国际旅游地的游客与居民对语言景观的感知与认同

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2024.07.20230033

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

全球化增强了不同国家和民族的文化交流，国际旅游是其中不可忽视的跨文化情境。多语言环境下，语言景观成为学界关注热点。许多来自社会语言学领域的研究分析了语言景观中的认同/身份、权力等议题，但它们通常在常规社会情境下着眼于某一族群或某一语种。本研究关注多语种、多主体在同一物质空间交汇的特殊的国际旅游情境，旨在呈现不同主体对语言景观感知和认同差异化的表现。本文以泰国曼谷和清迈为例，通过两个相互关联的子研究，考察和比较泰国居民、中国游客、非中国游客对语言景观的感知和认同，发现不同族群、不同语种的语言景观与认同的关系存在差异，深层次地反映了语言与族群身份在国际旅游场景下对文化和经济不同层次的影响。

关键词: 语言景观, 国际旅游, 认同, 全球化, 跨文化交流

Abstract:

The globalization has enhanced cultural exchanges among different countries and peoples. The communication in the cross-cultural context relies on various linguistic landscape, which materially presents language and text. In multilingual environments, linguistic landscapes have become a hot spot of academic attention. Many studies from the field of sociolinguistics have revealed issues such as identity and power in linguistic landscapes, but they usually focus on one ethnic group or one language in conventional social contexts and the use of multiple linguistic landscape in cross-cultural context needs to be further researched. This study focuses on the intersection of multiple languages and subjects in the same physical space in a particular international tourism context, aiming to present more differentiated relationships between linguistic landscapes and identity. Taking Bangkok and Chiang Mai, Thailand, as samples, this paper examines and compares the perceptions and identities of Thai residents, Chinese tourists, and non-Chinese tourists on the linguistic landscape through two interrelated sub-studies. Study 1 explores the relationship between residents' perceptions of the informative and symbolic dimensions of the Chinese and English linguistic landscape, place identity and support for the Chinese and English linguistic landscape. The result shows that the symbolic dimension of English linguistic landscape positively affects local residents' place identity and further affects the support degree of the use of English linguistic landscape, while the informative dimension of Chinese linguistic landscape make effects like that. Study 2 examines the relationships between Chinese and non-Chinese tourists' perceptions of informative and symbolic dimensions of the Chinese and English linguistic landscapes, national identity, cultural identity, collectivism and satisfaction. The result reveals that the symbolic dimension of linguistic landscape is more likely to positively influence the national identity and cultural identity of tourists. And, the linguistic landscape is more likely to positively affects the cultural identity of tourists. Besides, the moderating effect of collectivism is also examined among Chinese tourists. This paper expands the study of linguistic landscape in the context of international tourism through multi groups, but further progress is still needed.

Key words: linguistic landscape, international tourism, identity, globalization, cross-cultural communication

魏超, 肖学宏, 徐红罡. 国际旅游地的游客与居民对语言景观的感知与认同[J]. 世界地理研究, 2024, 33(7): 33-45.

Chao WEI, Xuehong XIAO, Honggang XU. The perception and identification of linguistic landscape among tourists and residents in international tourism destinations: A case study of Bangkok and Chiang Mai， Thailand[J]. World Regional Studies, 2024, 33(7): 33-45.

