茶 FIRST IMPRESSIONS
茶 REVIEW OF BOOKS & FILMS

Editor’s note: Qinxian Bonnie Ran’s essay examines Amitav Ghosh’s incorporation of Cantonese into English in River of Smoke. She argues that the novel’s multilingual Fanqui City creates a space where economic interests displace racial hierarchies, allowing Cantonese to reshape the speech and worldview of both native and non-native speakers. Through close readings of Ghosh’s “weird English” and naturalised Cantonese vocabulary, the essay situates the novel within debates on World Englishes, proposing that such pluralistic literary practice offers a compelling resolution to the colonial tensions inherent in global Anglophone literature.

[ESSAY] “Canton and Cantonese in Amitav Ghosh’s River of Smoke“ by Qinxian Bonnie Ran

Amitav Ghosh. River of Smoke, John Murray, 2011. 528 pgs.

Anglophone scholars have long debated whether English is capable of depicting non-Western cultural experience. Most notably, Chinua Achebe claims to use English to narrate African experiences, whilst Ngũgī wa Thiong’o believes English colonises African minds, and thus switches to writing in Gĩkũyũ. The controversy surrounding English stems from its role as a global lingua franca today and its (post)colonial roots, as the British Empire colonised regions worldwide across Ireland, North America, the Caribbean, Asia, the Pacific, and Oceania. This raises what seems an irresolvable issue: works written in English may reach the world stage more visibly and credibly owing to their large readership, yet they often fail to convey terms that are too culturally specific.

^{Chinua Achebe (1930-2013)}

^{Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1938-2025)}

Fortunately, Amitav Ghosh’s multilingual and multicultural practices in the Ibis trilogy may suggest a solution to this troublesome issue, offering a culturally rewarding outlook on the potential of Anglophone literature.

^{Amitav Ghosh (b. 1956)}

In the second book of the trilogy, River of Smoke, Ghosh depicts the everyday lives of characters from diverse ethnic, national, gender, and socio-economic backgrounds in the Fanqui City,¹ the foreign enclave in Canton,² in the 1830s.

To narrate how these characters communicate, he incorporates multiple languages into English, including Bengali, Cantonese, Hindustani, and pidgin, a language system created by people without a shared language. This approach aligns with David Huddart’s concept of “World Englishes,” a shift from monolingual, imperialist English towards a plural form of “Englishes” that incorporates other languages and fosters “a multilingual future” (p. 134).³

Here, I examine the incorporation of Cantonese, as one example of culturally specific languages, into Ghosh’s World Englishes in Fanqui City. The multiracial and multicultural environment in Fanqui City challenges the global racial hierarchy that privileges white people, creating a space where Cantonese can influence the English and even the mindset of both native and non-native Cantonese speakers, both Chinese and non-Chinese. Ghosh’s incorporation of Cantonese not only depicts everyday communication among characters in Canton but also showcases and enriches the multiplicity, transnationality, and inclusivity of World Englishes, thereby balancing the power of English as a lingua franca against its postcolonial foundations.

Linguistically, the incorporation of Cantonese into English extends Ghosh’s transnational language experiment.

Previous scholars have discussed certain aspects of Ghosh’s multilingual practice: Antoinette Burton argues that Ghosh narrates “world history from below” through the perspectives of marginalised individuals within the British Empire (p. 75). Praseeda Gopinath adds that Ghosh narrates from below to reshape history through the use of “Englishes, various forms of spoken English that are infected by local languages and professional practices” (p. 160). Akshya Saxena further contributes a perspective on listening in relation to Ghosh’s use of accented English, arguing that characters’ deliberate switching of accents and use of vernaculars can be “not ethnographic or reliable” (p. 222). Building on these, I aim to fill a gap in current scholarship by exploring Canton and Cantonese, which respectively serve as geographic and linguistic links connecting East and South Asia as well as the British Empire. Geographically, Canton was the largest trading port in China during the Opium War, filled with traders and residents from across these regions. Linguistically, the incorporation of Cantonese into English extends Ghosh’s transnational language experiment. In this sense, I hope to enrich prior discussion on the multiplicities of World Englishes and their relationship to space.

