The Language of Tourism PDF

2 The Language of Tourism 2.1 The Language of Promotion Although the language of tourism might not be immediately identified as an example of advertising, given how much lengthier, if anything, tourism texts are compared to typical advertisements, the main premise adopted in...

2 The Language of Tourism 2.1 The Language of Promotion Although the language of tourism might not be immediately identified as an example of advertising, given how much lengthier, if anything, tourism texts are compared to typical advertisements, the main premise adopted in this book is that tourism texts have a strong promotional function, and for that reason they share many characteristics with adver- tising. Therefore, it is necessary to begin the study of the language of tourism by exploring the main principles of advertising, paying particular attention to the relationship between language and promotion. Ideally, any study of advertising should focus on multimodality (Cook 2001; Gardner and Luchtenberg 2000), making use of the recent advances in digital humanities (e.g. see Burdick et al. 2012). However, this book is not about advertising more generally, but rather about tourism, and more specifically official tourism websites and how they are adapted into different language versions. While recognising the promo- tional power of images in destination promotion and acknowledging the research conducted on the topic (Francesconi 2014; Hallet and Kaplan- Weinger 2010), this book will only focus on language. The reason for this is that official tourism websites tend not to adapt the visual content © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13 Switzerland AG 2024 S. Malamatidou, Translating Tourism, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49349-2_2 14 S. Malamatidou according to the language version and thus do not offer sufficient data for comparison. Although the lack of adaption regarding images can certainly have its implications when it comes to the efficacy of the text and the extent to which visual images align with the idea of tourism that different reader-tourists might have, one of the key aims of this book is to understand what, if anything, changes during the translation process. Unlike visual images, where it is more straightforward to spot whether or not something has been changed or adapted, written texts require a much closer investigation, and differences are often analytically less conspicuous. It is precisely these less conspicuous differences that this book aims to uncover and, therefore, the focus here is on the verbal component of the tourism text, which is bound to differ across language versions. Moreover, the adaptation (or not) of visual images on tourism websites is typically the responsibility of marketing teams and translators often have little or no say in this process. 2.1.1 The Challenging Task of Advertising Advertising is a paradoxical human activity: it is “everywhere but nowhere” (Cook 2001, 1). We are surrounded by human-made, often costly, advertising campaigns, and marketing departments around the world know well that advertising has an impact on consumer behaviour. And in order to make their advertising campaigns more noticeable, they engage in brand and image-building activities that are often outside what might be considered conventional advertising (i.e. the promotion of a specific product based on its features). A characteristic example is Red Bull’s 2012 advertising campaign, when the company behind the well- known energy drink released a clip of an Austrian skydiver performing a jump approximately 39 kilometres into the stratosphere. The result was a 7% increase in sales in the six months following the stunt, raising the company’s sales to $1.6 million (Bosomworth 2012). Red Bull’s campaign was obviously aiming at attracting as much attention as possible. In simple terms, the aim of advertising is to raise awareness, to grab consumers’ attention, and to make them more favourably disposed to  2 The Language of Tourism 15 the advertised product. More specifically, the aim of advertising is to first persuade consumers to notice the advertisement among competing ones, and then to convince them of the superiority of the product over those of competitors (Bruthiaux 2000). According to Leech (1966), who was one of the first to examine Anglophone advertising, an advertise- ment, in order to be successful, needs to fulfil a number of functions: it needs to attract attention, be readable (at a time when advertising on audio-visual media was fairly new), memorable, and have selling power. Similarly, Bolen (1984) argues that advertisements need to be believable, simple, and readable. The message communicated also needs to be rele- vant to the target audience (Bulmer and Buchanan-Oliver 2006), which can, however, be quite diverse, if we consider factors such as income, educational background, and personal circumstances. The situation is bound to become even more complicated when different cultural groups are being targeted, and many advertising campaigns are typically aimed at a diverse audience (similar to many translation briefs), which to a large extent is unidentifiable and can only be guessed at by marketing departments. In addition to this, advertising is not the creation of a single individual, rather the result of a collaborative project (from the manufacturer to the agency and the creative team), and, for each indi- vidual involved, the perceived focus of the specific advertisement might be different (Cook 2001). This is why Bruthiaux (2000, 299) views advertising as being performed in “a communicative fog”. 