图/表 5

参考文献 47

1	ARISTOVA N. Rethinking cultural identities in the context of globalization: Linguistic landscape of Kazan, Russia, as an emerging global city. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016(236): 153-160.
2	AMARA M. Arabisation, globalisation, and Hebraisation reflexes in shop names in the Palestinian Arab linguistic landscape in Israel. Language and Intercultural Communication, 2019, 19(3): 272-288.
3	LANDRY R, BOURHIS R. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1997, 16(1): 23-49.
4	尚国文, 赵守辉. 语言景观的分析维度与理论构建.外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 2014, 37(6): 81-89.
	SHANG G, ZHAO S. Linguistic landscape studies: Analytical dimensions and theoretical construction. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2014, 37(6): 81-89.
5	GORTER D. Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2013(33): 190-212.
6	MANAN S, DAVID M, DUMANIG F, et al. Politics, economics and identity: Mapping the linguistic landscape of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2015, 12(1): 31-50.
7	CASTILLO-VILLAR F, MERLO-SIMONI G. Locals' perspectives on the role of tourism in the preservation of a diaspora language: The case of Veneto in Mexico. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2022, 20(4): 516-529.
8	LONARDI S. Minority languages and tourism: A literature review. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2022, 17(3): 342-356.
9	LONARDI S, MARTINI U, HULL J. Minority languages as sustainable tourism resources: From indigenous groups in British Columbia (Canada) to Cimbrian people in Giazza (Italy). Annals of Tourism Research, 2020(83) :102859.
10	YAO X. Commodification or shared ownership? A case study of Chinese communities in the linguistic landscape of Bendigo. Applied Linguistics Review, 2023, 14(3): 447-472.
11	KALLEN L. Tourism and representation in the Irish linguistic landscape//SHOHAMY E, GORTER D. Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. London: Routledge, 2009, 310-324.
12	EDWARDS J. 'I have to save this language, it's on the edge like an endangered animal': Perceptions of language threat and linguistic mainlandisation in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2021, 42(4): 307-326.
13	李丽生, 夏娜. 少数民族地区城市语言景观中的语言使用状况——以丽江市古城区为例. 语言战略研究, 2017, 2(2): 35-42.
	LI L, XIA N. The linguistic landscape in a multiethnic region: The case of Lijiang's old town. Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning, 2017, 2(2): 35-42.
14	徐红罡, 任燕. 旅游对纳西东巴文语言景观的影响. 旅游学刊, 2015, 30(1) :102-111.
	XU H, REN Y. Tourism impact on the Naxi Dongba linguistic landscape. Tourism Tribune, 2015, 30(1): 102-111.
15	MÁRTA G. Making tourists feel at home: Linguistic landscape of Hódmezővásárhely. Agricultural Management/Lucrari Stiintifice Seriai, Management Agricol, 2011, 13(4): 31-38.
16	MAGNINI V, MILLER T, KIM B. The psychological effects of foreign-language restaurant signs on potential diners. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 2011, 35(1): 24-44.
17	LU S, LI G, XU M. The linguistic landscape in rural destinations: A case study of Hongcun Village in China. Tourism Management, 2020(77): 104005.
18	BRUYÈL-OLMEDO A, JUAN-GARAU M. Minority languages in the linguistic landscape of tourism: The case of Catalan in Mallorca. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2015, 36(6): 598-619.
19	BRUYÈL-OLMEDO A, JUAN-GARAU M. Coexisting varieties of English in the linguistic landscape of tourism: The Bay of Palma. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2020, 41(2): 157-174.
20	TOUCHSTONE E, KOSLOW S, SHAMDASANI P, et al. The linguistic servicescape: Speaking their language may not be enough. Journal of Business Research, 2017(72): 147-157.
21	TORKINGTON K. Tourism-related mobilities and discursive landscaping in the Algarve. Dos Algarves: A multidisciplinary E-journal, 2014(24): 40-63.
22	韩震. 论国家认同、民族认同及文化认同——一种基于历史哲学的分析与思考. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2010(1): 106-113.
	HAN Z. Country Identity, nationality identity and culture identity. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences), 2010(1): 106-113.
23	戴庆厦. 从语言上论中华民族共同体的认同. 民族语文, 2022(2): 3-10.
	DAI Q. Identification with the community for the Chinese nation: A language-based study. Minority Languages of China, 2022(2): 3-10.
24	LIPOVSKY C. Belleville's linguistic heterogeneity viewed from its landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2019, 16(3): 244-269.
25	TRAN T. Pho as the embodiment of Vietnamese national identity in the linguistic landscape of a western Canadian city. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2021, 18(1): 73-89.
26	WILLIAMS D, VASKE J. The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 2003, 49(6): 830-840.
27	唐文跃, 张捷, 罗浩, 等. 古村落居民地方依恋与资源保护态度的关系——以西递、宏村、南屏为例. 旅游学刊, 2008(10): 87-92.
	TANG W, ZHANG J, LUO H, et al. Relationship between the place attachment of ancient village residents and their attitude towards resource protection: A case study of Xidi, Hongcun and Nanping Villages. Tourism Tribune, 2008(10): 87-92.
28	杨立国, 刘沛林, 林琳. 传统村落景观基因在地方认同建构中的作用效应——以侗族村寨为例. 地理科学, 2015, 35(5): 593-598.
	YANG L, LIU P, LIN L. The effect of traditional village landscape genes in construction place identity: Taking the Dong minority village as an example. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2015, 35(5): 593-598.
29	WANG S, CHEN J. The influence of place identity on perceived tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 2015(52): 16-28.
30	BEN-RAFAEL E, SHOHAMY E, HASAN A, et al. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2006, 3(1): 7-30.
31	TAYLOR-LEECH K. Language choice as an index of identity: Linguistic landscape in Dili, Timor-Leste. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2012, 9(1): 15-34.
32	HALLAK R, BROWN G, LINDSAY N. The place identity-performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis. Tourism Management, 2012, 33(1): 143-154.
33	YANG I, FRENCH J, LEE C, et al. The symbolism of international tourism in national identity. Annals of Tourism Research, 2020(83): 102966.
34	CENOZ J, GORTER D. Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2006, 3(1): 67-80.
35	CODÓ E, MCDAID J. English language assistants in the 21st century: Nation-state soft power in the experience economy. Language, Culture and Society, 2019, 1(2): 219-243.
36	SHARMA B. The scarf, language, and other semiotic assemblages in the formation of a new Chinatown. Applied Linguistics Review, 2021, 12(1): 65-91.
37	陈才, 卢昌崇. 认同:旅游体验研究的新视角. 旅游学刊, 2011, 26(3): 37-42.
	CHEN C, LU C. Identity: A new perspective in the study of tourism experience. Tourism Tribune, 2011, 26(3): 37-42.
38	张捷, 卢韶婧, 杜国庆, 等. 中、日都市旅游街区书法景观空间分异及其文化认同比较研究. 地理科学, 2014, 34(7): 831-839.
	ZHANG J, LU S, DU G, et al. On spatial differentiation and related cultural identity of calligraphic landscapes in tourist districts: A comparative study between China and Japan. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014, 34(7): 831-839.
39	OYSERMAN D, COON H, KEMMELMEIER M. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 2002, 128(1): 3-72.
40	GUNDLACH M, ZIVNUSKA S, STONER J. Understanding the relationship between individualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 2006, 59(12): 1603-1632.
41	于米. 个人/集体主义倾向与知识分享意愿之间的关系研究:知识活性的调节作用. 南开管理评论, 2011, 14(6): 149-157.
	YU M. The study on the relationships between individualism/collectivism orientation and knowledge sharing intention: The moderating effect of affectual knowledge. Nankai Business Review, 2011, 14(6): 149-157.
42	尚国文. 宏观社会语言学视域下的旅游语言景观研究. 浙江外国语学院学报, 2018(3): 46-56.
	SHANG G. Tourism linguistic landscape study: A macro sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of Zhejiang International Studies University, 2018(3): 46-56.
43	KARAM F, WARREN A, KIBLER A, et al. Beiruti linguistic landscape: An analysis of private store fronts. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2020, 17(2): 196-214.
44	NUNKOO R, RAMKISSOON H. Developing a community support model for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 2011, 38(3): 964-988.
45	ZEUGNER-ROTH K, ŽABKAR V, DIAMANTOPOULOS A. Consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism as drivers of consumer behavior: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 2015, 23(2): 25-54.
46	HE J, WANG C. Cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism impacts on preference and purchase of domestic versus import brands: An empirical study in China. Journal of Business Research, 2015, 68(6): 1225-1233.
47	HUEBNER T. Bangkok's linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing and language change. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2006, 3(1): 31-51.

