seen elsewhere. In many countries different languages live
side by side, are used in different registers and on different occasions. So in
Tanzania, for example, speakers may have one native language they speak at
home, while they are educated in Kiswahili, which is one of the lingua francas
used also for e.g. business encounters. English plays a role in higher education
and administration, and any number of other local languages may form a part
of an individual speaker’s linguistic repertoire (Melchers and Shaw 2011, 136). In
terms of English world-wide, Meshtrie (2006, 482) goes as far as to claim that
in these contexts monolingualism is “the marked case”, while in the current glo-
balising (or globalised) society, the “ideal speaker” encounters the need to draw
on their linguistic resources in order to interact with people from all kinds of
different backgrounds, whether in terms of solidarity or adversity, meeting as
equals or negotiating power hierarchies. The “polyphony of codes/languages”
can be seen as the native language of people in the context of New Englishes,
but, in our view, more and more as the native language of people all over the
world; the growing body of research on urban multilingualism and superdiver-
sity provides ample evidence for this trend (see e.g. Blommaert and Rampton
2011, Creese and Blackledge forthcoming, Meyerhoff and Stanford 2015).
In addition to spoken interaction, multilingual practices are frequently in
evidence in computer-mediated communication. It seems that there are still
many hindrances for writing in non-prestige varieties, such as Jamaican Creole,
in traditional media, unless it is for the purposes of folklore or quoting indi-
vidual speakers. This has changed in e.g. diasporic online forums, where speak-
ers make use of multiple languages and varieties to construct their meanings.
Mair and Pfänder (2013, 541) note that multilingual practices in their data are

Nurmi and Rütten6
not a reflection of poor linguistic skills, but on the contrary they “are almost
exclusively found with forum users who have full command of the normative
varieties of the locally dominant languages and who thus use multilingual
writing as an additional resource”.
Is there any such thing as a monolingual speaker of English? If we consider
the speakers of English in the world and their linguistic resources, it is evident
that the only potentially monolingual group are the speakers of what Kachru
(1985) calls “Inner Circle” Englishes: both the “Outer Circle”, i.e. countries where
English is spoken as a second language used in e.g. administrative and edu-
cational contexts, and the “Expanding Circle”, i.e. the rest of the world where
English is taught as a foreign language, are by definition contexts where speak -
ers of English are largely multilingual. How monolingual then are the speakers
of English in the Inner Circle?
Considering the situation of English-speaking countries, there are obviously
autochthonous linguistic minorities in each and every one of them. (For de-
tails, see e.g. Melchers and Shaw 2011.) In the UK we find speakers of Welsh,
Gaelic and Irish, in Ireland Irish is the national language beside English, in
Canada apart from English and French there are speakers of First Nations
and Inuit languages, and in the USA there are still many Native American and
Alaska native languages. Similarly in Australia, there are speakers of Aboriginal
languages and in New Zealand speakers of Māori. Many of these languages are
endangered to varying degrees, although there are efforts to preserve them.
In addition to the indigenous languages, there are many immigrant languag-
es in each country, the smorgasbord of languages present in any community
depending on the circumstances of migration. Immigrant languages may well
have a long history as well, considering e.g. the centuries of Spanish spoken in
California. The communities of immigrant language speakers may be vitalised
by new waves of migration, keeping the linguistic minorities from being assim-
ilated. On the other hand, even long-standing linguistic minorities may well
preserve some elements of their heritage language, even if they do not speak
the language fluently any more. The numbers of European heritage-language
speakers, especially Italian, German, Hungarian and French show a down-
ward trend in US census data, but there are still approximately a million people
resident in the United States who say they speak German at home (Ryan 2013).
During the history of English, the waves of migrants, particularly Vikings and
Normans, were slowly assimilated to the English-speaking population, but not
without leaving their trace in the shape of English.
If we take one of the Inner Circle countries as an example, we can examine
this situation in all its complexity. In the Irish census of 2011, 41.9% of respon-
dents answered ‘yes’ to the question whether they could speak Irish (Central

7How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
Statistics Office 2012). Given that all children learn both Irish and English at
school, it could be argued that for a less strict interpretation of multilingualism,
most people who have received their schooling in Ireland are multilinguals. In
addition to the two national languages, schools also provide foreign language
teaching in French, German, Spanish and Italian, which is in accordance with
the EU language policy of everyone mastering two other languages in addi-
tion to their mother tongue (COM 2008). The 2011 census included for the first
time also questions on other languages spoken at home, and 11% of residents
reported they spoke a language other than English or Irish at home, the most
common languages being Polish, French and Lithuanian. Of those speaking a
foreign language at home, 6% answered they were not able to speak English
at all. Given all this data, it could be argued that the vast majority of Irish resi-
dents are multilingual to some extent.
As can be seen from the above example, not only do multilingual individu-
als gain their linguistic repertoires in a variety of ways but they also belong
to a variety of different linguistic communities. In Ireland, for example, there
are speakers of Irish living in the Gaeltacht area, where they encounter other
native speakers of Irish and carry out many tasks related to their daily lives in
Irish. At the same time, English is a part of their lives, as it is the overwhelm-
ingly strong language of many areas of life. On the other hand, people who
learn a foreign language at school (whether English in the Expanding Circle
countries today or French or Latin in eighteenth-century England) are typi-
cally members of a far more loosely knit network of speakers.
Multilingual resources can be used for identity-work, marking membership
in a linguistic group, as the Latino population in the United States does when
they mix English and Spanish resources in their speech but also increasingly
writing. Another type of identity-work is found in the Latin phrases found
in the writings of well-educated people throughout the history of English.
There the writers can indicate their own membership in the community of ed-
ucated people but they can also build bridges towards their readership, mark-
ing them as members of the same educated elite. The less educated would
have had fewer linguistic resources in the range of multilingualism, but even
they had access to e.g. Latin as the language of religion, engaging in both multi-
lingual and multivoiced practices when referring to the teachings of the church.
3 Challenging the Myth of Monolingual Corpora
In corpus linguistics, increasing the size, but not necessarily the quality of the
database has been one of the major goals for a long time. Ever bigger databases,

Nurmi and Rütten8
resulting in automatic, web-crawling ‘corpora’ (e.g. in the case of GloWbE)
seemed to be on the top of corpus linguists’ wish lists, and for good reasons. At
the same time, it should be noted that the “small and tidy” and “big and messy”
approaches of corpus compilation and annotation both have their merits (see
e.g. Mair 2006 for a discussion of this). While it is true that corpus enhance-
ment along the lines of automatic tagging and parsing has always been a major
branch of corpus linguistic activity, too, the question of how to deal with non-
English elements in English language corpora has seen considerably less schol-
arly activity. Size does matter, for an assessment of multilingual practices as
well as for nearly everything else, but in order to identify multilingual practices
in the first place, improved annotation is essential, too. And in order to im-
prove annotation schemata, a sound idea of what constitutes a multilingual
element is, of course, a necessary prerequisite.
When discussing the annotation of multilingual elements, the question
of language boundaries comes up. At times, language users clearly flag their
other language elements and their switches from one into another (Poplack
1987). In speech this can take place for example through repetition or meta-
linguistic commentary, but also pauses, hesitation and the mention of the lan-
guage switched into. In writing, similar tendencies can be seen, and in English
historical writings, for example, flagging can take the form of explicit labelling
(that is in Latin), or in the case of foreign-language elements the reader might
not be able to understand easily, the introduction of intratextual translation
or support in English, often highlighted through either verbal (or, i.e., that is
to say) or visual cues (parentheses, italics, underlining) (Nurmi and Skaffari
2016). Elements accompanied with flagging elements like these are easily rec-
ognised as evidence of multilingual practices. Once they are identified in the
text, they are also relatively straight-forward to annotate. There are, however,
also times when speakers and writers deal with their linguistic output in a way
that has been described as translanguaging (see e.g. Otheguy, García and Reid
2015). On these occasions, writers do not pay attention to the boundaries be-
tween languages, but rather treat all their linguistic resources as one pool of
features to draw from in order to communicate their meaning. These instanc-
es may also be occupying the grey area between borrowing and multilingual
practices, as they may fluidly use both domesticated and original spelling, for
example. In present-day spoken Finnish the English adverbial about (in the
sense ‘approximately’) is frequently used. When it is written, the written form
can follow standard English spelling (6), but can also reflect the domesticated
spoken form (e.g. öbaut or abaut in 4 and 5), even in quality newspapers such
as the Helsingin Sanomat.

9How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
(4) “Viime vuoden kesäkuusta tämän vuoden kesäkuuhun työllisten määrä
on kasvanut 33 000:lla. Jos pystyttäisiin pitämään tällainen trendi
vuoteen 2019 asti, oltaisiin 72 prosentin työllisyysasteessa, öbaut”, Sipilä
sanoo. (Helsingin Sanomat 12 August, 2016)
‘“From June last year to June this year the number of the employed has
risen by 33,000. If we could maintain a trend like this until 2019, we would
be at an employment rate of about 72%”, says [Prime Minister] Sipilä.’
(5) Asun tossa abaut sadan metrin päässä Evästiellä. (Helsingin Sanomat
4 November, 1999)
‘I live there about a hundred meters away, in Evästie.’
(6) Se oli about vartti kun äijiltä lähti lapasesta. (@JethroRostedt on Twitter
4 March, 2015)
‘It was about a quarter of an hour before the guys lost it.’
Considering that all spelling and pronunciation variants from Standard English
to variously domesticated Finnish perform the same function in the texts and
maintain the English meaning, trying to pigeon-hole these expressions into
separate categories of code-switching/code-mixing and borrowing would be
not only futile but counterproductive in terms of speakers’ linguistic produc-
tion. This also presents a dilemma for corpus coding. How to deal with such
hybrid elements in-between languages? This is an issue that is particularly of
interest for corpora of more informal language, whether spoken or written, but
since these elements tend to find their way even to the quality newspapers,
initially through interviews and columns, trying to decide on a particular mo-
ment as a cut-off point is difficult without a good understanding of the current
status of any individual linguistic element.
With these issues in mind, the contributions in this volume address the fol-
lowing questions:
1. From a corpus compiler’s view:
What to do with multilingual texts and elements, when compiling a
monolingual corpus? What are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion in
sampling? How does representativeness play into these choices?
2. From a corpus annotator’s view:
How to annotate foreign-language passages in a corpus? Should they be
given a text-level coding, and if so, how detailed? In case of linguistic an-
notation, how should foreign-language elements be dealt with?

Nurmi and Rütten10
3. From a corpus user’s view:
How can we study multilingual practices in monolingual corpora? How
do we approach a corpus, if the foreign-language elements have not been
annotated? How do we deal with questions of representativeness, if the
corpus compilers have not in any way indicated their choices with regard
to multilingual elements? What kinds of results on multilingual practices
can be gained when studying multilingual practices in supposedly mono-
lingual corpora?
For obvious reasons, these three views are often intertwined. For example, the
question of how we can study multilingual practices in a (seemingly monolin-
gual) corpus depends, of course, on the amount of annotation with which the
respective corpus is equipped. In a similar way, the question how detailed an
annotation schema should be depends, amongst other things, on the multilin-
gual practices of the population from which this sample stems.
Consequently, all contributions in this volume consider most, if not all, of
the above questions, but place emphasis on different aspects. Research per-
spectives range from Postcolonial and World Englishes over a range of non-
native and learner Englishes to historical stages of the language. The corpora
described in the individual contributions discuss explicitly multilingual prac-
tices in the traditional sense of the concept as well as more opaque multi-lin-
gual and multi-voiced discourse practices.
Of the papers that discuss explicit multilingual practices in seemingly
monolingual corpora, the opening paper of this volume by Lange reviews how
multilingual practices are documented in the various postcolonial compo-
nents of the International Corpus of English (ICE). In particular, Lange evalu-
ates ICE-India from both a corpus user’s and a corpus compiler’s perspective,
and discusses building a more balanced corpus of Indian English with view
of the multiple native languages influencing the Englishes spoken on the
subcontinent.
In a similarly explicit multilingual context, Onysko and Degani discuss the
selection of texts and informants for a corpus of mono- and bilingual native
speakers of New Zealand English, with the concomitant problems of coding
both background information and text level variation. They also place empha-
sis on the question how cultural meaning can be explored by corpus-linguistic
means, provided the respective annotation schema systematically accounts
for the diversity of multilingual elements in the corpus.
Besides these obvious multilingual contexts provided by postcolonial vari-
eties of English, the myth of monolingual practices also extends to corpora