2.1.2 Attention-Seeking Devices To achieve its aims, advertising relies on a number of attention-seeking devices or means of communication, which Cook (2001) refers to as modes: music, image, and language. Although, as explained above, the focus in this book is on written language only, the other two modes are briefly presented here to highlight the complexity of advertising and, importantly, the key role that cultural differences can play in it. For multimodal advertising campaigns, such as those produced for TV or radio, music can play a vital role in shaping consumption patterns. Taylor (2012) argues that, because music can affect us emotionally, it has 16 S. Malamatidou become a powerful tool for advertisers and has significantly contributed towards making us the consumers we are today. Similarly, Oakes (2007) concludes that music in advertising can enhance purchase intent, brand attitude, recall facilitation, and affective response. Research in psychology (Zander 2006; MacInnis and Park 1991; Hung 2000, 2001; Mattila and Wirtz 2001) has also indicated that it is not just the presence of music that creates an effect in advertising, but rather that different musical styles (e.g. rock or classical song) can generate different impressions of the brand. It is often argued that music, and for that matter the right type of music, can affect consumer response in ways that words cannot, highlighting the power of music over other modes of communication. However, like language, music has been found to be culture-dependent (Scott 1990), which is not surprising if we consider the diversity of musical styles, some of which tend to originate and be associated with specific parts of the world (e.g. Latin music), not to mention the enor- mous diversity of folk music. Murray and Murray (1996) were some of the first to recognise the non-universality of music in advertising and argue that music needs to be understood in a particular cultural and social context. The use of music in advertising subtly communi- cates cultural values and reflects cultural differences, which, they argue, need to be carefully harnessed by marketers. Therefore, knowledge of the cultural associations of musical forms can help predict how consumers might react to certain musical selections for an advertisement (Alpert et al. 2005). Just like musical tastes, the effects of music are not universal. Similar to music, pictures can also be very powerful modes of persua- sion, and Bulmer and Bucharan-Oliver argue that visuals are “at least as powerful as words” (2006, 58), while research suggests that pictures can attract attention (Pieters and Wedel 2004) and generate emotional responses (Chowdhury et al. 2011). More specifically, attractive visuals, such as beautiful scenery, might create a positive predisposition and improve the attitude towards a brand (Pieters and Wedel 2004; Kim et al. 1998; Xue 2014). Additionally, visuals might also act as cues, grabbing readers’ attention and making them engage with the (textual) message (Petty and Cacioppo 1991; Belch and Belch 2001). Although, in the past, research (e.g. Moriarty and Duncan 1991) in advertising has perceived images as universal and visual communication as more  2 The Language of Tourism 17 straightforward than verbal communication, recent research provides strong evidence that visuals are extremely complex and rich (Phillips and McQuarrie 2004). A single picture, as used in traditional maga- zine advertising, can represent a wide range of “concepts, abstractions, actions, metaphors and modifiers” (Scott 1994, 253). If we combine this with the widely accepted premise that images are “culturally bound, symbolic and subject to the viewer’s interpretation” (Bulmer and Buchanan-Oliver 2006, 51), it becomes clear that a ‘visual Esperanto’ (Callow and Schiffman 1999) cannot exist in advertising. Importantly, research has shown that, in a cross-cultural setting, the same visual content will elicit different interpretations (Callow and Schiffman 1999; Bulmer and Buchanan-Oliver 2006). Therefore, although concepts behind images might be shared by different cultural groups, the way they can be communicated visually is often not, and differences in interpreta- tions might even result in the failure of an advertisement if visual material is not adapted accordingly. Finally, since persuasion is one of the main aims of advertising, a significant amount of research around the language of advertising has focused on the rhetorical devices used (Crompton and McAlea 2000; McQuarrie and Mick 1996; van Mulken 2003). A rhetorical device is an “expression [that] deviates from expectation, [but] (…) is not rejected as nonsensical or faulty” (McQuarrie and Mick 1996, 425); elsewhere, it is defined as a form of artful deviation (Corbett 1990). A characteristic of the language of advertising, according to Berlyne (1971), is incongruity, since any deviation from typical language use is likely to attract atten- tion, which is important if we consider that consumers often have the option of engaging or not with an advertisement (e.g. in print