国际旅游地的语言景观与主客关系研究

魏超; 肖学宏; 徐红罡

doi:10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2023.02.020

PDF(13025 KB)

人文地理 ›› 2023, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2) : 172-180. DOI: 10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2023.02.020

旅游

国际旅游地的语言景观与主客关系研究

魏超, 肖学宏, 徐红罡

作者信息 +

LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE AND HOST-GUEST RELATIONSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS

WEI Chao, XIAO Xue-hong, XU Hong-gang

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

主客关系是旅游研究的重要议题。不同于传统研究关注主客的直接交往，本文聚焦于语言景观这一物质媒介，基于其信息性和象征性的维度，提出了“主—语言景观—客”的概念框架，从工具理性和权力关系层面来解读国际旅游地的主客关系。运用问卷调查法，在泰国曼谷和清迈向泰国居民、中国游客、非中国游客发起调查，研究发现东道主和游客对于中、英文语言景观的信息性和象征性有不同层面的认识，间接地反映了主客之间的多重关系。语言景观作为物质媒介塑造了公共空间，能动地将游客和东道主联系起来。本研究拓展了国际旅游地主客关系的研究视野，并丰富了语言景观在旅游地理领域的研究成果。

Abstract

As an important research topic of international tourism, the host-guest relationship has been widely concerned. Previous research on the host-guest relationship has mostly discussed the direct interaction, and those explicit power conflicts and cultural exchanges have been fully analyzed. However, limited studies focus on the indirect host-guest relationship built upon material media. In the context of international tourism, hosts and tourists usually have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, so the linguistic landscape becomes the intermediary of communication, and thus reflects the silent interaction between different groups in public space. Based on the cultural meaning of material landscape as an intermediate medium, this paper interprets the host-guest relationship in international destinations from the perspective of instrumental rationality and power relationship. Questionnaires were distributed to Thai residents, Chinese tourists, and nonChinese tourists in Thailand. 392 questionnaires of Thai residents and 296 questionnaires of Chinese tourists and 194 questionnaires of non-Chinese tourists were obtained. T-test analysis by SPSS was utilized to compare the cognition differences between Chinese and English linguistic landscapes in informative and symbolic dimensions, and the results show that: 1) The cognitive differences between residents and tourists are not significant, but there is a great difference in the symbolic dimension of linguistic landscapes; 2) Thai residents' cognition of Chinese linguistic landscape is weaker than that of English linguistic landscape, both in informative and symbolic dimensions; 3) Compared with non-Chinese tourists, Chinese tourists generally have a stronger symbolic cognition of linguistic landscape.

导出引用

魏超, 肖学宏, 徐红罡. 国际旅游地的语言景观与主客关系研究[J]. 人文地理. 2023, 38(2): 172-180 https://doi.org/10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2023.02.020

WEI Chao, XIAO Xue-hong, XU Hong-gang. LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE AND HOST-GUEST RELATIONSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS[J]. HUMAN GEOGRAPHY. 2023, 38(2): 172-180 https://doi.org/10.13959/j.issn.1003-2398.2023.02.020