11How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
compiled to study non-native and learner Englishes, and English as a lingua
franca. These lines are pursued in the three subsequent contributions. First,
Laitinen brings to table a discussion of annotating the multilingual elements
in advanced non-native corpora of English, when the languages used range
from majority languages to traditional minority languages and immigrant
languages.
An explicit learner perspective is pursued in the contribution by Callies
and Wiemeyer, who introduce the Corpus of Academic Learner English (CALE).
Callies and Wiemeyer discuss various approaches to annotating multilin-
gualism and transfer in learner corpora and describe developing an annota-
tion practice for multilingual elements. Their contribution is complemented
by Kreyer’s paper, towards the end of the volume, who discusses multivoiced
practices in learner Englishes, which turn out to be much more implicit than
the phenomena introduced in Callies and Wiemeyer.
Hynninen, Pietikäinen and Vetchinnikova approach English as both a spo-
ken and written lingua franca in academic and private contexts (ELFA and
WrELFA corpora of academic spoken and written ELF). Their focus is on a dis -
cussion of the appearance and functions of multilingual practices in English as
a Lingua Franca. In all three cases, multilingual practices occur quite explicitly
in the data but are dealt with in various ways in both the compilation process
and in the way in which the data were approached to conduct research.
From a diachronic perspective, explicit multilingual practices are discussed
in the contributions by Kohnen, Rütten, and Tyrkkö, Nurmi and Tuominen.
Kohnen presents ideas for building a corpus of commonplace books—
strikingly similar to Laitinen’s present-day corpora of non-native Englishes in
their presentation of often complete texts in one language in a multilingual com-
pilation or environment. From a research-oriented perspective, Kohnen also ex-
plores basic questions of language choice in the genre of commonplace books.
Rütten introduces the annotation schema developed for the Corpus of
English Religious Prose against the background of the long-standing history
of multilingual practices in the religious domain. In addition, she describes
multivoiced practices in the domain, which may or may not be multilingual,
and illustrates how these can be dealt with in the corpus architecture and basic
annotation.
By contrast, Tyrkkö et al. take a turn on (semi-)automated processes of
identifying multilingual elements in an unannotated corpus. In addition to
describing software designed to reliably identify, annotate and analyse foreign
language elements in a historical English corpus, the Corpus of Late Modern
English 3.0 (CLMET 3), Tyrkkö et al. emphasise that multilingual practices

Nurmi and Rütten12
cannot be reduced to binary distinctions, e.g. foreign/English, native/non-na-
tive English, as is often conveniently done. Instead, they show how textual and
cultural context feed into an assessment of multilingual practices.
Against the background of these explicit multilingual practices in syn-
chronic and diachronic corpus linguistics, Kreyer and Kaunisto introduce
more opaque, multivoiced practices. These appear much more implicitly in
corpora, but are strikingly similar to multilingual practices (see also section 2).
Both Kreyer and Kaunisto, and also Rütten in her discussion of the “invisible
hand”, offer different approaches to multivoiced texts, discussing intertextual
elements that represent another speaker’s or writer’s voice in a text, whether
multi- or monolingual. Of these papers, Kreyer seemingly takes the notion of
multilingualism in corpora to its very limits. Turning to learner corpora, Kreyer
discovers the extent to which learner texts are mere copies of source material
in the Marburg Corpus of Intermediate Learner English (MILE). In fact, being
multivoiced in this sense, such learner productions resemble multilingual
practices to a considerable extent. Consequently, Kreyer discusses the types
of mark-up needed to detect such multivoiced practices and provides an il-
lustrative analysis of intermediate learner English in MILE. Kaunisto takes a
corpus user’s perspective and conducts a philological study of Samuel Taylor
Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria, which is one of the files contained in the
Corpus of Late Modern English (CLMET 3), but lacks any form of multilingual
annotation. He shows how severe the influence of multivoiced interference
can be even on high frequency items such as personal pronouns.
All contributions agree that various languages, in varying proportions, ap-
pear alongside with English in the “English” corpora which are investigated in
this volume. Depending on their respective research paradigms, contributors
offer various courses of action for this situation. This highlights the fact that we
may be well advised to rethink our understanding of corpora as monolingual
language data repositories. Also, we need to address the question how to find
and interpret non-English elements.
4 Tracing Multilingual Practices in Supposedly Monolingual Corpora
How does one find, distinguish and describe foreign language elements in
both, corpora that do and corpora that do not flag non-English elements as
such? In theory, there are two general routes one may wish to take here: auto-
matic and manual identification. In the real world, the task is usually a combi-
nation of both.

13How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
In the present volume, Tyrkkö et al. present a semi-automatic approach,
introducing software that identifies non-English elements with considerable
precision. Rütten presents a corpus design that integrates multilingual, and
to a lesser extent also multivoiced, practices into the architecture of the cor-
pus from the start. At the other extreme, the contributions by Kaunisto and
Kohnen proceed from purely philological points of departure, identifying
multilingual elements with the help of scholarly editions and informed philo-
logical knowledge about context (text production, text reception, circulation
etc.). While both approaches will successfully identify non-English elements,
only the latter is able to spot multivoiced elements. The identification of mul-
tivoiced elements is something that might be of interest in corpus research,
and could be at least partly automated in the future, since familiar quotations
could be identified using electronic text repositories, and other flags for mul-
tivoiced elements could be identified (at least the use of quotation marks and
quotative phrases like he/she says and according to).
However, this is a vital challenge in research on multilingual practices, as is
pointed out in several contributions. Hynninen et al. show that even though
corpus compilers may flag a linguistic structure as non-English, this need not
necessarily be the case for the speakers in the actual speech events. Hynninen
et al. look at how code-switches are flagged in discourse and they see a notewor-
thy discrepancy between explicitly flagged code-switches by the speakers and
annotation schemata by compilers that only distinguish English from foreign
elements. While the foreign-tag marks non-English elements, these tags may
say very little as to how code-switches were perceived by the actual speakers.
This, of course, has implications for the assessment of the level of competence
of non-native English speakers and brings in another facet of multilingualism
that may need attendance in the annotation schema.
Along the same lines, Kreyer contrasts materials and task descriptions from
the English language learning environments with students’ textual produc-
tions. His findings indicate that even advanced learners show one third of
their collocations as originating from the materials/task descriptions. Again,
this not only has implications for the assessment of language competence and
idiomaticity, but points to yet another issue to be taken into consideration in
annotating supposedly monolingual material.
Far from being able to resolve these matters within the two covers of this
book, we hope that bringing these issues into focus will help to rethink the
widely accepted notion of ‘the monolingual corpus’ and to be able to better
fine-tune into text samples, knowing that much can be expected that is not the
voice, or language, of the author.

Nurmi and Rütten14
References
Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blommaert, Jan and Ben Rampton. 2011. “Language and Superdiversity.” Diversities 13/2:
1–22.
Central Statistics Office. 2012. This is Ireland. Highlights from Census 2011, Part 1. Dublin:
Stationary Office.
COM. 2008. “Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment.”
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Creese, Angela and Adrian Blackledge, eds. forthcoming. The Routledge Handbook of
Language and Superdiversity. London and New York: Routledge.
Deumert, Ana. 2011. “Multilingualism.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics,
edited by Rajend Mesthrie, 261–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, John. 2006. “Foundations of Bilingualism. In The Handbook of Bilingualism,
edited by Teij K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie, 7–31. Oxford: Blackwell.
European Commission. 2012. Europeans and their Languages. Special Eurobarometer
386. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf.
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. “Standards, Codification, and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English
Language in the Outer Circle.” In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the
Language and the Literature, edited by Randolph Quirk and H. G. Widdowson,
11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li Wei. 2007. “Dimensions of Bilingualism.” In The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li
Wei, 3–22. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Mair, Christian. 2006. “Tracking Ongoing Grammatical Change and Recent
Diversification in Present-day Standard English: The Complementary Role of Small
and Large Corpora.” In The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics, edited by Antoinette
Renouf and Andrew Kehoe, 355–376. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Mair, Christian. 2009. “Corpus Linguistics Meets Sociolinguistics: Studying Educated
Spoken Usage in Jamaica on the Basis of the International Corpus of English (ICE).”
In World Englishes: Problems, Properties, Prospects, edited by Lucia Siebers and
Thomas Hoffmann, 39–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mair, Christian. 2011. “Corpora and the New Englishes: Using the ‘Corpus of Cyber-
Jamaican’ (CCJ ) to Explore Research Perspectives for the Future.” In A Taste for
Corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger, edited by Fanny Meunier, Sylvie De Cock,
Gaëtanelle Gilquin and Magalie Paquot, 209–236. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mair, Christian and Stefan Pfänder. 2013. “Vernacular and Multilingual Writing in
Mediated Spaces: Web Forums for Post-colonial Communities of Practice.” In Space

15How Many Languages are There in a Monolingual Corpus?
in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives,
edited by Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi,
529–556. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Melchers, Gunnel and Philip Shaw. 2011. World Englishes. 2nd edition. London: Hodder
Education.
Meshtrie, Rajend. 2006. “Society and Language: Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics, Vol. 11, edited by Keith Brown, 472–484. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Meyerhoff, Miriam and James N. Stanford. 2015. “ ‘Tings Change, All Tings Change’:
The Changing Face of Sociolinguistics with a Global Perspective.” In Globalising
Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory, edited by Dick Smakman and
Patrick Heinrich, 1–15. London and New York: Routledge.
Nurmi, Arja and Janne Skaffari. 2016. “Whiche is in Englisshe tong—Managing Latin
in English.” Paper presented at the International Conference on English Historical
Linguistics (ICEHL-19), Essen, August 22–26.
Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García and Wallis Reid. 2015. “Clarifying Translanguaging
and Deconstructing Named Languages: A Perspective from Linguistics.” Applied
Linguistics Review 6/3: 281–307.
Pahta, Päivi and Arja Nurmi. 2011. “Multilingual Discourse in the Domain of Religion in
Medieval and Early Modern England: A Corpus Approach to Research on Historical
Code-switching.” In Code-switching in Early English, edited by Herbert Schendl and
Laura Wright, 219–251. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pahta, Päivi, Janne Skaffari and Laura Wright, eds. in press. Multilingual Practices in
Language History: English and Beyond. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Poplack, Shana. 1987. “Contrasting Patterns of Code-switching in Two Communities.”
In Aspects of Multilingualism, edited by Erling Wande, Jan Anward, Bengt Nordberg,
Lars Steensland and Mats Thelander, 51–77. Uppsala: Borgströms.
Ryan, Camille. 2013. Language Use in the United States: 2011. American Community
Survey Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

5 CHAPACTPECR 2fPTT Af, TRPlRA, fiGr e|elHP Gi.GGnb/ aruamm12rnnar_ mmb CHAPTER 2
Indian English or Indian Englishes? Accounting
for Speakers’ Multilingual Repertoires in Corpora
of Postcolonial Englishes
Claudia Lange
1 Introduction
When the late Sidney Greenbaum (1988, 315) published his “proposal for an
international computerized corpus of English”, he set off a flurry of activity
whose momentum has continued unabated well into the twenty-first century.
The original proposal called for an extension of
the scope for computerized comparative studies in three ways: (1) to
sample standard varieties from other countries where English is the first
language, for example Canada and Australia; (2) to sample national vari-
eties from countries where English is an official additional language, for
example India and Nigeria; and (3) to include spoken and manuscript
English as well as printed English.
Greenbaum 1988, 315
Thus began the success story of the ICE-project, which has provided the
international scholarly community with an invaluable tool for investigating
variation and change across varieties of English and which has placed many
Postcolonial Englishes (PCEs) on the research agenda for the first time.
In a later progress report, Greenbaum (1990, 81) elaborated on the first two
points listed in his original proposal, noting that “[t]he change in expression
from standard varieties to national varieties is not an attempt at elegant varia-
tion”. He, unlike Quirk (1990), envisaged a continuum between standard (i.e.
native) varieties and national varieties in countries where English is an L2
(i.e. non-native).1 What we find juxtaposed here are standard and standard-
izing varieties, with Indian English (IndE) as a prime candidate for the latter:
1 Cf. Lange (2012, 24–32) for a discussion of the debate between Quirk and Kachru on the topic.