变量（Cronbach’s α）	标准化因子载荷	平均变异数萃取（AVE）	组合信度（CR）
中文/英文语言景观信息性（0.752/ 0.769）		0.512/ 0.553	0.758/ 0.786
IC1/IE1 公共场所中的中文/英文能为游客提供有效的信息	Delete/ 0.782
IC2/IE2公共场所中的中文/英文能使游客在泰国的行程更顺利	0.677/ 0.800
IC3/IE3公共场所中的中文/英文能提升游客在泰国的旅游体验	0.662/ 0.638
IC4/IE4公共场所中的中文/英文能促进游客对泰国的了解	0.800/ Delete
中文/英文语言景观象征性（0.841/ 0.736）		0.575/ 0.484	0.843/ 0.737
SC2/SE2公共场所出现的中文/英文是一种国际化的象征	0.679/ 0.750
SC3/SE3公共场所出现的中文/英文能够体现泰国人民对中国人/英语国家的友情好客	0.774/ 0.700
SC4/SE4公共场所出现的中文/英文是中国/英语国家国际地位提升的象征	0.835/ Delete
SC5/SE5公共场所出现的中文/英文是中国/英语国家文化输出的象征	0.737/ 0.633
地方认同（0.860）		0.634	0.872
PI3我很认同自己是曼谷/清迈的一员	0.866
PI4我很喜欢曼谷/清迈	0.881
PI5曼谷/清迈对我来说具有重要的意义	0.783
PI6我对曼谷/清迈的喜欢程度超过其他任何地方	0.629
对中文/英文语言景观的支持度（0.769/ 0.802）		0.537/ 0.503	0.776/ 0.802
SPC1/ SPE1公共场所使用中文/英文可以帮助泰国旅游向正确的方向发展	Delete/ 0.734
SPC2/ SPE2公共场所使用中文/英文将促进泰国旅游的发展	Delete/ 0.680
SPC3/ SPE3公共场所使用中文/英文，我感到非常高兴和自豪	0.648/ Delete
SPC4/ SPE4我愿意支持在泰国的公共场所中使用中文/英文	0.771/ 0.737
SPC5/ SPE5泰国的公共场所中应该使用更多的中文/英文	0.772/ 0.684