}

Canton &
Fanqui City

They also prevented Chinese people from learning foreign languages and banned foreign traders from learning Chinese.

From 1757 to 1842, the Qing government confined all foreign trade to the port of Canton, historically known as the “Canton System” (一口通商). Theoretically, “Chinese authorities kept control through regulating who could be where,” primarily based on distinctions between ethnicity (Chinese/non-Chinese), class (high/low), and gender (men/women) (Hellman, p. 127). They also prevented Chinese people from learning foreign languages and banned foreign traders from learning Chinese.

Yet in practice, there was always an intersection between local and foreign people in trade, language, and culture (Hellman, pp. 225–226). To Ghosh, “historians [are] interested in long-term trends” whilst “a novelist see[s] this past through the eyes of [his] characters…[his] task is to recreate their experience as fully as possible” (“Storytelling and the Spectrum of the Past,” pp. 1558–1559). That is to say, if historians observe the overall trend by which the Canton System hinders China’s innovation and progress, novelists like Ghosh explore everyday communication between Chinese and non-Chinese characters that is theoretically prohibited, revealing perspectives that might be forgotten or hidden in history. The Ibis trilogy exhibits the same idea by showing “certain kinds of aliens there was no lack within the city walls” (Sea of Poppies, p. 367). In River of Smoke particularly, Bahramji Naurozji Modi (Bahram), the Parsi representative of Bombay’s elite companies, enjoys prestige and freedom by “command[ing] some of the finest lodgings in Canton;” Ah Fatt, a mixed-race man of both Chinese and Indian blood, was called “Jaahp-jung-jai, mixed-kind-boy;” and although “European women aren’t allowed to set foot in Canton” disappoints Paulette, there is always a “place where man can buy woman” (River of Smoke, pp. 50, 87, and 98). Interaction, communication, and trade among characters with different backgrounds, rather than being entirely banned, occur frequently in everyday Fanqui City, founding a multicultural, multiracial, and multilingual community.

}

Economic Hierarchies in Fanqui City

In Fanqui City, the only Chinese trading port and economic centre of the time, where most non-Chinese traders resided in Canton, the hierarchies among characters with different cultural backgrounds were based more on the economic profits they could bring, usually through opium. Bahram of Parsi ethnicity and from Bombay “[is] invited to join the Committee [of Chamber],”⁴ the only group that regulates the Thirteen Hongs⁵ and interacts with the Qing government (River of Smoke, p. 186). This is due to “the custom for the Committee to include at least one Parsi,” because “many of the supply chains, especially of Malwa Opium, [are] controlled by Indian businessmen” (River of Smoke, p. 185). As colonised people of the British Empire, Indians (and South Asians in general) are usually considered the subaltern. However, in Fanqui City, Bahram is involved in the Committee of the Chamber, enjoying privileges such as making decisions within the Committee and having enough money to afford Chi-Mei’s services. As a Parsi person and a representative of Bombay’s elite companies, Bahram holds great power among Indian businessmen who control “many of the supply chains,” with the potential to bring significant economic benefits to the Committee. Ghosh explains this situation as “the peculiar circumstance of the Canton trade,” significantly different from “the racial norms that were followed by the clubs of the Indian subcontinent” (River of Smoke, p. 185). Whilst challenging the usual racial hierarchy, this also reveals the fundamental logic beneath it: in Fanqui City, the trading centre of China at the time, economic value overpowers the stereotypical hierarchy based on race and ethnicity.