17Indian English or Indian Englishes?
[…] it is from India that we have the clearest evidence of the internal
status of the English spoken by indigenous educated people […] Among
the countries where English is not a native language, India comes closest
to a situation in which a new distinctive standard language will emerge.
Greenbaum 1990, 81
Greenbaum thus explicitly acknowledges that L2 Englishes can develop an
endonormative standard, a position which contrasts sharply with Quirk’s
insistence at the time that only native varieties can have—and set—standards.
In retrospect, this particular aspect of the ICE-project rationale as articulated
by Greenbaum has received overwhelming support, both theoretically by
Edgar Schneider’s Dynamic Model of the evolution of Postcolonial Englishes
(Schneider 2007), and empirically by the development of varieties such as
Singapore English, which is generally considered a fully matured variety in its
own right (cf. Schröter 2012, 563).
In 1990, Greenbaum clearly did not expect to encounter much difference
between L1 and L2 countries with respect to sampling and corpus compilation:
The standard language, as elsewhere, would tend to be non-regional and
represent the consensus of educated speakers. It has been argued that
English in India constitutes a continuum of competence in language, but
of course a similar continuum of competence is observable in native-
speaker countries.
Greenbaum 1990, 82
This expectation changed slightly once the first actual corpus projects took
off and the first reports from corpus compilers collecting data in multilingual
speech communities came in (in Greenbaum 1996). After all, PCEs are only
one ingredient of the linguistic repertoires in those highly multilingual speech
communities where they are typically spoken, which creates a host of practical
as well as theoretical challenges for the creation of a (supposedly) monolingual
corpus of English, especially when informal spoken registers are concerned.
Multilingual speakers may simply not choose English as the language of infor-
mal conversation or resort to stilted exchanges when asked to “speak English”
for the sake of the corpus compilers. Another important methodological point
concerns the sampling and documentation of a speech community’s linguistic
repertoire in which English is embedded: in how far does the choice of speak-
ers contributing to the corpus reflect the typological diversity in the area under
discussion? This question is highly salient from two different perspectives, as
will be demonstrated with respect to ICE-India and Indian English: first of all,

Lange18
Indian speakers of English themselves typically do not believe that there is
an entity which deserves the label ‘Indian English’ rather than, say ‘Marathi
English’ or ‘Tamil English’, thus highlighting the potential substrate influence
on Indian English(es). Secondly, in order to be able to tackle the question of
substrate influence, we have to find a way of representing the enormous lin-
guistic diversity that characterises India.
This paper, then, will review in how far these questions have been addressed
in the compilation of ICE-India and will sketch how they might be taken into
account in compiling a corpus of spoken Indian English in the twenty-first
century. To do so, I will first give an overview of how individual ICE-teams
have risen to the challenge(s) of multilingualism, with special emphasis on the
Indian context. I will then continue to focus on multilingual India and IndE
and outline the repercussions that the Indian communicative space has had
for contact linguistics, specifically the framework established by Thomason
(2001). Finally, I will outline how a new corpus of Indian English might look
like, one that captures English as an integral ingredient of speakers’ multilin-
gual repertoires.
2 ICE and Postcolonial Englishes
The volume Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English
(Greenbaum 1996) delineated the scope of the ICE-project, providing both an
overview of the general aims and principles as well as the first ‘field reports’,
so to say. Of the four ICE-projects dedicated to multilingual communities that
were represented in the book, two have been finalised by the original teams,
namely ICE-East Africa (Schmied 1996) and ICE-Hong Kong (Bolt and Bolton
1996). The other two projects, covering Nigeria and Fiji, have moved on to the
‘ICE-Age 2’: ICE-Nigeria was taken up by a new team in 2007 and released in
2014, while ICE-Fiji is still in the making (cf. ICAME Journal 34), again by a dif-
ferent team.
Some common concerns emerged in the creation of the ‘ICE-Age 1’-
corpora dealing with English as a ‘national’ language in Greenbaum’s sense,
that is, with English as a former colonial language with quite different degrees
of entrenchment in the individual countries. The challenges to be faced when
compiling a corpus of English in a multilingual setting are best documented
for ICE-East Africa; unfortunately, little is known about the compilation of
e.g. ICE-Singapore or ICE-Philippines—neither the corpus manuals nor other
scholarly articles provide further information. I will focus on three aspects: the

19Indian English or Indian Englishes?
choice of speakers/contributors, the position of English in multilingual com-
municative spaces, and the representation of linguistic diversity.
2.1 Choice of Speakers
As already mentioned above, the ICE-project was to sample standar d(izing)
varieties of English, where ‘standard English’ was to emerge from the usage of
speakers/contributors:
The authors and speakers of the texts are aged 18 or above, were educat-
ed through the medium of English, and were either born in the country
in whose corpus they are included, or moved there at an early age and
received their education through the medium of English in the country
concerned (http://ice-corpora.net/ice/design.htm).
Such a criterion, while general and innocent enough for countries such as the
UK, raises a host of problems for postcolonial countries. Janet Holmes’ (1996,
164) question “Who counts as a New Zealander?”, or more specifically “At what
point does an immigrant become a New Zealander?” highlighted the fact that
many postcolonial societies especially in the Asia-Pacific region are character-
ized by relatively recent large-scale immigration, or rather population move-
ment in general. Contributors to the ICAME Journal special issue on “ICE-Age
2” note that educated speakers from e.g. Sri Lanka or Fiji typically receive their
tertiary education abroad, spending long stretches of time outside their home
countries and being exposed to other international varieties of English. Such
speakers were excluded from ICE-NZ, a decision that turned out to be impracti-
cal for e.g. ICE-Fiji:
The restriction should rather be that at least not the entire higher edu-
cation should have been acquired abroad, and that the authors should
not have gained several degrees while staying overseas. We also allow for
authors spending some time of the year abroad and writing from abroad,
as long as they did not leave the country in the formative years before
the age of 18. This more relaxed perspective is closer to the reality of the
educated speaker of acrolectal Fiji English.
Biewer, Hundt and Zipp 2010, 7
Another point concerns the requirement of English-medium education: given
this criterion, the current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, would be
excluded since he attended a rural Gujarati-medium school. English-medium

Lange20
education in India effectively acts as a caste marker, a given for the affluent
upper middle class but largely out of reach for the majority of the population,
especially in rural areas. Modi’s home state Gujarat was in fact found to be the
one where pupils in rural areas stand the least chance of acquiring English:
Graddol (2010, 117) quotes from the ASER report from 2010 (Annual Status of
Education Report), which found that less than 25% of rural Gujarati children
in class 8 are able to read and understand simple sentences in English (as
opposed to e.g. over 75% in Kerala and the Northeastern states). Overall, access
to education in India has been steadily improved, but English-medium educa-
tion must have been even more exclusive at the time when data collection for
ICE-India began. Therefore, “[t]he category of ‘conversations’ are drawn largely
from the trained ELT teachers, though they have not been educated in the
medium of English at all levels” (Shastri 2002, 2), a decision which acknowl-
edges the range and depth of English in India at the time (cf. Lange 2007).
Recent phenomena such as transnationalism and superdiversity (Vertovec
2007) are likely to complicate the question ‘who counts as a speaker of X’
even further: multilingualism and multilingual speakers are moving from the
periphery to the centre, entering and transforming the Western—largely
monolingual—mainstream while frequently upholding their ties to South
Asia. Indian English has become a global language, spoken in the diaspora
by NRIs (non-resident Indians) from quite different backgrounds: unskilled
labourers working on construction sites in Dubai, highly qualified students
pursuing a postdoc in the US, or third-generation British Asians in Greater
London. Sharma’s (2011) research on the latter group has shown how skilfully
young British Asians exploit their linguistic repertoire (comprising British
Standard English, London English and Indian English features) in social
interaction, negotiating their distinct multicultural identities along the way.
The volume edited by Hundt and Sharma (2014) pays tribute to the global
spread of Indian English, detailing how and where IndE entered another com-
municative space as a minority language and documenting some of the lin-
guistic consequences of these contact scenarios. These emergent diasporic
dialects of Indian English are quite likely to have an impact on IndE spoken in
India. However, more fieldwork would be needed to capture the transnational
ties of IndE diasporic communities as a prerequisite for an analysis in terms of
social networks.
2.2 The Scope of English in Multilingual Societies
The discussion above referred to multilingualism on an individual level
by focussing on speakers’ competence in English. Speakers’ exposure to
and familiarity with English is also a function of societal multilingualism:

21Indian English or Indian Englishes?
researchers need to be aware of the parameters which structure the communi-
cative space of a given speech community. Which roles are assigned to individ-
ual languages, which domains are generally reserved for a specific language?
Schmied (1996) gives a vivid description of the linguistic division of labour that
typically occurs in multilingual speech communities:
In Tanzania, for instance, it would sound very strange if grandparents
were addressed in English (even if they understood the language, which
is unlikely). As the transmission of cultural values, a major function of
grandparent-grandchildren interaction, is firmly linked to first languages,
English is highly inappropriate in such contexts. The vast majority of the
direct conversations in ICE- GB would simply not be conducted in English:
all the family conversations (e.g. S1A-007) and mealtime conversations
(e.g. S1A-056) would be too exceptional to be included in an African or
Asian corpus of English. In most ESL cultures the use of English would
be considered rude in such contexts, as the older members of the family
might be excluded because of their lack of language skills.
Schmied 1996, 186–87
English in postcolonial societies typically correlates with the formal end of
the communicative spectrum, sometimes even with the H(igh)-language in
a diglossic situation:2 the vernacular languages (L(ow)-languag e(s)) have less
prestige, are acquired informally at home and are used for informal and mostly
spoken interaction, while the H-language is acquired formally in educational
settings, has more prestige and is typically the language used for official/admin-
istrative purposes. Collecting written texts in English for an ICE-project thus
becomes much less of a demanding task than recording a natural conversation
in English, as the quote above illustrates. Whether English is used in informal
interaction will also depend on societal multilingualism. For example, Bolt and
Bolton (1996, 200) noted that “in this overwhelmingly Cantonese-speaking city”
of Hong Kong, speakers would only engage in an English conversation if non-
Cantonese speakers were present. In multilingual India the situation would be
quite different: the second official language and neutral link language English
would be the natural choice as soon as speakers of more than one indigenous
language come together.
2 ‘Diglossia’ as originally conceptualized by Ferguson (1959) referred to the functional sepa-
ration of two varieties of the same language (e.g. Classical Arabic vs. present-day national
varieties of Arabic). Since then, the concept has been extended to multilingual contexts.

Lange22
2.3 Representing Linguistic Diversity
The discussion of how to capture a representative sample of the English-
speaking population has largely been dominated by the social question:
habitual speakers of English in most postcolonial societies typically cluster in
the higher social classes. Less attention has been paid to sampling the typologi-
cal diversity of speakers’ other languages. ICE-East Africa was the first of the
first generation PCE corpora to provide metadata which include information
about speakers’ mother tongues. Table 2.1 provides an overview of the range
of speaker-related information that is distributed with the respective corpora.
The ICE-Age 2 corpora all offer metadata, sometimes including the label ‘eth-
nicity’ rather than ‘mother tongue’.
The patchy sociolinguistic information about speakers is unfortunate, as it
precludes a variationist perspective on PCEs. It also prevents us from probing
deeper into the motivation for specific innovations in PCEs. Typical lines of
reasoning when confronted with divergence in form, function or frequency
of a specific form make recourse to the following:
(a) Historical retention: a PCE feature which diverges from current usage
in the historical input variety (mostly BrE) may reflect an older stage of
the language that has since been lost. Mesthrie (2006) has further drawn
attention to the fact that the ‘historical input variety’ was much more
heterogeneous than tacitly assumed: many of the sailors, settlers, traders,
missionaries, soldiers and teachers who interacted with the indigenous
population in the colonies spoke an array of nonstandard and/or regional
dialects (Mesthrie 2006, 278–86). This point clearly plays no role as far as
current corpus compilation is concerned.3
(b) Universals of second language acquisition: the late Braj Kachru was
instrumental in establishing PCEs as varieties in their own right rather
than learner Englishes riddled with ‘deviations’. Still, PCEs in many con-
texts were and are “taught (as L2), rather than ‘caught’ (as L1)” (Mesth-
rie 2010, 596), which brings universal mechanisms of second language
acquisition (SLA) into the range of explanatory parameters. Processes
such as simplification/regularization or redundant/explicit marking
have been identified to play a role both in SLA and in PCE innovations;
lists of relevant processes have been drawn up by e.g. Williams (1987) or
3 A diachronic corpus project interested in reconstructing variation in the historical input to
IndE will find a host of unpublished private papers, letters and other documents related to
members of the East India Company in the British Library (http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/
indiaofficeselect/welcome.asp).

23Indian English or Indian Englishes?
more recently Schneider (2012). The recent emphasis on “bridging the
paradigm gap” (Mukherjee and Hundt 2011, already proposed in Sridhar
and Sridhar 1986) is bound to yield important insights for the study of
PCEs.
(c) Language contact: Substrate influence or language contact as motivat-
ing factor always looms large, but is highly difficult to substantiate once
we move beyond the realm of loanwords. Thomason (2010) provides a
Table 2.1 Overview of ICE-corpora and their sampling of speakers’ metadataICE-
Corpus
Data
collection
Corpus
release
Speaker
data: age
Speaker
data: gender
Speaker data:
education
Speaker data:
languages
Speaker
data: other
ICE-GB1990s 1998yes yes yes
(secondary,
university)
n.a. occupation:
yes
ICE-India1992–19962002yes yes yes
(secondary;
graduate;
MA/MPhil;
PhD)
yes occupation:
yes
ICE-HK 1990s 2006no no no no no
ICE-SIN 1990s 2002no no no no no
ICE-EA 1991–19961999yes yes partiallypartiallyno
ICE-PHIL 1991–20022004yes yes yes
(undergrad.;
BA/LL.B./BS;
Master’s/
MA/MS;
PhD/MD/DD)
yes occupation:
yes
ICE-NIG from 20072014yes yes no no occupation:
partially (if
known)
ethnicity: yes
ICE-CAN1990s 2009yes yes yes yes occupation:
yes
ethnicity: yes

Lange24
deceptively straightforward plan of action to identify contact-induced
language change:
The first requisite is to consider the proposed receiving language (let’s
call it B) as a whole, not a single piece at a time […] Second, identify a
source language (call it A). […] Third, find some shared features in A and
B. […] Fourth, prove that the features are old in A—that is, prove that the
features are not innovations in A. And fifth, prove that the features are
innovations in B, that is, that they did not exist in B before B came into
close contact with A.
Thomason 2010, 34
Contact-induced language change in PCEs might not only be difficult to prove,
it has even been ruled out entirely as the major motivating factor: since there
are a number of recurring innovations in PCEs across the Anglophone world
(e.g. article omission, mass nouns as count nouns), a contact explanation
appears highly unlikely in the face of many hundred typologically very distinct
background languages. However, I have argued elsewhere (Lange 2012, 237–39)
that at least in India, Thomason’s second requirement for proving language
contact, namely pinning down a specific source language, may be conceptual-
ized differently. I will elaborate on this point in the next chapter; suffice it to
say in this context that metadata should always make reference to speakers’
full linguistic repertoire.
3 Multilingual India
The Indian subcontinent is home to a large number of languages from typo-
logically quite different language families. Figure 2.1 displays the geographi-
cal range of the language families represented across South Asia as a whole;
Table 2.2 presents the most recent available Indian census data for the indi-
vidual language families and their number of speakers.4
The combined information from map and table points to an inverse rela-
tionship between number of speakers and number of languages: while the
Indo-Aryan language family is the one with the highest number of speakers,
4 The Munda languages displayed in the map belong to the Austro-Asiatic language family and
are not treated separately in the Census data. Burushaski is a language isolate. The figure of
0.02% for speakers of English may come as a surprise, but is due to the fact that the census
tables on language are concerned with speakers’ mother tongues, not their other languages.