变量（Cronbach’s α）	标准化因子载荷	平均变异数萃取（AVE）	组合信度（CR）
中文/英文语言景观信息性（0.752/ 0.769）		0.512/ 0.553	0.758/ 0.786
IC1/IE1 公共场所中的中文/英文能为游客提供有效的信息	Delete/ 0.782
IC2/IE2公共场所中的中文/英文能使游客在泰国的行程更顺利	0.677/ 0.800
IC3/IE3公共场所中的中文/英文能提升游客在泰国的旅游体验	0.662/ 0.638
IC4/IE4公共场所中的中文/英文能促进游客对泰国的了解	0.800/ Delete
中文/英文语言景观象征性（0.841/ 0.736）		0.575/ 0.484	0.843/ 0.737
SC2/SE2公共场所出现的中文/英文是一种国际化的象征	0.679/ 0.750
SC3/SE3公共场所出现的中文/英文能够体现泰国人民对中国人/英语国家的友情好客	0.774/ 0.700
SC4/SE4公共场所出现的中文/英文是中国/英语国家国际地位提升的象征	0.835/ Delete
SC5/SE5公共场所出现的中文/英文是中国/英语国家文化输出的象征	0.737/ 0.633
地方认同（0.860）		0.634	0.872
PI3我很认同自己是曼谷/清迈的一员	0.866
PI4我很喜欢曼谷/清迈	0.881
PI5曼谷/清迈对我来说具有重要的意义	0.783
PI6我对曼谷/清迈的喜欢程度超过其他任何地方	0.629
对中文/英文语言景观的支持度（0.769/ 0.802）		0.537/ 0.503	0.776/ 0.802
SPC1/ SPE1公共场所使用中文/英文可以帮助泰国旅游向正确的方向发展	Delete/ 0.734
SPC2/ SPE2公共场所使用中文/英文将促进泰国旅游的发展	Delete/ 0.680
SPC3/ SPE3公共场所使用中文/英文，我感到非常高兴和自豪	0.648/ Delete
SPC4/ SPE4我愿意支持在泰国的公共场所中使用中文/英文	0.771/ 0.737
SPC5/ SPE5泰国的公共场所中应该使用更多的中文/英文	0.772/ 0.684