For the same reason, the Committee can dismiss British men if they threaten its economic interests. Chinese authorities seize Mr. James Innes, the British (Scottish) opium smuggling captain, from transporting opium on a boat to Canton. The capture of Innes reduces the amount of opium about to be transported, not only threatening the Committee’s economic interests but also damaging its reputation before the Qing government. “Under no circumstances can this Chamber be allowed to dictate to any free merchant,” and all Committee members are involved in and benefit from the opium trade. Yet the Committee still decides to deport Innes, even though he is a “free [British] merchant,” because he threatens its economic values (River of Smoke, p. 321). This again challenges the racial hierarchy that values white people. In the first book of the Ibis trilogy, Sea of Poppies, the British opium trader Benjamin Burnham exploits and sentences Neel Rattan Halder, a high-caste Indian businessman, through the manipulation of debts and paperwork that Neel does not fully understand. The British law, premised on liberty, holds that “men of high caste should [not] suffer a less severe punishment than any other person,” and plays a significant role in Neel’s conviction (Sea of Poppies, p. 234). In Innes’s case, however, British law that claims to guarantee the right of “a free merchant” fails to protect him. Unlike Burnham, the Committee chooses not to scapegoat any character from the typical subaltern races, such as Bahram from Bombay or the Chinese Hong merchant Punhyqua. Instead, the president of the Committee, Mr. Lindsay, claims that “Mr. Innes is not even a member of this body” (River of Smoke, pp. 325–326). Whilst “this body” can refer to the Committee, the Thirteen Hongs, or the non-Chinese community in Canton, the Committee’s exclusion of Innes indicates that it wishes to cut ties with him because of the economic harm he causes. This further highlights the unique power dynamics in Fanqui City, where economic interests are prioritised over racial hierarchies.

}
Cantonese
& World Englishes

^{From “Shopping in Canton: China Trade Art in the 18th and 19th Centuries,” Hong Kong Museum of Art, 2022.}

The prioritisation of economic, primarily opium-based, exchange in Fanqui City generates sustained everyday interaction between non-Chinese traders and Chinese inhabitants, including merchants, servants, translators, addicts, and so on. Within this hybrid community, non-Chinese traders’ need to communicate with Chinese people, primarily Cantonese speakers, makes English lose its usual singular, dominant, and imperialist power. Speakers of Cantonese, English, and other languages naturally form a kind of World Englishes that is neither purely English nor a direct translation of Cantonese, but a mixture formed by multiple culturally specific languages. As a non-English language, Cantonese slang and grammar influence the English speech of both native and non-native Cantonese speakers, including Chinese and non-Chinese people alike. As a result, the inclusion of Cantonese in English enriches the linguistic complexity of World Englishes and encourages greater tolerance of all languages and cultures.

Cantonese native speakers naturally integrate Cantonese slang into English, demonstrating their cultural identity and sense of belonging to the Cantonese community.

Cantonese native speakers naturally integrate Cantonese slang into English, demonstrating their cultural identity and sense of belonging to the Cantonese community. Evelyn Ch’ien defines the combination of English and speakers’ native languages as “weird English,” which is used to show “who the speaker is and how the speaker can appropriate the language” (p. 8). When native speakers such as Ah Fatt, Chi-Mei (Ah Fatt’s mother), and Mr. Compton (a print-shop owner on Thirteen Hong Street) speak English, they incorporate Cantonese slang directly. Many of these expressions carry specific cultural and linguistic significance in Cantonese alone. When Neel, who was new to Canton, asks about Ah Fatt’s family (a Cantonese Tanka mother and a Persian father from Bombay), Ah Fatt responds, “Dai Lou, he has a woman. Not wife but…” (p. 88). The Cantonese slang “Dai Lou” (大佬, meaning “brother”) originally refers to “the leader of a gang,” but it can also be used to address a man when “one is annoyed or surprised” (“大佬,” def. 1 and 3). In addition to indicating Neel’s gender, “Dai Lou” also expresses Ah Fatt’s frustration when explaining to Neel the social context in Canton, where foreign traders regularly engage with prostitutes despite it being illegal, thereby giving birth to children of mixed race. It further implies Neel’s unfamiliarity and, in contrast, Ah Fatt’s familiarity with and belonging to the Cantonese language and culture. Later, when Neel grows confused by the Cantonese word for dollar, “man / maan” (文), owing to its phonemic similarities with the English word “man,” Compton replies, “Mat-yeh?” (乜嘢, meaning “What?”) (River of Smoke, p. 253). Although “Mat-yeh” cannot be written in standard Chinese script, in this context it functions not merely as an interrogative pronoun meaning “what” but also as “a gap-filler when [Compton] cannot find the right word” (“乜嘢,” def. 3). It further suggests that Compton hesitates because he does not understand why Neel is confused by the word, since Compton is familiar with Cantonese and the meaning of “maan” is clear to him. Without alternatives in either English or Mandarin/standardised written Chinese, these Cantonese slang expressions imply the speakers’ deep feelings and emotions, further suggesting their sense of belonging to the Cantonese language and culture.