25Indian English or Indian Englishes?
Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burmese comprise the largest number of individual
languages, albeit with the lowest percentage of speakers. The number of lan-
guages in these families would be even higher were it not for the Census policy
Figure 2.1 South Asian language families.
BASED ON UN CARTOGRAPHIC SECTION MAP OF SOUTHASIA FROM 2011.
Burushaski
Dravidian
Indo-Aryan
Iranian
Munda
Other Austro-Asiatic
Tibeto-Burman
SRI LANKA
Arabian Sea Bay of Bengal
INDIAN OCEAN
MYANMAR
CHINA
CHAPTE
PTR2f2fPTE
AlCff2fPTE
PAifGfE2fPTE
CTEreTnffH
INDIA
AFGHANISTAN
PAKIS
T
A
N
N
E
P
A
L
A
n
d
a
m
a
n

S
e
a
L
a
c
c
a
d
i
v
e

S
e
a
0 200 400 600 km
0 200 400 mi

Lange26
of ignoring languages with less than 10,000 speakers and of subsuming ‘mother
tongues’ under an abstract concept of ‘language’. What is not immediately
apparent is that even though the Indo-Aryan (IA) languages are dominant,
not even the most widely spoken IA language, Hindi, is spoken by an absolute
majority of the population. Further, no Indian federal state is monolingual: the
percentages of minority language speakers in Indian states who do not claim
the official state language as their mother tongue ranges from 4.01% in Kerala
via 18.36% in Delhi to as much as 86.07% in Nagaland (Mallikarjun 2004).
From the perspective of the average European monolingual person, the sheer
diversity of the Indian linguistic landscape appears staggering. However, the
national ethos of ‘Unity in Diversity’ is also reflected in the degree of con-
vergence and mutual exchange between languages. The contact situation
between speakers of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages has persisted for
millennia and serves as a prime example for a Sprachbund (cf. Emeneau 1956;
Masica 1976).5 India further represents a puzzling case for researchers who are
accustomed to Western notions of linguistic standardization: the impetus for
standardizing a vernacular European language was and is invariably correlated
5 Current research increasingly focuses on ‘microlinguistic areas’, cf. the special issue of the
2015 Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2/1.
Table 2.2 Typological distribution of the 122 scheduled and non-scheduled languages of India
in the 2001 census (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_
Online/ Language/statement9.htm)
Language families Number of
Languages
Persons who returned
the languages as their
mother tongue
Percentage
to total
population
1. Indo-European
(a) Indo-Aryan 21 790,627,060 76.87
(b) Iranian 2 22,774 0.00
(c) Germanic [i.e. English]1 226,449 0.02
2. Dravidian 17 214,172,874 20.82
3. Austro-Asiatic 14 11,442,029 1.11
4. Tibeto-Burmese 66 10,305,026 1.00
5. Semito-Hamitic [i.e. Arabic]1 51,728 0.01
Total 122 1,026,847,940 99.83

27Indian English or Indian Englishes?
with literacy; standard languages are by definition written languages (cf.
Haugen 1966). In India, however, a vast body of knowledge was passed on
orally from generation to generation in a highly codified form, namely in Sans-
krit. While the earliest texts of the Rigveda date back to around 1500 BC, Sanskrit
was first committed to writing around 150 AD (cf. Masica 1993, 50–55). Sans-
krit grammars, again composed and transmitted orally, did not acknowledge
typological diversity and contact, or historical development. It was left to the
European colonizers to spell out the historical trajectories of Sanskrit and suc-
cessive Indo-Aryan languages, following the foundational moment of histor-
ical-comparative linguistics, i.e. Sir William Jones’ famous pronouncement
in 1786 on the similarities between Sanskrit and European languages. In 1816,
Francis Whyte Ellis delivered the “Dravidian Proof” (Trautmann 2006), arguing
for the first time that Indo-Aryan and Dravidian were separate language fami-
lies, and that their similarities were due to longstanding contact.
Contact between English and Indian languages goes back to the seventeenth
century when the first traders of the British East India Company (EIC) arrived,
but became more intense from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards,
when more and more educational institutions including universities were
established by the British. The ‘Great Indian Education Debate’ (cf. Zastoupil
and Moir 1999) at the time centered around the medium of instruction:
Orientalists favoured the study and teaching of Indian languages, Anglicists
were in favour of English for imparting Western education. Thomas Babington
Macaulay as the most prominent Anglicist delivered his famous and much-
quoted “Minute on Education” in 1835,6 paving the way for English as the lan-
guage which granted access to Western education and thus also to upward
social mobility within the colonial apparatus.
In present-day India, there are still occasional reflexes of a colonial cringe
with respect to English, but the importance of the language for the Indian
communicative space remains unchallenged. The Indian constitution names
Hindi as the first and English as the second official language of the Union,
English is the official language in some of the highly multilingual northeastern
states, and it is the national link language which bridges the gap between the
northern Hindi belt and the southern Dravidian area. To repeat: the figure of
0.02% speakers of English in Table 2.2 above is misleading when it comes to an
estimate of the number of proficient speakers of English in India, since it only
represents those speakers who report English as their mother tongue, not as
a second language. The 2001 census also documented the extent of multilin-
gualism and found that 10.4% or around 126 million people reported to speak
6 Cf. Zastoupil and Moir (1999, 161–73) for the full text of the Minute.

Lange28
English as a second or third language (Graddol 2010, 66). David Crystal (2008)
raises the figures even higher; he reports on his impromptu survey among
Indian colleagues:
Although answers varied greatly, depending on the levels of English
assumed, most people thought that around a third of the population were
these days capable of carrying on a domestic conversation in English.
[…] Given that India’s population is now well over a billion, this meant
a total of around 350 million people—more than the combined English-
speaking populations of the leading first-language countries.
Crystal 2008, 5
On the one hand, then, India with its extensive linguistic diversity and its
grassroots multilingualism should be a paradise for contact linguists. This di-
versity, on the other hand, poses significant challenges for theories of language
contact. The special Indian case is both explicitly and implicitly mentioned in
the model originally put forward by Thomason and Kaufman (1988) and later
endorsed by Thomason in numerous publications (e.g. Thomason 2001; 2003;
2010). Thomason’s model gives pride of place to social factors: it is the intensity
coupled with the duration of contact which propels contact-induced language
change, eventually even overriding typological constraints on borrowing. Two
main types of contact scenarios are recognized in her model, depending on
the presence versus the absence of full, or at least extensive, fluency in the
recipient language. That is, the crucial factor is whether the people who
introduce the interference features speak the language into which the
features are introduced—or, in other words, whether imperfect learning
plays a role in the interference process.
Thomason 2003, 691
The scenario where imperfect language learning plays no role gives rise to
borrowing, as spelled out in Thomason’s well-known Borrowing Scale (e.g.
Thomason 2001, 70–71). Borrowing thus occurs when balanced bilinguals
introduce elements from a surrounding language into their own (and vice
versa). The Borrowing Scale predicts a hierarchy of borrowable features: the
first items to be borrowed will be non-basic lexical items. Greater intensity of
contact might lead to the borrowing of structural features, to the extent that
“anything goes”, given the appropriate social conditions. By contrast, if the
contact scenario is characterized by imperfect language learning by a group of
speakers, these speakers will incorporate features from their original language

29Indian English or Indian Englishes?
into the newly acquired target language (TL). Thomason labels this process
shift-induced interference and predicts that these incorporated features will be
primarily phonological and syntactic rather than lexical (cf. Thomason 2003,
691). Prominent examples for varieties of English which were shaped by shift-
induced interference are Irish English and South African Indian English (cf.
Mesthrie 1992). Even though English and Irish Gaelic were in contact in Ireland
for centuries, it was only in the nineteenth century that the Gaelic-speaking
population shifted to English, incorporating syntactic features of Gaelic into
the emerging Irish variety of English. Irish English is thus truly a language shift
variety in the sense that it involved the large-scale loss of the speech communi-
ty’s original language. However, Thomason points out that imperfect language
learning does not necessarily trigger language shift, just as language contact is
only a necessary, but never a sufficient condition for language change. In her
earlier monograph, Thomason (2001) explicitly referred to India in elaborating
on the notion of ‘shift-induced interference’:
It is important to keep in mind that imperfect learning in this context
does not mean inability to learn, or even lack of sufficient access to the
TL to permit full learning: learners must surely decide sometimes, con-
sciously or unconsciously, to use features that are not used by native
speakers of the TL. Another point that must be made emphatically is that
this type of interference can occur without language shift. In India, for
instance, there is a variety of English known as ‘Indian English’ that has
numerous interference features of this type from indigenous languages
of India; Indian English is spoken by many educated Indians who speak
other languages natively, so although it is a variety that is characteristic
of one country, it is not, strictly speaking, a variety formed under shift
conditions.
Thomason 2001, 74
IndE and PCEs in general thus exemplify ‘shift-induced interference with-
out language shift’, so to say: the effect of imperfect learning can be traced in
speakers’ L2, even in the absence of language shift. The phonology of Indian
English provides a case in point, both with respect to prosody and the realiza-
tion of individual phonemes: “the rules of accentuation of IndE are closer to
those of Indian languages than to those of RP ” (Gargesh 2004, 1000), and the
“dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ are non-existent in IndE” (Gargesh 2004, 998),
generally realized as aspirated dental plosives since the “dental sound is pres-
ent in Indian languages and therefore it is easier in terms of articulation for
speakers to replace the fricative” (Sailaja 2009, 21).

Lange30
Thomason suggests to continue using the term for want of an alternative,
urging readers to keep her caveats in mind and to gracefully overlook the
term’s “literal inaccuracy” (Thomason 2003, 693). Her reminder that ‘imperfect
learning’ should not be taken to indicate failure in mastering the target lan-
guage is also highly relevant for postcolonial countries. ‘Interference features’
may become sociolinguistic indicators for an emerging national variety, being
appropriated as markers of identity vis-à-vis both neighbouring varieties and
the global mainstream.
Yet another of Thomason’s caveats bears directly on the Indian scenario. Her
model abstracts away from multilingual contact situations, but in convergence
areas such as India, “more than two languages may be involved, with varying
mixes of borrowing and shift-induced interference going on at more or less
the same time” (Thomason 2003, 693). To trace the transfer of a specific fea-
ture from a clearly demarcated source language to a clearly demarcated target
language appears to be next to impossible in multilingual India; any account
for a specific feature in terms of contact would be rendered pointless, or at
least highly speculative. However, the very fact that the Indian communicative
space has been characterized by convergence for millennia entails that some
linguistic features have spread beyond their source languages. It can then
be left to scholars of (Proto-) Dravidian and (Proto-) Indo-Aryan to reconstruct
the precise origin of a specific feature before it became integrated into other
Indian languages; the linguist out to prove that language contact triggered a
specific innovation has to show that the feature in question occurs in languag-
es across India. This approach would work well if the goal is to account for
innovations in IndE as a national variety in the ICE-sense, i.e. a variety which
is “non-regional and represent[s] the consensus of educated speakers”, to come
back to Greenbaum’s definition as quoted above. An IndE contact feature that
can only be traced back to either Dravidian or Indo-Aryan languages would
stand less of a chance to eventually become part of an emerging IndE stan-
dard. Still, a new corpus of IndE should strive to include speakers whose other
languages encompass the whole range of linguistic diversity to be found in
India, as I will argue in the next section.
4 Indian English in the Twenty-First Century
The start of the Indian ICE-project in the early 1990s coincided with the intro -
duction of momentous and far-reaching changes to Indian society as a whole.
From 1991 onwards, the then Indian government embarked upon a course
of liberalisation and deregulation of the economy, dismantling the “permits,