模型	假设	路径	标准化系数	标准误差	p值	检验结果
中文语言景观模型	H1a	信息性→地方认同	0.398	0.156	p<0.001	支持
	H2a	象征性→地方认同	－0.015	0.109	p=0.852	拒绝
	H3a	地方认同→支持度	0.239	0.040	p<0.001	支持
英文语言景观模型	H1b	信息性→地方认同	－0.123	0.190	p=0.291	拒绝
	H2b	象征性→地方认同	0.506	0.188	p<0.001	支持
	H3b	地方认同→支持度	0.407	0.035	p<0.001	支持

模型	假设	路径	标准化系数	标准误差	p值	检验结果
中文语言景观模型	H1a	信息性→地方认同	0.398	0.156	p<0.001	支持
	H2a	象征性→地方认同	－0.015	0.109	p=0.852	拒绝
	H3a	地方认同→支持度	0.239	0.040	p<0.001	支持
英文语言景观模型	H1b	信息性→地方认同	－0.123	0.190	p=0.291	拒绝
	H2b	象征性→地方认同	0.506	0.188	p<0.001	支持
	H3b	地方认同→支持度	0.407	0.035	p<0.001	支持

变量（Cronbach’s α）	标准化因子载荷	平均变异数萃取	组合信度
中文/英文语言景观信息性（0.857）		0.590	0.851
IC1/IE1我认为公共场所出现的中文/英文能提供有效的信息	0.791
IC2/IE2公共场所出现的中文/英文能使我在泰国的行程更顺利	0.890
IC3/IE3公共场所出现的中文/英文能提升我在泰国的旅游体验	0.681
IC4/IE4公共场所出现的中文/英文能促进我对泰国的了解	0.693
中文/英文语言景观象征性（0.874）		0.641	0.877
SC3/SE3公共场所的中文/英文是一种现代化的象征	0.750
SC5/SE5公共场所的中文/英文能体现泰国人对中国/英语国家的友好	0.732
SC6/SE6公共场所的中文/英文是中国/英语国家国际地位提升的象征	0.880
SC7/SE7公共场所的中文/英文是中国/英语国家文化输出的象征	0.832
国家认同（0.948）		0.823	0.949
NI1我认可我是祖国的一份子	0.862
NI2我为我的祖国感到自豪	0.941
NI3我为我的祖国感到高兴	0.927
NI4我对我的祖国有强烈的归属感。	0.896
文化认同（0.840）		0.576	0.844
CI1 我的祖国拥有其他国家不具有的特定文化特征	0.701
CI2一般而言，我的国人同胞拥有共同的历史背景	0.836
CI3我的祖国在全球历史上发生了标志性的事件	0.760
CI4我的祖国拥有很多的历史文化遗产	0.731
满意度（0.913）		0.782	0.915
SA1我对在泰国的行程总体感到满意	0.846
SA2我很高兴决定来泰国旅游	0.936
SA3我会向亲朋好友推荐泰国这个目的地	0.868