Since these native speakers see the world and form their thoughts in Cantonese, Cantonese grammar (including word order that differs from English, the lack of grammatical tenses and number markers, and the use of 尾語 [mei yü, end-of-sentence expressions]) also influences their speech in “weird English.” Every time Chi-Mei speaks “weird English,” regardless of her interlocutor, she misuses tenses, number, and word order. She asks Bahram: “Mistoh name belongi what-thing ah?” (River of Smoke, p. 64). The grammatically correct version of this sentence in English should be “What (things) does Mister’s name belong to, ah?” Chi-Mei speaks “weird English” not only because she lacks formal English grammar education, but also because she naturally follows Cantonese grammatical patterns in her speech. The sentence she speaks in Cantonese would roughly be “先生個名係指啊些䷀嘢咋，啊？” (word by word, “Mister’s name belong/mean what thing, ah?”), which is much closer to Chi-Mei’s words than standard English. Unlike English, which adds tense with suffixes such as “-ed” and “-ing” to verbs, Cantonese expresses time with adverbs such as “today,” “in the past,” “usually,” and the like. Cantonese’s lack of grammatical tense makes Chi-Mei unable to use the simple present tense in English correctly, which should follow the structure of “What + do/does + subject + verb.” Cantonese also lacks grammatical number, so speakers can only infer it from context. This means “名” could refer to both the singular and plural forms of the English word “name/names.” Hence, Chi-Mei mismatches the singular word “name” with the plural verb “belong” in her English speech. Furthermore, Chi-Mei adds a mei yü, “ah” (呀), at the end of her speech. Although mei yü lacks literal meaning, it “captures the nuances of the language as it was spoken in daily [Canton] life…[and] carried grammatical, syntactical, and tonal significance” (Chow, p. 108).⁶ Cantonese grammar structures exert a significant influence on Chi-Mei’s English speech, as well as on that of other native Cantonese speakers. This further suggests that these individuals’ ties to the Cantonese language and culture shape their worldview.

In addition to native speakers, Cantonese slang and grammatical patterns also influence the English speech of non-native Cantonese speakers. Living in Canton, the metropolis where Cantonese originated and predominates, people of other ethnicities cannot avoid interacting with local Cantonese speakers. As Saxena explains, xenophilic attunement can be “not ethnographic or reliable” (p. 222). Although Bahram’s native language is Gujarati, his speech is “silted with the sediment of many tongues—Gujarati, Hindusthani, English, pidgin, Cantonese” (River of Smoke, p. 208). Indeed, all the languages Bahram uses shape his hybrid identity. Among these languages, Cantonese phrases and grammar also influence the way Bahram speaks English, primarily when addressing native Cantonese speakers. When Punhyqua, a local merchant in Canton’s Thirteen Hongs, asks Bahram whether he likes the food, Bahram responds: “Too muchi like! Hou-sihk! Hou-sihk!” (River of Smoke, p. 269). “Hou-sihk” is the transliterated pronunciation of the Cantonese slang “好食,” meaning “good food,” used in daily life. The italicisation of “hou-sihk” indicates that this phrase is not only “[a] foreign word used in an English-language text,” but also a foreign word to Bahram, since it is not his native language (MLA Handbook 2.63). Rather than saying “good food” in English, Bahram uses this Cantonese slang even when speaking with a native speaker, suggesting that he is proficient in Cantonese, at least in everyday situations. In addition, he makes errors with pronouns, number, and word order when saying “too muchi like.” In standard English, he should respond “I like it too much.” Yet Bahram not only omits the pronouns “I” and “it” but also alters the word order. This is because he follows the Cantonese grammatical structure directly in English, as Chi-Mei does, as explained in the previous section. The Cantonese phrase for “too muchi like” is “好鍾意,” with “好” standing for “very/much” and “鍾意” meaning “like.” Thus the entire phrase “好鍾意” could be translated word by word as “very/much like,” which is much closer to “too muchi like” than to “I like it very much.” Bahram’s fluent use of Cantonese slang and his incorporation of Cantonese grammatical patterns into English further suggest that, in addition to native Cantonese speakers closely tied to Cantonese culture and language, the Cantonese-speaking environment in Canton also influences people of other ethnicities, languages, and cultural backgrounds.