31Indian English or Indian Englishes?
licences and subsidy raj” (Bose and Jalal 2004, 189) and exposing “the central-
ized monolith” (Bose and Jalal 2004, 190) to the impact of globalisation. The
winners of this economic development are the growing numbers of the Indian
middle class. A report on The Great Indian Middle Class published by the
National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) in 2004 set the tone
for its introductory chapter on the “Middle Class Rising” as follows:
Currently estimated at just a little over 57 million people, the Indian
Middle Class has grown almost two-and-a half times since 1995–96 when
it was around 25 million […] With the fastest growth in income levels
between 1995–96 and 2001–02 taking place in urban areas, 64 per cent
of the Indian Middle Class is to be found in urban areas, up from under
58 in 1995–96. Though the largest concentration of the middle class is
to be found in northern and western India […], the fastest growth has
taken place in southern India. By 2005–06, the middle class is projected
to cross 92 million, and with growth expected to accelerate, by 2009–10,
the middle class is likely to be around 153 million […].
NCAER 2004, 1
Middle class Indians born in the 1990s have an altogether different exposure to
English than their parent generation, both quantitatively and qualitatively: if
they have not attended an English-medium school themselves, they are highly
likely to contribute to the growing demand for private education and to send
their children to a private English-medium institution rather than a govern-
ment school. “English-knowing bilingualism”, the language policy adopted for
Singapore, effectively turns into an “English-knowing multilingualism” for a
considerable portion of the younger urban population across India. This ac-
celerating spread of English is not limited to India:
Times have changed, and the status and spread of English in Asia have
changed substantially: ‘English is exploding in Asia’ […]. No doubt this
is the world region where the number of speakers of English is increas-
ing most rapidly, and dynamic developments are more pronounced than
anywhere else on the globe.
Schneider 2014, 249
Younger Indian speakers who grew up with IndE in their linguistic repertoire
are thus prime candidates to illustrate Thomason’s notion of ‘shift-induced
interference without language shift’ in their everyday multilingual commu-
nicative behavior. These speakers represent the first generation of Indians to

Lange32
appropriate English as one of their mother tongues; their usage is thus also
likely to advance an emerging standard Indian English.
4.1 India’s ICE-Age 2?
I would like to propose a new corpus of spoken IndE following the principles of
the overall ICE-project, but specifically geared towards capturing IndE as part
of a multilingual communicative space. Such a corpus would not be represen-
tative of the whole range of IndE across the country, but highly acrolectal and
also quite elitist in its focus on the young urban middle class. One reason for
limiting the choice of contributors in this way was already mentioned: if there
will be a standard Indian English, it will emerge from their usage as the “con-
sensus of educated speakers”, to reiterate Greenbaum once more. The second
reason is derived from a contact-linguistic perspective: what happens to a PCE
in terms of nativization when it becomes an L1 among other languages? How
do speakers manage their multilingual repertoires? Mesthrie posed the follow-
ing questions with respect to his research on South African Indian English as a
language-shift variety:
Is it the case that language shift throws up more variation than does bal-
anced bilingualism? […] Is it the case that adults involved in the early
stages of language shift are the ones who are responsible for the greatest
number of innovations, and that children involved in the late stages of
language shift (and/or the first post-shift generation) are the ones who
act as selectors and stabilizers from this pool of variants? We must leave
this topic for future research.
Mesthrie 2006, 276–77
The Indian case does not necessarily involve language shift, as stated
before, but balanced bilingualism may also involve extensive borrowing (cf.
Thomason’s borrowing scale (2001, 70–71)). The theoretical emphasis on docu-
menting IndE as a contact language would have further repercussions for the
choice of speakers: the corpus should include more speakers of the north-
eastern Indian languages belonging to the Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman
families. Table 2.3 compares the genetic affiliation of corpus speakers’ mother
tongues with the overall affiliation to language families according to the 2001
census (cf. also Table 2.2 above). Speakers of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan lan-
guages were almost equally represented and speakers of Tibeto-Burmese even
overrepresented, but the higher percentage obscures the fact that the latter
were only represented by 5 speakers (of Naga, Manipuri and Angami) overall,

33Indian English or Indian Englishes?
and the former by one speaker of Khasi (Lange 2012, 82). A higher percentage
of such speakers would act as a counter-balance to Sprachbund effects in con-
tact-induced innovations. The Northeast is neither culturally nor linguistically
a part of the longstanding Indian convergence area; that is, an IndE innovation
that is found with speakers of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian but not others is then
(a) most likely contact-induced, and (b) most likely derived from the feature
pool of the Indian Sprachbund.
The kind as well as the range of speakers envisaged here as contributors
to a new corpus are not as difficult to enlist as one might imagine. First of
all, linguists and corpus compilers visiting India are moving within precisely
that context that fosters and displays young urban multilingualism, namely
the universities. India’s central universities such as e.g. the English and Foreign
Languages University (EFL-U ) in Hyderabad or the highly reputed IITs (Indian
Institutes of Technology) across the country draw their students from all over
India. Each university campus thus becomes a hotspot of linguistic diversity,
and since the overwhelming majority of students lives in hostel accommo-
dation on campus, the campuses also encourage the development of dense
social networks. It would thus suffice to gather data on some selected cam-
puses, rather than undertaking extensive travel all over India.
Speakers should not be discouraged from code-switching, but, as said
before, extensive code-switching is unlikely if speakers come together who do
not have an Indian language in common. In annotating the transcribed mate-
rial, more care should be taken to mark indigenous forms in the data. Nelson
(1996, 38) explains how borrowings should be annotated in ICE: expressions
“which have become naturalized over time, and are now considered part
of the English lexicon” are not to be marked as <foreign>. The label <indig>
(indigenous) occurs exclusively in multilingual contexts:
Table 2.3 Representation of language families in ICE-India (Lange 2012, 83)
Genetic affiliation of mother tongues In the corpus
(%)
All India
(%)
Indo-European 48.98 76.89
Dravidian 48.54 20.83
Tibeto-Burman 2.07 1.00
Austro-Asiatic 0.41 1.11

Lange34
In some countries, such as India and Cameroon, English is used as a sec-
ond official language, and may coexist with several local ones. In these
countries, words from local languages are marked as <indig> (indige -
nous) rather than <foreign>, though they will be marked as foreign words
in every other ICE corpus in which they appear. If words from more
than one indigenous language appear in a corpus, the specific language
from which they come can be incorporated into the markup symbol, e.g.
<indig=Urdu>.
Nelson 1996, 38
In practice, the distinction between ‘naturalized’, ‘indigenous’ or ‘foreign’ might
be quite straightforward in some cases, but a matter of debate (even within the
targeted speech community) in many others. A clue for considering a form
‘naturalized’ is surely its occurrence in the OED; Table 2.4 lists some common
Table 2.4 Words marked as ‘indigenous’ in ICE-India and the OED edition in which they were
first mentioned
Lexical item Meaning First OED publication
saree women’s garment 1982
lakh numeral 100,000 1901
crore numeral 10 million (100 lakhs) 1893
Rupee Indian currency 1910 (updated 2011)
paneer curd, soft cheese new entry 2005
tandoorifood prepared in a tandoor (clay oven)1986
chapatti(OED: ‘chupatti’) Indian bread 1972
ghee clarified butter 1899
samosa triangular pastry 1982
ahimsa doctrine of non-violence 1972, updated 2012
Shri title of respect 1986
Raga mode in Indian classical music 1982, updated 2008
yaar colloq., friend, mate (also a discourse marker)new entry 2015
haan yes –
nahi no –
accha yes, okay (discourse marker) –
na invariant tag (discourse marker) –
theek haiyes, okay (discourse marker) –

35Indian English or Indian Englishes?
expressions that are marked as <indig>(enous) in ICE-India, together with the
OED edition in which they were first listed. The table reveals that many expres-
sions have been ‘naturalized’ quite early on and thus would not have required
the <indig>-marking. Others are a recent addition to the OED and testify to the
growing impact of Indian English on the English language in general. The last
items in the table which all remain absent from the OED are very common
discourse markers in everyday interaction. These are all derived from Hindi,
but not restricted to speakers of Hindi as a mother tongue, and should thus be
marked <indig=pan-Indian> to acknowledge speakers’ hybrid repertoires in a
lively multilingual setting.
It is now more than 25 years since data collection for ICE-India began—a
new corpus of IndE would also introduce a diachronic dimension to the study
of this particular variety paralleling the distance between BROWN and LOB
from the sixties and their nineties successors FROWN and FLOB. Specific IndE
forms may have stabilised as features of speakers’ L1 IndE, thus settling
the vexing question of ‘error’ vs. ‘innovation’ once and for all. An ICE-Age
2-corpus of Indian English would give us the rare opportunity to study an
emerging standard variety in the making, a variety firmly embedded in a mul-
tilingual communicative space.
References
Biewer, Carolin, Marianne Hundt and Lena Zipp. 2010. “ ‘How’ a Fiji Corpus? Challenges
in the Compilation of an ESL ICE Component.” ICAME Journal 34: 5–23.
Bolt, Philip and Kingsley Bolton. 1996. “The International Corpus of English in Hong
Kong.” In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English, edited
by Sidney Greenbaum, 197–214. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal. 2004. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political
Economy. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
BROWN = A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with
Digital Computers (Brown). 1964, 1971, 1979, compiled by W. N. Francis and
H. Kučera. Brown University. Providence, Rhode Island.
Crystal, David. 2008. “Two Thousand Million? Update on the Statistics of English.”
English Today 24/1: 3–6.
Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. “India as a Linguistic Area.” Language 32: 3–16.
Ferguson, Charles. 1959. “Diglossia.” Word 15: 325–40.
FLOB = The Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English (F-LOB), compiled by Christian
Mair et al., Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.

Lange36
FROWN = The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English (Frown), compiled by
Christian Mair et al., Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
Gargesh, Ravinder. 2004. “Indian English: Phonology.” In A Handbook of Varieties of
English. Volume 1: Phonology, edited by Edgar W. Schneider, Kate Burridge, Rajend
Mesthrie and Clive Upton, 992–1002. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Graddol, David. 2010. English Next India: The Future of English in India. The British
Council. http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/
books-english-next.pdf.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1988. “A Proposal for an International Computerized Corpus of
English.” World Englishes 7: 315–15.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1990. “Standard English and the International Corpus of English.”
World Englishes 9: 79–83.
Greenbaum, Sidney, ed. 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus
of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haugen, Einar. 1966. “Dialect, Language, Nation.” American Anthropologist 68/4:
922–35.
Holmes, Janet. 1996. “The New Zealand Spoken Component of ICE: Some Method-
ological Challenges.” In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of
English, edited by Sidney Greenbaum, 163–81. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hundt, Marianne and Devyani Sharma, eds. 2014. English in the Indian Diaspora.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
ICAME Journal 34. 2010. Special issue ICE-Age 2: ICE Corpora of New Englishes in the
Making.
ICE = International Corpus of English. 1988–. Initiated by Sidney Greenbaum.
Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2/1. 2015. Special issue Micro-linguistic
Areas in South Asia.
Lange, Claudia. 2007. “Let’s Face the Music: The Multilingual Challenge.” In Annual
Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, edited by Rajendra Singh, 87–95.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lange, Claudia. 2012. The Syntax of Spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
LOB = The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, For Use With Digital
Computers. 1970–1978, compiled by Geoffrey Leech, Lancaster University, Stig
Johansson, University of Oslo (project leaders), and Knut Hofland, University of
Bergen (head of computing).
Mallikarjun, B. 2004. “Indian Multilingualism, Language Policy and the Digital Divide.”
Language in India 4. http://www.languageinindia.com/april2004/kathmandupaper1
.html.
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

37Indian English or Indian Englishes?
Masica, Colin P. 1993. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mesthrie, Rajend. 1992. English in Language Shift: The History, Structure and Socio
linguistics of South African Indian English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2006. “Contact Linguistics and World Englishes.” In The Handbook
of World Englishes, edited by Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru and Cecil L. Nelson,
273–88. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2010. “New Englishes and the Native Speaker Debate.” Language
Sciences 32: 594–601. Special Issue: The Native Speaker and the Mother Tongue,
edited by Umberto Ansaldo.
Mukherjee, Joybrato and Marianne Hundt, eds. 2011. Exploring Second-Language
Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
NCAER = National Council of Applied Economic Research. 2004. The Great Indian
Middle Class. Results from the NCAER Market Information Survey of Households.
Nelson, Gerald. 1996. “Markup Systems.” In Comparing English Worldwide: The
International Corpus of English, edited by Sidney Greenbaum, 36–53. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary online. www.oed.com.
Quirk, Randolph. 1990. “Language Varieties and Standard Language.” English Today 21:
3–10.
Sailaja, Pingali. 2009. Indian English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Schmied, Josef. 1996. “Second-language Corpora.” In Comparing English Worldwide:
The International Corpus of English, edited by Sidney Greenbaum, 182–96. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English. Varieties around the World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schneider Edgar W. 2012. “Exploring the Interface between World Englishes and
Second Language Acquisition—and Implications for English as a Lingua Franca.”
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1: 57–91.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2014. “Asian Englishes—into the Future: A Bird’s Eye View.” Asian
Englishes 16: 249–56.
Schröter, Verena. 2012. “Colloquial Singaporean English.” In The Mouton World Atlas of
Variation in English, edited by Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer, 562–72.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharma, Devyani. 2011. “Style Repertoire and Social Change in British Asian English.”
Journal of Sociolinguistics 15: 464–92.
Shastri, S. V. 2002. Overview of the Indian Component of the International Corpus of
English (ICE-India). Distributed with the ICE-India corpus.