media). What is more, the more artful this incongruity is, the more positive the effect of the advertisement is likely to be (McQuarrie and Mick 1996). The main challenge for advertisers is to “play with, push, and extend the limits of language, breaking rules, but nevertheless retaining coherence” (Gardner and Luchtenberg 2000, 1807). Based on the main premise of rhetoric, according to which a proposi- tion can be expressed in many different ways, some more effective than others in creating the desired response in the audience, studies examining the language used in advertising focus not on what is expressed, but on 18 S. Malamatidou how it is expressed. In that sense, advertising is often compared to liter- ature and poetry (Cook 2001; Stern 1988) as both seek to affect their audience through the use of evocative language. Examining Anglophone advertising, Leech (1966) was one of the first to highlight the rich reper- toire of linguistic devices used in advertising and identified a number of linguistic features which he associates with the different functions of advertising. Specifically, according to Leech, advertisements attract attention by using illustration, elliptical constructions, metaphors, and paradoxes. Some linguistic devices are related to memorability, such as alliteration, rhyme, and onomatopoeia. Readability is increased through the use of a simple and colloquial style, while selling power is associated with the use of imperatives, superlatives, inversions, and parallelisms. More recently, Myers (1994) also identified assonance, homophones, puns, and parody, while Brierley (1995) also lists repetition, similes, paradox, omission, and ambiguity. Further linguistic devices such as metonymy have been identified by Cook (2001), while Fuertes-Olivera et al. (2001) focused on the use of personal markers, hedges, emphatics, endophoric markers, and evidentials. Without going into too much detail about these linguistic devices, it is evident that to communicate their message effectively, advertisements need to extensively manipulate language and can choose from a range of tools to help them achieve their aim. 2.1.3 Linguistic Adaptation in Advertising At the rise of modern globalisation, there was a widely held assump- tion that consumer attitudes and marketing techniques need to converge regarding the textual message. This meant that Western—typically North American—middle-class marketing concepts and practices were imposed on the rest of the world, with little attention paid to the importance of language and cultural differences. Early research into marketing (e.g. Bagozzi 1975; Kotler and Levy 1969) does not recognise the impor- tance of cultural differences in international marketing, arguing that globalisation is expected to bring worldwide convergence, even though there was still very little empirical evidence that we can talk about a  2 The Language of Tourism 19 true homogenisation of tastes or the existence of universal consumer segments. Usunier and Lee (2005) attribute this fixation on homo- geneity to the status of English as a lingua franca: many native English speakers are said to naively assume that there is no reason to learn foreign languages, which makes them less sensitive to the importance of cross- cultural communication. They add that international businesses need to develop “an awareness of what language differences imply” (ibid., 394), which requires a complex understanding of intercultural communica- tion and goes far beyond simply learning grammar and vocabulary. The language in which a message is communicated will shape how it needs to be communicated to be successful, since it is language, not the product advertised, that defines the rules of the game. There are different ways in which differences in language and culture can affect an advertising strategy focusing specifically on the verbal text. One such way is in terms of the overall communication style, that is, whether it is mainly persuasive, informative, or oneiric (dream-oriented) (Usunier and Lee 2005). Early research (Stern and Resnik 1991; Chiou 2002; Cutler et al. 1992; Lin 2001; Usunier 2006; Zandpour et al. 1992; Martenson 1987) suggests that different cultures will show a pref- erence for different communication styles. Abernethy and Franke (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 59 studies about information content and concluded that developed countries prefer a more informative style of advertising compared to developing countries. However, variation can be observed within the developed world, and even between neighbouring countries, with Germans found to prefer informative advertising, while the French rely more on the oneiric style (Usunier and Lee 2005). Although many factors can explain this difference in preferences, such as the type of market and competitive environment or legislation around advertising, Usunier and Lee argue that “culture is the most important factor in explaining how much and what kind of information can be found in advertising” (ibid., 415). But it is not just about the infor- mation that is found in advertising. Culture will also affect how much and what kind of information is sought in advertising. For instance, it has been found that Asian consumers rely on a decision-making process that is “more intuitive, less scientifically valid, more mixed with direct implementation” compared to American consumers (Usunier 1996). 