Whilst the setting of Canton allows Cantonese to influence the English speech of both native and non-native Cantonese speakers, several Cantonese phrases become naturalised in English, extending beyond Cantonese speakers to all characters in the novel. As the MLA Handbook suggests, “foreign words that have been naturalized into English through frequent use” do not need to be italicised (2.63). Ghosh uses several culturally and linguistically specific Cantonese words directly, such as “Fanqui” and “Hong,” without italicisation. “Fanqui-town” replaces “foreign enclave,” and “Thirteen Hongs” replaces “Thirteen Industry.” Both words are culturally specific because the two locations they refer to existed only in Canton in the 19th century; they are also linguistically specific because they are used only in Cantonese, not even in Mandarin or other Chinese languages and dialects. Although neither word is commonly used in English owing to their cultural and linguistic particularity, Ghosh intentionally avoids italicising them because he uses them frequently in the fictional world of River of Smoke. The naturalisation of culturally and linguistically specific Cantonese words suggests that incorporating non-English languages could foster inclusion within Ghosh’s “World Englishes,” thereby laying the foundation for a “multilingual future” (Huddart, p. 134).

}
Linguistic Tolerance & Cultural Identity

Incorporating Cantonese further fosters greater tolerance and inclusivity by encouraging acceptance of different languages and cultures. In Sea of Poppies, Neel was very arrogant about his privilege in English language and literature. On the Ibis, Neel’s identity transitioned from that of a high-caste Indian businessman receiving a prestigious education to that of a vulnerable prisoner being expelled to Mauritius. All he had to defend himself was his “perfect” English, the imperialist, singular language of the British colonisers that could showcase his prior privilege in caste, education, and economic status. Although he was able to cite Shakespeare in gaol, “no words of his own would come to mind” (Sea of Poppies, p. 283). This suggests, first, that the English language and literature belong only to British colonisers and are therefore not “words of his own”; and second, that as a colonised subject, all he has are quotations from Shakespeare’s plays rather than his own thoughts. In contrast, Neel becomes much more tolerant and welcoming of non-English languages, signs, and gestures after he becomes the multilingual speaker Bahram’s munshi (personal secretary) in River of Smoke. “He pay[s] close attention, not just to what Bahram said, but also to the gestures, signs[,] and facial expressions with which he amplifie[s], enlarge[s] upon, and even negate[s] the burden of his words” (River of Smoke, p. 208). Although Neel is always aware of different languages, he gradually becomes far more open-minded and interested in non-English, non-Western languages. In this multilingual, multicultural environment, he treats all languages and cultures with equal openness and respect. Along with the sound of Cantonese, Neel becomes interested in Chinese characters in general, as the following passage illustrates:

[F]or [Neel] Canton offered no greater pleasure than the ubiquitous presence of the ideograms, on shop-signs, doorways, umbrellas, carts and boats. He had already learned to recognise a few of them: the character 人 for example, which was easy to remember because its two legs represented its meaning “man” (River of Smoke, pp. 252–253).