Lange38
Sridhar, Kamal K. and S. N. Sridhar. 1986. “Bridging the Paradigm Gap: Second Language
Acquisition Research and Indigenized Varieties of English.” World Englishes
5: 3–14.
Thomason, Sarah. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington: Georgetown
University Press.
Thomason, Sarah. 2003. “Contact as a Source of Language Change.” In The Handbook of
Historical Linguistics, edited by Brian D. Joseph, 687–712. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomason, Sarah. 2010. “Contact Explanations in Linguistics.” In The Handbook of
Language Contact, edited by Raymond Hickey, 29–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and
Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Trautmann, Thomas R. 2006. Languages and Nations. The Dravidian Proof in Colonial
Madras. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Vertovec, Steven. 2007. “Super-diversity and its Implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies
30: 1024–54.
Williams, Jessica. 1987. “Non-native Varieties of English: A Special Case of Language
Acquisition.” English World-Wide 8: 161–99.
Zastoupil, Lynn and Martin Moir, eds. 1999. The Great Indian Education Debate.
Documents Relating to the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy, 1781–1843. Richmond,
Surrey: Curzon.

? CHAPACTPECR 3fPTT Ai, TRPāRA, f11 | āHP 11.11On/ y sykko2 OOy _ kko CHAPTER 3
Mono- and Multilingualism in a Specialized
Corpus of New Zealand Stories
Alexander Onysko and Marta Degani
1 Introduction
If we consider research on world Englishes, it is evident that corpora have
become a major tool for investigating English varieties. This is due to devel-
opments in corpus linguistics and an increasing turn towards empirical, usage-
based analyses of Englishes. Clearly, corpora can help with gaining insight into
variety specific usage patterns, and compilers try to push the limits inherent
to every data collection. The major struggle in corpus compilation has been
the aim of increasing the size of data while maintaining control over its repre -
sentativeness. So far, however, the study of world Englishes has not paid much
attention to another trend in corpus linguistics—that is to creating and utiliz-
ing small, specialized corpora which allow for in-depth analyses of particular
research questions. The project we describe in this paper takes a step in this
direction by outlining the ongoing compilation of a corpus that taps into the
language use of ethnically and linguistically diverse New Zealanders when
speaking in their varieties of New Zealand English.
At the core of the project is a story-telling task that was carried out with a
number of participants of Māori and Pākehā (i.e. non-Māori, particularly New
Zealand European) ethnicities. While the main language of the task is English,
we are interested in finding out whether differences among the participants
emerge and whether such differences can be related to the speakers’ linguis-
tic repertoires ranging from mostly monolingual to bi/multilingual1 skills.
Our hypothesis is that experience in using New Zealand English and another
language, in particular te reo Māori, the indigenous language of New Zealand,
would inspire linguistic features that can enrich the description of internal
variation in New Zealand English (see Lange, this volume, for a similar obser-
vation in the context of Indian Englishes). Besides various forms of language
contact that can be triggered by multilingual competence, the New Zealand
1 In line with a consistent body of research in the area of bi- and multilingualism, we use the
term multilingualism as inclusive of bilingualism (cf., e.g., Cenoz 2013).
Please provide footnote text

Onysko and Degani40
context is also striking for its cultural constellation. On the one hand, after
about 150 years of colonial oppression, the Polynesian Māori people, who first
inhabited the ‘land of the long white cloud’—Aotearoa, have experienced a
revival since the 1980s, regaining to some extent their rights and their language
while maintaining and reviving their cultural practices. On the other hand, the
socio-historical development of New Zealand since the signing of the Treaty
of Waitangi in 1840 and the arrival of large numbers of British settlers soon
after (cf. King 2003) has firmly established an Anglo-European culture in the
country that has developed mostly in sync with ‘the Western world’. In this
situation, many of the Māori people who care for their language and culture
have become not only bilingual but also bicultural New Zealanders, and their
use of the mainstream language of English can be a token for their linguistic
and cultural repertoires.
In the context of this situation, our specific story-telling task is but a small
attempt to render available a targeted collection of spoken language that can
give rise to different linguistic analyses and, ideally, to some insights into the
nexus of language and culture. To do so, we are in the process of turning
the collected spoken data into a small, specialized corpus that gathers the dif-
ferent stories prompted by a set of stimuli and recorded with a selected body of
participants grouped according to the factors of monolingualism vs. multilin-
gualism and their ethnic-cultural identification. In line with previous research
(cf. Aston 1997; Flowerdew 2004), the projected size of the New Zealand Stories
Corpus (NZSC) will be in the upper range of small corpora reaching around
250,000 words of transcribed speech. Its specialized nature emerging from the
specific conversational situation of a prompted story-telling task, which leads
to a co-constructed narration, or small story (cf. Georgakopoulou 2007), char-
acterizes the corpus as a specialized collection of spoken language in terms of
topics and genre. At the same time, background information on the speakers
accompanies the story data, which facilitates qualitative analyses. As pointed
out by Vaughan and Clancy (2013), the major benefit of small corpora is that
their data is enriched by contextual information, allowing for linguistic in-
vestigations that rely on a contextual embedding of language use. It is in this
spirit that we have carried out our data collection and are currently building
the corpus.
Another aspect that makes the NZSC a ‘specialized’ corpus is its concern
with multilingual and monolingual speakers of New Zealand English for the
purpose of comparing these groups of speakers. As many of the contributions
collected in this volume show, awareness of multilingualism in corpus com-
pilation, including monolingual corpora, has not been regular practice so far.
In addition, the recognition of multilingual elements is closely connected to

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Ghost
Camp; or, the Avengers

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: The Ghost Camp; or, the Avengers
Author: Rolf Boldrewood
Release date: January 23, 2016 [eBook #51011]
Most recently updated: October 22, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by MWS, Sonya Schermann and the Online
Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file
was
produced from images generously made available by
The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GHOST
CAMP; OR, THE AVENGERS ***

THE GHOST CAMP

OR

THE AVENGERS
THE WORKS OF ROLF
BOLDREWOOD.
Uniform Edition. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d. each.

ROBBERY UNDER ARMS.
A COLONIAL REFORMER.
THE MINER’S RIGHT.
A MODERN BUCCANEER.
NEVERMORE.
THE SQUATTER’S DREAM.
A SYDNEY-SIDE SAXON.
OLD MELBOURNE MEMORIES.
MY RUN HOME.
THE SEALSKIN CLOAK.
THE CROOKED STICK; OR, POLLIE’S PROBATION.
PLAIN LIVING.
A ROMANCE OF CANVAS TOWN.
WAR TO THE KNIFE.
BABES IN THE BUSH.
THE SPHINX OF EAGLEHAWK. Fcap. 8vo. 2s.
IN BAD COMPANY, and other Stories. Crown 8vo.
6s.
London: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.
THE GHOST CAMP
OR
THE AVENGERS

BY
ROLF BOLDREWOOD
AUTHOR OF “ROBBERY UNDER ARMS,” “THE MINER’S RIGHT,” ETC.
London
MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1902
Richard Clay and Sons, Limited,
LONDON AND BUNGAY.

CONTENTS
PAGE

Chapter I 1

Chapter II 30

Chapter III 57

Chapter IV 93

Chapter V 122

Chapter VI 159

Chapter VII 198

Chapter VIII236

Chapter IX 275

Chapter X 305

Chapter XI 343

Chapter XII 365
THE GHOST CAMP
OR, THE AVENGERS

CHAPTER I
A wild and desolate land; dreary, even savage, to the
unaccustomed eye. Forest-clothed hills towering above the faint,
narrow track leading eastward, along which a man had been leading
a tired horse; he was now resting against a granite boulder. A dark,
mist-enshrouded day, during which the continuous driving showers
had soaked through an overcoat, now become so heavy that he
carried it across his arm. A fairly heavy valise, above a pair of
blankets, was strapped in front of his saddle.
He was prepared for bush travelling—although his term of
“colonial experience,” judging from his ruddy cheek and general get-
up, had been limited. A rift in the over-hanging cloud-wrack, through
which the low sunrays broke with a sudden gleam, showed a
darksome mountain range to the south, with summit and sides,
snow-clad and dazzling white.
The wayfarer stood up and stared at the apparition: “a good
omen,” thought he, “perhaps a true landmark. The fellows at the
mail-change told me to steer in a general way for the highest snow
peak, which they called ‘the Bogong,’ or some such name. Though
this track seems better marked, these mountain roads, as they call
them—goat paths would be the better name—for there is not a
wheel mark to be seen—one needs the foot of a chamois and the
eye of our friend up there.” Here he looked upward, where one of
the great birds of prey, half hawk, half eagle, as the pioneers
decided, floated with moveless wing above crag and hollow. Then
rising with an effort, and taking the bridle rein, he began to lead the
weary horse up the rocky ascent. “Poor old Gilpin!” he soliloquised,
“you are more knocked up than I am—and yet you have the look of

a clever cob—such as we should have fancied in England for a
roadster, or a covert hack. But roads are roads there, while in this
benighted land, people either don’t know how to make them, or
seem to do their cross-country work without them. I wonder if I
shall fall in with bed and board to-night. The last was rough, but
sufficing—a good fire too, now I think of it, and precious cold it was.
Well, come along, John! I must bustle you a bit when we get to the
top of this everlasting hill—truly biblical in that respect. What a
lonesome place it is, now that the sun has gone under again! I
suppose there’s no one within fifty miles—Hulloa!”
This exclamation was called forth by the appearance of a
horseman at no great distance—along the line of track. Man and
horse were motionless, though so near that he wondered he had not
observed them before. The rider’s face, which was towards him,
bore, as far as he could judge, an expression of keenest attention.
“Wonder if he is a bushranger?” thought the traveller; “ought to
have brought one of my revolvers; but everybody told me that there
were none ‘out’ now; that I was as safe as if I was in England—
safer, in fact, than ‘south the water’ in the little village. However, I
shall soon know.”
Before he had time to decide seriously, the horseman came
towards him. He saw a slight, dark, wiry individual, something above
the middle height, sunburned, and almost blackened as to such
portions of his neck and face as could be perceived for an abundant
beard and moustache. The horse, blood-looking, and in hard
condition, presented a striking contrast to his own leg-weary,
disconsolate animal. The traveller thought him capable of fast and
far performances. His sure and easy gait, as he stepped freely along
the rocky path, stamped him as “mountain-bred,” or, if not “to the
manner born,” having lived long enough amid these tremendous
glens and rocky fastnesses, to negotiate their ladder-like declivities
with ease and safety.
“Good evening!” said the stranger, civilly enough. “Going to
‘Haunted Creek?’—a bit off the road, ar’n’t you?”