20 S. Malamatidou Therefore, advertising strategies need to be adapted depending on the recipients, and this adaptation is to a large extent linguistic, since, at least in the case of verbally based advertising, culture can be expressed though linguistic choices. Linguistic adaptation is not only related to the overall communica- tion style—more subtle linguistic differences might also play a role. For instance, Tixier (1992) argues that for an advertisement to be effective in a French context, half of the words need to be nouns or verbs, long words (i.e. more than three syllables) should represent only a very small proportion (i.e. no more than 10%), and sentences should be between 10 and 13 words. When it comes to adapting an advertisement for a different linguistic audience, such detailed instructions reflect the impor- tance of not simply translating the meaning of words, but reorganising the entire message so that it meets the expectations and preferences of the target audience. But even translating the meaning of words can be a complex process that requires knowledge of cultural differences. An example provided by Kroeber-Riel (1992), which is relevant to the language of tourism, has to do with the translation of the English word quiet into German (ruhig ) and French (tranquille). Kroeber-Riel found that when reading the German word, the majority of German consumers (41%) think of a forest, with sleep coming right after (35%), other pictorial associations being church (20%), cemetery (13%), and bed (8%). French consumers think of different and more varied things (13% think of countryside, 11% of forest, 9% of house, 5% of library with smaller percentages for the rest). In fact, very little congruency was found between the two groups. Linguistic adaptation is not only about denota- tive meaning, but importantly about finding the words and expressions that will generate the right associations in the mind of the consumers, in line with the communicative style and the linguistic preferences of advertising in that language. The importance of language in advertising has also been highlighted in studies focusing on how bilinguals process information in advertising (Noriega and Blair 2008). The main focus has been on whether adver- tising directed at bilingual minorities is more effective if presented in the bilinguals’ native language than the country’s dominant language. Perhaps the most well- known study is that conducted by Luna and  2 The Language of Tourism 21 Peracchio (1999, 2001) who conducted experiments with Spanish– English ‘bilinguals’ in the USA. They concluded that advertisements that relied on the ‘bilinguals” ‘native’ language are more successful, simply because they were easier to process. They later extended their research (2002, 2005a, b) to examine the effective response associated with the use of the ‘bilinguals” ‘native’ language, arguing that some words acti- vate a stronger emotional response when presented in the ‘native’ rather than the ‘dominant’ language. Their research offers evidence that it might be more effective to use ‘native’ (i.e. minority) languages when adver- tising to members of such groups. However, it is not simply about the language used, but importantly also about what is being advertised. Wyer (2002) argues that advertisements that emphasise collectivist goals are likely to be better received by Asian bilinguals when they are conveyed in their native language, whereas if they emphasise individuality, then they will be better perceived by the same group if conveyed in English, since Asian cultures score higher in terms of collectivism, while Anglo- phone countries tend to be associated with individuality according to Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions, although it must be noted that Hofstede’s work has often been challenged on various grounds (Dorfman and Howell 1988; Newman and Nollen 1996; Schwartz 1999). The power of language in advertising has also been explored in studies focusing on the use of both foreign and local languages in advertise- ments (Bishop and Peterson 2010; Caroll and Luna 2011; Khan 2014; Luna et al. 2005; Luna and Peracchio 2001, 2002, 2005a, b; Vettorel 2013). This phenomenon of inserting linguistic elements (e.g. words or phrases) of one language into another is referred to as codeswitching (Grosjean 1982), and is also found in tourism texts, where it has been referred to as ‘languaging’ (Dann 1996). This has become a powerful technique in advertising, which can be explained by the Markedness Model (Myers-Scotton 1993), according to which codeswitching can carry additional connotations in certain social contexts. For instance, English is very often inserted into non-Anglophone advertising as “an attention getter and can serve as a mood enhancer” (Martin 2008, 49). From a linguistic point of view, foreign words are not used for their meaning, but rather for their “ethnocultural associations” (Hornikx et al. 2013, 153). The use of foreign words activates language schemas (Luna 22 S. Malamatidou and Peracchio 2005b) which include the individual’s perceptions about language, its social and cultural meaning, as well as attitudes, concepts, and beliefs around language. In simple terms, if the foreign language evokes positive associations, then the advertised