Associating “no greater pleasure than” with “the ideograms,” this passage shows Neel’s love of Chinese writing. “Ideograms” refers to “a picture or symbol used in a system of writing to represent a thing or an idea but not a particular word or phrase for it” (“Ideogram,” def. 1). This indicates that, unlike phonetic English, Chinese is a pictographic language founded on visual resemblance. This dramatic linguistic difference allows Neel to explore another way in which language can work: in Shakespeare’s English, what he owns is the sound rather than the meaning; in Chinese, even though it is not his native language, he can visualise and appreciate the aesthetic values of words. Whilst depicting Neel’s understanding of both the visual and literary meaning of the Chinese character for “man/person,” Ghosh uses only the Chinese character “人” throughout the entire novel, rather than Romanising it. The deliberate use of “人” not only helps readers picture “its two legs [that] represent its meaning ‘man,’” but also suggests that Neel appreciates the authentic, aesthetic value of this word.

In addition, Neel also finds a sense of belonging in Hindustani and Bengali, languages he previously refused to speak. On the Ibis, Neel “would speak English whenever possible, everywhere possible” because only English could restore the sense of privilege he had lost. In Neel’s view at that time, Hindustani and Bengali were, in contrast to English, associated with low-caste Indians who had not received an elite English education. Yet Canton is a foreign environment for Neel, being neither his native land in India nor predominantly English-speaking. There, he not only learns new languages but also becomes more accepting of his own language and culture. He no longer sees Hindustani and Bengali speakers as lower caste; instead, he feels connected to them and to Indian culture, as shown in the following passage:

But Neel had another reason to frequent [Asha-didi’s] eatery: for him the foods of her kitchen were spiced by an additional reward: the pleasure of speaking Bengali.

Asha-didi’s fluency in Hindustani and Bengali often came as a surprise to Achhas for there was nothing about her to suggest a connection with their homeland…she would answer with a laugh: You know there’s no jadoo in it; I was born in Calcutta and grew up there; my family is still settled there… (River of Smoke, pp. 303–304)

Other Indian Achhas regard the Hindustani and Bengali spoken by Asha-didi, the Cantonese woman who owns a kitchen-boat, as “a surprise,” because the language mismatches Asha-didi’s ethnicity. Asha-didi speaks these two languages so fluently because of her cultural background, having been born and raised in Calcutta. Her proficiency in Hindustani and Bengali, as well as her upbringing, connect her to Neel’s own identities. The close linguistic and cultural ties between them lead Neel to frequent her boat-kitchen. Neel even associates “speaking Bengali” with the positive connotations of “reward” and “pleasure,” which he rarely did in Sea of Poppies. He not only feels connected to his homeland, Calcutta, but also cherishes positive memories of it. In this sense, he becomes more accepting of his languages and identities, which he had previously refused to treasure. This further demonstrates that learning Cantonese, as one example of non-Western, culturally specific languages, can not only make characters more interested in this particular language itself but also help them find a sense of belonging in their own native languages, which are equally non-Western and culturally specific. Together, such an experience of language learning enables individuals to treat all languages and cultures with equal regard, adding another dimension to the inclusivity of World Englishes.

Situating River of Smoke in the multicultural, multilingual Fanqui City of Canton before and during the Opium War, Amitav Ghosh depicts everyday interactions among individuals with diverse ethnicities, nationalities, genders, and socio-economic backgrounds. He narrates a unique power dynamic among those individuals, grounded primarily in economic benefits through the opium trade. This challenges the global racial hierarchy that empowers whiteness and, more importantly, creates a space where interaction between Chinese residents and non-Chinese traders becomes necessary. By incorporating Cantonese, as one example of culturally specific languages, into English, Ghosh creates a plural, inclusive form of World Englishes that acknowledges linguistic and cultural specificities. Cantonese influences the English speech of both native and non-native Cantonese speakers, as evident in their direct use of Cantonese slang and “weird English” shaped by Cantonese grammar structures. It also inspires learners to become more tolerant and open-minded about all languages and cultures. Both aspects add multiplicity, inclusivity, and transnationality to World Englishes, not merely linguistically but also culturally. Such an innovative multicultural and multilingual practice may provide a compelling solution to the long-lasting discontent surrounding English: whilst English may be limited in depicting the experience of the dominant and imperialist culture, World Englishes, the plural form of English that incorporates other languages, have the ability to acknowledge cultural specificities whilst also reaching out to readers worldwide. I hope my analysis, whilst contributing to prior discussions of Ghosh’s multilingual practice, also offers a potential solution to the seemingly intractable debate surrounding English.