“I was doubtful about the track, but I thought it might lead there.
I was told that it was only eight miles.”
“It’s a good fourteen, and you won’t get there to-night. Not with
that horse, anyhow. But look here! I’m going to my place, a few
miles off, with these cattle—if you like to give me a hand, I can put
you up for the night, and show you the way in the morning.”
“Thanks very much, really I feel much obliged to you. I was afraid
I should have had to camp out, and it looks like a bad night.”
“All right,” said the bushman, for such he evidently was; “these
crawlin’ cattle are brutes to straggle, and I’m lost without my dog.
I’ll bring ’em up, and if you’ll keep the tail going, we’ll get along easy
enough.”
“But where are they?” inquired the tourist, looking around, as if he
expected to see them rise out of the earth.
“Close by,” answered the stranger, laconically, at the same time
riding down the slope of the mountain with loose rein, and careless
seat, as if the jumble of rocks, tree-roots, and rolling stones, was the
most level high road in the world. Looking after the new
acquaintance he descried a small lot of cattle perched on a rocky
pinnacle, partly covered by a patch of scrub. The grass around them
was high and green—but, with one exception, that of a cow
munching a tussac in an undecided way, they did not appear to care
about the green herbage, or tall kangaroo grass which grew around
them. Had he known anything about the habits of cattle, he would
have seen by their appearance that these fat beasts (for such they
were) had come far and fast; were like his horse, thoroughly
exhausted, and as such, indifferent to the attractions of wayside
pasture.
However, with the aid of a hunting crop, which he flourished
behind them, with threatening action, the bushman soon managed
to get them on to the track, and with the aid of his newly-made
comrade induced them to move with a decent show of alacrity. That
some were footsore, and two painfully lame, was apparent to the
new assistant, also that they were well-bred animals, heavy weights,

and in that state and condition which is provincially alluded to as
“rolling fat.”
“Nice meat, ar’n’t they?” said the bushman; “come a good way
too. Beastly rough track; I was half a mind to bring them by Wagga
—but this is the shortest way—straight over the ranges. I’m
butchering just now, with gold-mining for a change, but that’s
mostly winter work.”
“Where do you buy your cattle?” asked the Englishman—not that
he cared as to that part of the occupation, but the gold-mining
seemed to him a romantic, independent way of earning a living. He
was even now turning over in his mind the idea of a few months
camping among these Alpine regions, with, of course, the off-chance
of coming upon an untouched gold mine.
“Oh! a few here and there, in all sorts of places.” Here the
stranger shot a searching glance, tinged with suspicion, towards the
questioner. “I buy the chance of stray cattle now and then, and pick
’em up as I come across ’em. We’d as well jog along here, it’s better
going.”
The track had become more marked. There were no wheel marks,
the absence of which had surprised the traveller, since the beginning
of his day’s march, but tracks of cattle and unshod horses were
numerous; while the ground being less rocky, indeed commencing to
be marshy, no difficulty was found in driving the cattle briskly along
it. His horse too, having “company,” had become less dilatory and
despondent.
“We’re not far off, now,” said his companion, “and it’s just as well.
We’ll have rain to-night—may be snow. So a roof and a fire won’t be
too bad.”
To this statement the tourist cheerfully assented, his spirits rising
somewhat, when another mile being passed, they turned to the
north at a sharp angle to the road, and following a devious track,
found themselves at the slip-rails of a small but well-fenced
paddock, into which the cattle were turned, and permitted to stray
at will. Fastening the slip rails with scrupulous care, and following
the line of fence for a hundred yards, they came to a hut built of

slabs, and neatly roofed with sheets of the stringy bark tree
(Eucalyptus obliqua) where his guide unsaddled, and motioned to
the guest to do likewise. As also to put the saddle against the wall of
the hut, with the stuffing outward. “That’ll dry ’em a bit,” he said;
“mine’s wet enough anyhow. Just bring your horse after me.”
Passing through a hand gate, he released his horse, first, however,
putting on a pair of hobbles; “the feed’s good,” he said, “but this
moke’s just out of the bush, and rather flash—he might jump the
fence in the night, so it’s best to make sure. Yours won’t care about
anything but filling his belly, not to-night anyhow, so he can go
loose. Now we’ll see about a fire, and boil the billy for tea. Come
along in.”
Entering the hut, which though small, was neat and clean; it was
seen to contain two rooms, the inner one apparently used as a
bedroom, there being two bed-places, on each of which was a rude
mattress covered with a blanket. A store of brushwood and dry
billets had been placed in a corner, from which a fire was soon
blazing in the rude stone chimney, while a camp kettle (provincially a
“billy”) was on the way to boil without loss of time.
A good-sized piece of corned beef, part of a round, with half a
“damper” loaf being extracted from a cupboard or locker, was placed
on the rude slab table; after which pannikins and tin plates, with
knives and forks, provided from the same receptacle, were brought
forth, completing the preparations for a meal that the guest believed
he was likely to relish.
“Oh! I nearly forgot,” said the traveller, as his entertainer, dropping
a handful of tea into the “billy,” now at the boil, and stirring it with a
twig, put on the lid. “I brought a flask, it’s very fair whisky, and a tot
won’t hurt either of us, after a long day and a wet one.” Going to his
coat, he brought out a flask, and nearly filling the tin cup which was
closed over the upper part, offered it to his host. He, rather to the
surprise of the Englishman, hesitated and motioned as if to refuse,
but on second thoughts smiled in a mysterious way, and taking the
tin cup, nodded, and saying “Well, here’s fortune!” tossed it off.
Blount took one of the pannikins, and pouring out a moderate

allowance, filled it up with the clear spring water, and drank it by
instalments.
“I must say I feel better after that,” he observed, “and if a dram
needs an excuse, a long, cold ride, stiff legs, and a wetting ought to
be sufficient.”
“They don’t look about for excuses up here,” said his new
acquaintance, “and some takes a deal more than is good for them. I
don’t hold with that, but a nip or two’s neither here nor there,
particular after a long day. Help yourself to the meat and damper,
you see your supper.”
The traveller needed no second invitation; he did not, like the
clerk of Copmanhurst, plunge his fingers into the venison pasty,
there being neither venison nor pasty, but after cutting off several
slices of the excellent round of beef which had apparently sustained
previous assaults, he made good time, with the aid of a well-baked
“damper,” and an occasional reference to a pannikin of hot tea, so
that as their appetites declined, more leisure was afforded for
conversation.
“And now,” he said, after filling up a second pannikin of tea, and
lighting his pipe, “I’m sure I’m very much obliged to you, as I hear
the rain coming down, and the wind rising. May I ask whose
hospitality I’m enjoying? I’m Valentine Blount of Langley in
Herefordshire. Not long out, as I dare say you have noticed. Just
travelling about to have a look at the country.”
“My name’s John Carter,” said the bushman, with apparent
frankness, as he confronted Blount’s steady eye, “but I’m better
known from here to Omeo, as ‘Little River Jack’; there’s lots of
people knows me by that name, that don’t know me by any other.”
“And what do you do when you get gold—take it to Melbourne to
sell?”
“There’s no call to do that. Melbourne’s a good way off, and it
takes time to get there. But there’s always gold buyers about
townships, that are on for a little business. They give a trifle under
market price, but they pay cash, and it suits us mountain chaps to

deal that way. Sometimes I’m a buyer myself, along with the cattle-
dealing. Look here!” As he spoke, he detached a leather pouch from
his belt, looking like one that stockriders wear for carrying pipe and
tobacco, which he threw on the table. The grog had inclined to
confidences and relaxed his attitude of caution. Blount lifted it,
rather surprised at its weight. “This is gold, isn’t it?”
“Yes! a good sample too. Worth four pound an ounce. Like to look
at it?”
“Very much. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen gold in the raw state
before.”
“Well, here it is—the real thing, and no mistake. Right if a chap
could only get enough of it.” Here he opened the mouth of the
pouch, which seemed three parts full, and pouring some of it on a
tin plate, awaited Blount’s remarks.
As the precious metal, partly in dust, partly in larger fragments,
rattled on the plate, Blount looked on with deep interest, and then,
on being invited so to do, handled it with the air of a man to whom
a new and astonishing object is presented for the first time.
“So,” he said musingly, “here is one of the great lures which have
moved the world since the dawn of history. Love, war, and ambition,
have been subservient to it. Priests and philosophers, kings and
queens, the court beauty and the Prime Minister, have vainly
struggled against its influence. But—” he broke off with a laugh, as
he noted his companion’s look of wonder, “here am I, another
example of its fascination, moralising in a mountain hut and
mystifying my worthy entertainer.”
“And now, my friend!” he inquired, relapsing into the manner of
everyday life, “what may be the market value of this heavy little
parcel?”
“Well—I put it at fifty ounces, or thereabouts,” said Mr. “Little River
Jack,” carefully pouring back the contents of the pouch, to the last
grain; “at, say four pound an ounce, it’s worth a couple of hundred
notes, though we sha’n’t get that price for it. But at Melbourne mint,
it’s worth every shilling, maybe a trifle more.” Before closing the

pouch, he took out a small nugget of, perhaps, half an ounce in
weight, and saying, “You’re welcome to this. It’ll make a decent scarf
pin,” handed it to Mr. Blount.
But that gentleman declined it, saying, “Thanks, very much, but
I’d rather not.” Then, seeing that the owner seemed hurt, even
resentful, qualified the refusal by saying, “But if you would do me a
service, which I should value far more, you might introduce me to
some party of miners, with whom I could work for a month or two,
and learn, perhaps, how to get a few ounces by my own exertions. I
think I should like the work. It must be very interesting.”
“It’s that interesting,” said the bushman, all signs of annoyance
clearing from his countenance, “that once a man takes to it he never
quits it till he makes a fortune or dies so poor that the Government
has to bury him. I’ve known many a man that used a cheque book
as big as a school slate, and could draw for a hundred thousand or
more, drop it all in a few years, and be found dead in a worse
‘humpy’ than this, where he’d been living alone for years.”
“Strange to have been rich by his own handiwork, and not to be
able to keep something for his old age,” said Blount; “how is it to be
accounted for?”
“By luck, d—d hard luck!” said John Carter, whom the subject
seemed to have excited. “Every miner’s a born gambler; if he don’t
do it with cards, he puts his earnings, his time, his life blood, as one
might say, on the chance of a claim turning out well. It’s good luck,
and not hard work, that gives him a ‘golden hole,’ where he can’t
help digging up gold like potatoes, and it’s luck, bad luck, that turns
him out a beggar from every ‘show’ for years, till he hasn’t got a
shirt to his back. Why do I stick to it, you’ll say? Because I’m a fool,
always have been, always will be, I expect. But I like the game, and
I can’t leave it for the life of me. However, that says nothing. I’m no
worse than others. I can just keep myself and my horse, while
there’s an old mate of mine living in London and Paris, and swelling
it about with the best! You’d like to have a look in, you say? Well,
you stop at Bunjil for a week, till I come back from Bago; it’s a good

inn, clean and comfortable, and the girl there, if I tell her, will look
after you; see you have a fire too, these cold nights. Are you on?”
“Yes! most decidedly,” replied Blount, with great heartiness. “A
mountain hotel should be a new experience.”
“Then it’s a bargain. I’m going down the river for a few days.
When I get back, I’ll pick you up at Bunjil, and we’ll go to a place
such as you never seen before, and might never have dropped on as
long as you lived, if you hadn’t met me, accidental like. And now
we’d as well turn in. I expect some chaps that’s bought the cattle,
and they won’t be here later than daylight.” Accepting another glass
of whisky as nightcap, and subsequently removing merely his boots
and breeches, both of which he placed before the fire, but at a safe
distance, Mr. “Little River Jack” “turned in” as he expressed it, and
was shortly wrapped in the embrace of the kind deity who favours
the dwellers in the Waste, though often rejecting the advances of
the luxurious inhabitants of cities. Mr. Blount delayed his retirement,
as he smoked before the still glowing “back log” and dwelt upon the
adventures of the day.
“How that fellow must enjoy his slumbers!” thought he. “In the
saddle before daylight, as he told me; up and down these rocky
fastnesses—fifteen hours of slow, monotonous work, more wearying
than any amount of fast going—and now, by his unlaboured
breathing, sleeping like a tired child; his narrow world—its few cares
—its honest, if sometimes exhausting labours, as completely shut
out as if he was in another planet. Enviable mortal! I should like to
change places with him.”
After expressing this imprudent desire, as indeed are often those
of men, who, unacquainted with the conditions surrounding untried
modes of life, believe that they could attain happiness by merely
exchanging positions, Mr. Blount undressed before the fire, and
bestowed himself upon the unoccupied couch, where he speedily fell
asleep, just as he had imagined himself extracting large lumps of
gold from a vein of virgin quartz, in a romantic fern-shaded ravine,
discovered by himself.

From this pleasing state of matters, he was awakened by a sound
as of horse hoofs and the low growl of a dog. It was not quite dark.
He sat up and listened intently. There was no illusion. He went to
the hut door and looked out. Day was breaking, and through the
misty dawnlight he was enabled to distinguish his host in
conversation with a man on horseback, outside of the slip-rails.
Presently the cattle, driven by another horseman, with whom was a
dog, apparently of more than ordinary intelligence, came to the slip-
rails. They made a rush as soon as they were through, as is the
manner of such, on strange ground—but the second horseman
promptly “wheeled” them towards the faint dawn line now becoming
more distinct, and disappeared through the forest arches. Mr. Blount
discerning that the day had begun, for practical purposes, proceeded
to dress.
Walking over to the chimney, he found that the smouldering logs
had been put together, and a cheerful blaze was beginning to show
itself. The billy, newly filled, was close to it, and by the time he had
washed the upper part of his body in a tin bucket placed on a log
end, outside the door, his friend of the previous night appeared with
both horses, which he fastened to the paddock fence.
“Those fellows woke you up, coming for the cattle? Thought you’d
sleep through it. I was going to rouse you when breakfast was
ready.”
“I slept soundly in all conscience, but still I was quite ready to turn
out. I suppose those were the butchers that you sold the cattle to?”
“Two of their men—it’s all the same. They stopped close by last
night so as to get an early start. They’ve a good way to go, and’ll
want all their time, these short days. Your horse looks different this
morning. It’s wonderful what a good paddock and a night’s rest will
do!”
“Yes, indeed, he does look different,” as he saddled him up, and,
plucking some of the tall grass which grew abundantly around,
treated him to a partial rub down. “How far is it to Bunjil, as you call
it?”