中图分类号： K901

参考文献

[1] Saarinen J, Manwa H. Tourism as a socio-cultural encounter:Hostguest relations in tourism development in Botswana[J]. Botswana Notes and Records, 2008,39:43-53.
[2] 张机,徐红罡.民族旅游地区家空间的主客角色冲突研究——以丽江白沙村为例[J].地理科学,2016,36(7):1057-1065.[Zhang Ji, Xu Honggang. The role conflicts between hosts and guests in home space in ethnic areas, Lijiang, China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2016,36(7):1057-1065.]
[3] 张机,徐红罡.民族餐馆里的主客互动过程研究——以丽江白沙村为例[J].旅游学刊,2016,31(2):97-108.[Zhang Ji, Xu Honggang. The host-guest interaction process in ethnic restaurants:A case study of Lijiang, China[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2016,31(2):97-108.]
[4] 孙九霞.旅游中的主客交往与文化传播[J].旅游学刊,2012,27(12):20-21.[Sun Jiuxia. Host-guest interaction and cultural communication in tourism[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2012,27(12):20-21.]
[5] 李劲松,王永琴".主客关系"视域下"东亚文化之都"与旅游的融合发展[J].旅游学刊,2020,35(7):5-7.[Li Jinsong, Wang Yongqin. Integration and development of "East Asian Cultural center" and tourism from the perspective of host-guest relationship[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2020,35(7):5-7.]
[6] 魏雷,钱俊希,朱竑.谁的真实性?——泸沽湖的旅游凝视与本土认同[J].旅游学刊,2015,30(8):66-76.[Wei Lei, Qian Junxi, Zhu Hong. Whose authenticity?Tourist gaze and local identities in Lugu Lake[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2015,30(8):66-76.]
[7] Urry J, Larsen J. The Tourist Gaze 3.0[M]. London:Sage, 2011:1-31.
[8] Ying T, Wen J, Wang L. Language facilitation for outbound Chinese tourists:Importance-performance and gap analyses of New Zealand hotels[J]. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2018,35(9):1222-1233.
[9] Landry R, Bourhis R Y. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality:An empirical study[J]. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1997,16(1):23-49.
[10] 尚国文.宏观社会语言学视域下的旅游语言景观研究[J].浙江外国语学院学报,2018(3):46-56.[Shang Guowen. Tourism linguistic landscape study:A macro sociolinguistic perspective[J]. Journal of Zhejiang International Studies University, 2018(3):46-56.]
[11] Bruyèl-Olmedo A, Juan-Garau M. Coexisting varieties of English in the linguistic landscape of tourism:The Bay of Palma[J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2020, 41(2):157-174.
[12] Lu S, Li G, Xu M. The linguistic landscape in rural destinations:A case study of Hongcun Village in China[J]. Tourism Management, 2020,77:104005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104005.
[13] Hansen Edwards J G.'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[J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2021,42(4):307-326.
[14] 尚国文.语言景观的语言经济学分析——以新马泰为例[J].语言战略研究,2016(4):83-91.[Shang Guowen. An economics approach to linguistic landscape:Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand as a case[J]. Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning, 2016(4):83-91.]
[15] Fan D X F, Zhang H Q, Jenkins C L, et al. Does tourist-host social contact reduce perceived cultural distance?[J]. Journal of Travel Research, 2017,56(8):998-1010.
[16] 廖梓维,张补宏,吴志才.潮州古城旅游社区主客活动秩序研究[J].人文地理,2020,35(3):151-160.[Liao Ziwei, Zhang Buhong, Wu Zhicai. A study on characteristics of host-guest activities order in the ancient city of Chaozhou[J]. Human Geography, 2020, 35(3):151-160.]
[17] 梁旺兵.西安市外国游客旅游交往行为及交往效应研究[J].人文地理,2009,24(3):93-96.[Liang Wangbing. A study on the tourist communication behaviors between foreign visitors and local residents in Xian[J]. Human Geography, 2009,24(3):93-96.]
[18] Lin B, Fu X. Gaze and tourist-host relationship-state of the art[J]. Tourism Review, 2020,76(1):138-149.
[19] 罗鲜荣,黄松山.东道主凝视下的中西方背包旅游者比较研究[J].旅游学刊,2016,31(11):32-41.[Luo Xianrong, Huang Songshan (Sam). A comparative study between Chinese and western backpackers:Seeing with the host gaze[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2016,31(11):32-41.]
[20] Torkington K. Tourism-related mobilities and discursive landscaping in the Algarve[J]. Dos Algarves:A Multidisciplinary E-journal, 2014,24:40-63.
[21] Amara M. Language, identity and conflict:Examining collective identity through the labels of the Palestinians in Israel[J]. Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, 2016,15(2):203-223.
[22] Bigon L, Dahamshe A. An anatomy of symbolic power:Israeli roadsign policy and the Palestinian minority[J]. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 2014,32(4):606-621.
[23] Bruyel-Olmedo A, Juan-Garau M. Minority languages in the linguistic landscape of tourism:The case of Catalan in Mallorca[J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2015,36(6):598-619.
[24] Nash J. Is linguistic landscape necessary?[J]. Landscape Research, 2016,41(3):380-384.
[25] 徐茗,卢松.城市语言景观研究进展及展望[J].人文地理,2015,30(1):21-25.[Xu Ming, Lu Song. Research progress and prospect of urban linguistic landscape[J]. Human Geography, 2015,30(1):21-25.]
[26] 张蔼恒,孙九霞.语言景观研究进展:地方主体的空间实践[J].人文地理,2019,34(4):13-19.[Zhang Aiheng, Sun Jiuxia. Progress of linguistic landscape from the prospective of space practice and place subjectivity[J]. Human Geography, 2019,34(4):13-19.]
[27] 蒋长春,张捷,万基财.名山风景区书法景观在游客地方感中的作用——以武夷山风景区为例[J].旅游学刊,2015,30(4):73-83.[Jiang Changchun, Zhang Jie, Wan Jicai. The role of calligraphic landscapes on tourists'sense of place in famous mountain scenic spots:A Wuyi Mountain case study[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2015,30(4):73-83.]
[28] Magnini V P, Miller T, Kim B C. The psychological effects of foreign-language restaurant signs on potential diners[J]. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 2011,35(1):24-44.
[29] Kallen L L J. Tourism and representation in the Irish linguistic landscape[M]//Shohamy E, Gorter D. Linguistic Landscape:Expanding the Scenery. New York:Routledge, 2008:310-324.
[30] 徐红罡,任燕.旅游对纳西东巴文语言景观的影响[J].旅游学刊, 2015,30(1):102-111.[Xu Honggang, Ren Yan. Tourism impact on the Naxi Dongba linguistic landscape[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2015, 30(1):102-111.]
[31] 尚国文,赵守辉.语言景观的分析维度与理论构建[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报),2014,37(6):81-89.[Shang Guowen, Zhao Shouhui. Linguistic landscape studies:Analytical dimensions and theoretical construction[J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2014,37(6):81-89.]
[32] Ben-Rafael E, Shohamy E, Hasan Amara M, et al. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space:The case of Israel[J]. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2006,3(1):7-30.
[33] Cenoz J, Gorter D. Linguistic landscape and minority languages[J]. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2006,3(1):67-80.
[34] Karam F J, Warren A, Kibler A K, et al. Beiruti linguistic landscape:An analysis of private store fronts[J]. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2020,17(2):196-214.
[35] Codó E, Mcdaid J. English language assistants in the 21st century:Nation-state soft power in the experience economy[J]. Language, Culture and Society, 2019,1(2):219-243.
[36] He L, Wilkins S. The return of China's soft power in South East Asia:An analysis of the international branch campuses established by three Chinese universities[J]. Higher Education Policy, 2019, 32(3):321-337.
[37] Huebner T. Bangkok's linguistic landscapes:Environmental print, codemixing and language change[J]. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2006,3(1):31-51.
[38] 马凌,朱竑,王敏.重返"物质":新文化地理学视角下的消费研究及进展评述[J].人文地理,2019,34(3):44-52,82.[Ma Ling, Zhu Hong, Wang Min. Review of re-materialization and consumption studies in new cultural geography[J]. Human Geography, 2019, 34(3):44-52,82.]