1. Cantonese: 番鬼城, literally meaning “city of the foreign ghost.” ↩︎
2. A southern Chinese city used to be the largest trading port for opium in China in the 19^th century, where Cantonese language/dialect originates from. ↩︎
3. Huddart discusses the use of “World Englishes” in Hong Kong and Singapore. The other languages in his book primarily refer to various Chinese and Southeast Asian languages and dialects. I use the term “World Englishes” in a broader sense, encompassing any language, dialect, or culture.  ↩︎
4. Shortened to “the Committee” in the following passage, as “in Fanqui-town everyone spoke of it simply as ‘the Committee’” (River of Smoke, p. 185). ↩︎
5. Hongs: 行, meaning “industry.” Ghosh uses the word “Hong(s)” directly without italicising it; the purpose of this is explained later in the essay. ↩︎
6. Although Rey Chow discusses Cantonese mei yü in contemporary Hong Kong before 1997, the concept may be applied to Ghosh’s portrayal of Canton in the 19th century because of their similarities: Cantonese is the predominant language, and international trade plays a significant role in both cities. ↩︎

Works Cited

▚ Burton, Antoinette. “Amitav Ghosh’s World Histories from Below.” History of the Present, vol. 2, no. 1, 2012, pp. 71–77.
▚ Ch’ien, Evelyn Nien-Ming. Weird English. Harvard University Press, 2004.
▚ Chow, Rey. Not Like a Native Speaker: On Languaging as a Postcolonial Experience. Columbia University Press, 2014.
▚ “大佬 [daai6 lou2], N.” 粵典 [CantoWords].
▚ Ghosh, Amitav. River of Smoke. Picador, 2011.
▚ Ghosh, Amitav. Sea of Poppies. Picador, 2008.
▚ Ghosh, Amitav. “Storytelling and the Spectrum of the Past.” The American Historical Review, vol. 121, no. 5, 2016, pp. 1552–65.
▚ Gopinath, Praseeda. “Narrating from Below.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 57, no. 1, 2016, pp. 153–61.
▚ Hellman, Lisa. This House Is Not a Home: European Everyday Life in Canton and Macao 1730–1830. Brill, 2018.
▚ Huddart, David. Involuntary Associations: Postcolonial Studies and World Englishes. Liverpool University Press, 2014.
▚ “Ideogram.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideogram. Accessed 7 Dec. 2025.
▚ “乜嘢 [mat1 je5], Pron.” 粵典 [CantoWords].
▚ MLA Handbook. 9th ed., Modern Language Association of America, 2021.
▚ Saxena, Akshya. “Stereo Accent: Reading, Writing, and Xenophilic Attunement.” Thinking with an Accent: Toward a New Object, Method, and Practice, edited by Akshya Saxena et al., 1st ed., vol. 3, University of California Press, 2023, pp. 211–28.

^{How to cite, Ran, Qinxian Bonnie. “Canton and Cantonese in Amitav Ghosh’s River of Smoke.” Cha: An Asian Literary Journal, 20 Apr. 2026. chajournal.com/2026/04/20/river-of-smoke.}

Qinxian Bonnie Ran was born and raised in Shanghai. In Chinese, she has published poems in The Epoch Poetry Quarterly, Voice & Verse Poetry Magazine, and Poetry Lab Shanghai. In English, she studies Classics and Literature at Hamilton College, where she is developing her research interests in comparative and world literature, diaspora studies, and postcolonial studies. [All contributions by Qinxian Bonnie Ran.]