“Well, not more than twenty miles, but the road’s middlin’ rough.
Anyhow we’ll get there latish, and you can take it easy till I come
back. I mightn’t be away more than three or four days.”
Misty, even threatening, at the commencement, the day became
fine, even warm, after breakfast. Wind is rarely an accompaniment
of such weather, and as the sun rode higher in the cloudless sky,
Blount thought he had rarely known a finer day. “What bracing
mountain air!” he said to himself. “Recalls the Highlands; but I see
no oat fields, and the peasantry are absent. These hills should rear a
splendid race of men—and rosy-cheeked lasses in abundance. The
roads I cannot recommend.”
Mr. John Carter had admitted that the way was rough. His
companion thought he had understated the case. It was well nigh
impassable. When not climbing hills as steep as the side of a house,
they were sliding down bridle tracks like the “Ladder of Cattaro.”
These Mr. Carter’s horse hardly noticed; a down grade being
negotiated with ease and security, while he seemed, to Blount’s
amazement, to step from rock to rock like a chamois. That
gentleman’s own horse had no such accomplishments, but blundered
perilously from time to time, so that his owner was fain to lead him
over the rougher passes. This rendered their progress slower than it
would otherwise have been, while he was fain to look enviously at
his companion, who, either smoking or discoursing on local topics,
rode with careless rein, trusting implicitly, as it seemed, to his
horse’s intelligence.
“Here’s the Divide!” he said at length, pointing to a ridge which
rose almost at right angles from the accepted track. “We leave the
road here, and head straight for Bunjil mountain. There he stands
with his cap on! The snow’s fell early this season.”
As he spoke he pointed towards a mountain peak of unusual
height, snow-capped, and even as to its spreading flanks, streaked
with patches and lines of the same colour. The white clouds which
hung round the lofty summit—six thousand feet from earth, were
soft-hued and fleecy; but their pallor was blurred and dingy

compared with the silver coronet which glorified the dark-hued
Titan.
“Road!” echoed Mr. Blount, “I don’t see any; what passes for it, I
shall be pleased to leave. If we are to go along this ‘Divide,’ as you
call it, I hope it will be pleasanter riding.”
“Well, it is a queerish track for a bit, but after Razor Back’s passed,
it’s leveller like. We can raise a trot for a mile or two afore we make
Bunjil township. Razor Back’s a narrer cut with a big drop both sides,
as we shall have to go stiddy over.”
“The Divide,” as John Carter called it, was an improvement upon
the track they quitted. It was less rocky, and passably level. There
was a gradual ascent however, which Mr. Blount did not notice until
he observed that the timber was becoming more sparse, while the
view around them was disclosing features of a grand, even awful
character. On either side the forest commenced to slope downwards,
at an increasingly sharp gradient. Instead of the ordinary precipice,
above which the travellers rode, on one or other side of the bridle
track, having the hill on the other, there appeared to be a precipice
of unknown depth on either hand. As the ascent became more
marked, Blount perceived that the winding path led towards a
pinnacle from which the view was extensive, and in a sense,
dreadful, from its dizzy altitude—its abysmal depths,—and, as he
began to realise, its far from improbable danger.
“This here’s what we call the leadin’ range; it follers the divide
from the head waters of the Tambo; that’s where we stopped last
night. It’s the only road between that side of the country and the
river. If you don’t strike this ‘cut,’ and there’s not more than a score
or so of us mountain chaps as knows it, it would take a man days to
cross over, and then he mightn’t do it.”
“What would happen to him?” asked Blount, feeling a natural
curiosity to learn more of this weird region, differing so widely from
any idea that he had ever gathered from descriptions of Australia.
“Well, he’d most likely get bushed, and have to turn back, though
he mightn’t find it too easy to do that, or make where he come
from. In winter time, if it come on to snow, he’d never get home at

all. I’ve known things happen like that. There was one poor cove last
winter, as we chaps were days out searchin’ for, and then found him
stiff, and dead—he’d got sleepy, and never woke up!”
While this enlivening conversation was proceeding, the man from
a far country discovered that the pathway, level enough for ordinary
purposes, though he and his guide were no longer riding side by
side, was rapidly narrowing. What breadth it would be, when they
ascended to the pinnacle above them, he began to consider with a
shade of apprehension. His hackney, which Mr. Jack Carter had
regarded with slightly-veiled contempt as a “flat country horse, as
had never seen a rise bigger than a haystack,” evidently shared his
uneasiness, inasmuch as he had stopped, stared and trembled from
time to time, at awkward places on the road, before they came to
the celebrated “leading range.”
In another mile they reached the pinnacle, where Blount realised
the true nature and surroundings of this Alpine Pass. Such indeed it
proved to be. A narrow pathway, looking down on either side, upon
fathomless glens, with so abrupt a drop that it seemed as if the
wind, now rising, might blow them off their exposed perch.
The trees which grew at the depths below, though in reality tall
and massive eucalypts, appeared scarce larger than berry bushes.
The wedge-tailed eagles soared above and around. One pair
indeed came near and gazed on them with unblenching eye, as
though speculating on the duration of their sojourn. They seemed to
be the natural denizens of this dizzy and perilous height, from which
the vision ranged, in wondering amaze over a vast lone region,
which stretched to the horizon; appearing indeed to include no
inconsiderable portion of the continent.
Below, around, even to the far, misty sky-line, was a grey, green
ocean, the billows of which, through the branches of mighty forest
trees, were reduced by distance to a level and uniform contour.
Tremendous glens, under which ran clear cold mountain streams,
tinkling and rippling ever, mimic waterfalls and flashing rivulets, the
long dry summer through diversified the landscape.

Silver streams crossed these plains and downs of solemn leafage,
distinguishable only when the sun flashed on their hurrying waters.
These were rivers—not inconsiderable either—while companies of
snow-crowned Alps stood ranged between, tier upon tier above
them and the outlined rim, where earth and sky met, vast, regal,
awful, as Kings of the Over-world! On guard since the birth of time,
rank upon rank they stood—silent, immovable, scornful—defying the
puny trespassers on their immemorial demesne. “What a land! what
a vast expanse!” thought the Englishman, “rugged, untamed, but
not more so than ‘Caledonia stern and wild,’ more fertile and
productive, and as to extent—boundless. I see before me,” he
mused, “a country larger than Sweden, capable in time of carrying a
dense population; and what a breed of men it should give birth to,
athletic, hardy, brave! Horsemen too, in the words of Australia’s
forest poet, whom I read but of late. ‘For the horse was never
saddled that the Jebungs couldn’t ride.’ Good rifle shots! What sons
of the Empire should these Australian highlands rear, to do battle for
Old England in the wars of the giants yet to come!”
This soliloquy, and its utterance in thought came simultaneously to
a halt of a decisive nature, by reason of the conduct of Mr. Blount’s
horse. This animal had been gradually acquiring a fixed distrust of
the highway—all too literally—on which he was required to travel.
Looking first on one side, then on the other, and apparently realising
the dreadful alternative of a slip or stumble, he became unnerved
and demoralised. Mr. Blount had ridden a mule over many a mauvais
pas in Switzerland, when the sagacious animal, for reasons known to
himself, had insisted on walking on the outer edge of the roadway,
over-hanging the gulf, where a crumbling ledge might cause the fall
into immeasurable, glacial depths. In that situation his nerve had not
faltered. “Trust to old ‘Pilatus,’” said the guide; “do not interfere with
him, I beseech you; he is under the immediate protection of the
saints, and the holy St. Bernard.” He had in such a position been
cool and composed. The old mule’s wise, experienced air, his sure
and cautious mode of progression, had been calculated to reassure a
nervous novice. But here, the case was different. His cob was

evidently not under the protection of the saints. St. Bernard was
absent, or indifferent. With the recklessness of fear, he was likely to
back—to lose his balance—to hurl himself and rider over the
perpendicular drop, where he would not have touched ground at a
thousand feet. At this moment Jack Carter looked round. “Keep him
quiet, for God’s sake! till I get to you—don’t stir!” As he spoke he slid
from his horse, though so small was the vacant space on the ledge,
that as he leaned against the shoulder of his well-trained mount,
there seemed barely room for his feet. Buckling a strap to the snaffle
rein, which held it in front of the saddle, and throwing the stirrup
iron over, he passed to the head of the other horse, whose rein he
took in a firm grasp. “Steady,” he said in a voice of command, which,
strangely, the shaking creature seemed to obey. “Now, Boss! you get
off, and slip behind him—there’s just room.” Blount did as directed,
and with care and steadiness, effected a movement to the rear,
while Jack Carter fastened rein and stirrup as before.
Then giving the cob a sounding slap on the quarter, he uttered a
peculiar cry, and the leading horse stepped along the track at a fast
amble, followed by the cob at a slow trot, in which he seemed to
have recovered confidence.
“That’s a quick way out of the difficulty,” said Blount, with an air of
relief. “I really didn’t know what was going to happen. But won’t
they bolt when they get to the other side of this natural bridge over
the bottomless pit?”
“When they get to the end of this ‘race,’ as you may call it, there’s
a trap yard that we put up years back for wild horses—many a
hundred’s been there before my time. Some of us mountain chaps
keep it mended up. It comes in useful now and again.”
“I should think it did,” assented his companion, with decision. “But
how will they get in? Will your clever horse take down the slip-rails,
and put them up again?”
“Not quite that!” said the bushman smiling—“but near enough;
we’ll find ’em both there, I’ll go bail!”
“How far is it?” asked Blount, with a natural desire to get clear of
this picturesque, but too exciting part of the country, and to

exchange it for more commonplace scenery, with better foothold.
“Only a couple of mile—so we might as well step out, as I’ve filled
my pipe. Won’t you have a draw for company?”
“Not just yet, I’ll wait till we’re mounted again.” For though the
invariable, inexhaustible tobacco pipe is the steadfast friend of the
Australian under all and every condition of life, Blount did not feel in
the humour for it just after he had escaped, as he now began to
believe, from a sudden and violent death.
“A well-trained horse! I should think he was,” he told himself; “and
yet, before I left England, I was always being warned against the
half-broken horses of Australia. What a hackney to be sure!—fast,
easy, sure-footed, intelligent—and what sort of breaking in has he
had? Mostly ridden by people whom no living horse can throw; but
that is a disadvantage—as he instinctively recognises the rider he
can throw. Well! every country has its own way of doing things; and
though we Englishmen are unchangeably fixed in our own methods,
we may have something to learn yet from our kinsmen in this new
land.”
“I suppose there have been accidents on this peculiar track of
yours?” he said, after they had walked in silence for a hundred yards
or more.
“Accidents!” he replied, “I should jolly well think there have. You
see, horses are like men and women, though people don’t hardly
believe it. Some’s born one way, and some another; teaching don’t
make much difference to ’em, nor beltin’ either. Some of ’em, like
some men, are born cowards, and when they get into a narrer track
with a big drop both sides of ’em, they’re that queer in the head—
though it’s the heart that’s wrong with ’em—that they feel like
pitching theirselves over, just to get shut of the tremblin’ on the
brink feelin’. Your horse was in a blue funk; he’d have slipped or
backed over in another minute or two. That was the matter with
him. When he seen old Keewah skip along by himself, it put
confidence like, into him.”
“You’ve known of accidents, then?”

“My word! I mind when poor Paddy Farrell went down. He and his
horse both. He was leadin’ a packer, as it might be one of us now.
Well, his moke was a nervous sort of brute, and just as he got to the
Needle Rock, it’s a bit farther on before the road widens out, but it’s
terrible narrer there, and poor Paddy was walking ahead leadin’ the
brute with a green hide halter, when a hawk flies out from behind a
rock and frightened the packer. He draws back with a jerk, and his
hind leg goes over the edge. Paddy had the end of the halter round
his wrist, and it got jammed somehow, and down goes the lot, horse
and pack, and him atop of ’em. Three or four of us were out all day
looking for him at the foot of the range. We knew where we’d likely
find him, and sure enough there they were, he and his horse, stone
dead and smashed to pieces. We took him back to Bunjil, and buried
him decent in the little graveyard. We managed to fish up a prayer-
book, and got ‘Gentleman Jack’ to read the service over him. My
word! he could read no end. They said he was college taught. He
could drink too, more’s the pity.”
“Does every one drink that lives in these parts?”
“Well, a good few. Us young ones not so bad, but if a man stays
here, after a few years he always drinks, partickler if he’s seen better
days.”
“Now why is that? It’s a free healthy life, with riding, shooting,
and a chance of a golden hole, as you call it. There are worse places
to live in.”
“Nobody knows why, but they all do; they’ll work hard and keep
sober for months. Then they get tired of having no one to talk to—
nobody like theirselves, I mean. They go away, and come back
stone-broke, or knock it all down in Bunjil, if they’ve made a few
pounds.”
“That sounds bad after working hard and risking their lives on
these Devil’s Bridges. How old was this Patrick Farrell?”
“Twenty-four, his name wasn’t Patrick. It was Aloysius William,
named after a saint, I’m told. The boys called him ‘Paddy’ for short.
At home, I believe they called him ‘Ally.’ But Paddy he always was in
these parts. It don’t matter much now. See that tall rock sticking up

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Challenging The Myth Of Monolingual Corpora 1st Edition Arja Nurmi Tanja Rtten Pivi Pahta

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Challenging The Myth Of Monolingual Corpora 1st Edition Arja Nurmi Tanja Rtten Pivi Pahta

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82

Slide 83