product will be perceived positively (Baumgardner 2006; Leclerc et al. 1994; Luna and Peracchio 2005a). This can have important implications for the persuasiveness of the message. Naturally, advertisers need to be aware of the target market’s attitude towards the foreign elements (Ahn et al. 2016) and the foreign language used needs to be congruent with the products advertised (Domzal et al. 1995; Kelly-Holmes 2000, 2005; Ray et al. 1991). For example, French words used in an Anglophone advertisement for choco- lates aim at highlighting their luxurious aspect, while German words in Anglophone car advertising aim at stressing its reliability and high quality. The aim of the discussion around the power of language in this section is to highlight the complex role that it can play in advertising, without denying the strong effect that sounds and images exert. From selecting the right language, to identifying the appropriate communication style, and then the specific words that are more likely to give rise to desired associations, while at the same time considering who is being targeted and what is being advertised, language operates at many levels simulta- neously. Not only is it not possible to argue for worldwide convergence and homogeneity, but because of considerable divergence and pluralism, we still know relatively little about the effect that language has on persua- siveness. If creating an advertisement is a challenging task, adapting it for a new linguistic audience poses further challenges, and advertisers are expected to be sensitive to cultural differences and carefully select the linguistic means for their messages. Considering official tourism websites, which are typically verbally rich, it is clear that linguistic adap- tation is bound to be significant. The next section will explain why cultural differences need to be taken into account when adapting a tourism text to a new audience.  2 The Language of Tourism 23 2.2 Destination Promotion 2.2.1 Tourism Destination Image (TDI) When it comes to tourism promotion, which is associated with a lucra- tive yet highly competitive market, Morgan et al. (2002, 4) argue that “places are potentially the world’s biggest tourism brands”, while the World Tourism Organization (2001) predicted that in the next century tourism destinations would become fashion accessories, helping travellers set themselves apart from other tourists, something which has certainly manifested itself through the use of social media. As a result, destination branding is bound to become even more critical in the future. Although similarities can be observed between the branding of goods and desti- nations, with some scholars arguing that the two can be branded in the same way (De Chernatony and McDonald 1992; Pritchard and Morgan 1998), branding destinations is bound to be more difficult, as a result of the complexity (Smith 1994) and multidimensionality (Gartner 1989) of tourism products. A fundamental difference between destination promo- tion and the mainstream advertising of goods is that, although they require a significant financial investment, holidays are intangible prod- ucts which cannot be evaluated beforehand. Destination selection is, therefore, largely based on invisible pre-visit elements and subjective impressions. In a highly competitive tourism market, destinations need to create a unique identity, which will allow them to differentiate them- selves from their competitors. What becomes important is the image that the tourism product creates in the consumers’ minds, rather than its actual characteristics (Morgan and Pritchard 2002), since “percep- tions, rather than reality, are what motivate consumers” (Guthrie and Gale 1991, 555). In the post-modern age, image, whether real or mental, is superior to reality. It is important to clarify here that Tourism Desti- nation Image (TDI) is indeed a conceptual construct that exists in the minds of potential tourists, rather than a visual image, and is created as a result of different factors, as will be explained later in this section. Some of these factors are related to the image of a destination as created by the tourism text which affects the perceptions that reader-tourists form when reading such texts. 24 S. Malamatidou The importance of visual imagery in tourism advertising has been identified as early as the 1970s by Gunn (1972), Mayo (1973), and Hunt (1975), when it was established that tourism imagery is not singular in nature, but plural in meaning and ideology. In more recent years, the Tourism Destination Image (TDI) is widely recognised as the most important element affecting tourist behaviour and turning recipients of tourism promotion into visitors (Chen and Tsai 2007; Nadeau et al. 2008; Govers et al. 2007; Tasci and Gartner 2007). TDI has also been found to play an important role throughout the entire tourist experi- ence (Galí and Donnaire 2005): during pre-visiting when a destination is selected among many; during visiting when expectations are compared to reality; and during post-visiting when decisions are made about revisiting a destination and/or recommending it to others. As a result of the volume of research on TDI and its complex and elusive nature, there are as many definitions as there are researchers (see, for example, Agapito et al. 2013; Bigné et al. 2001; Chon 1990; Crompton 1979; Gallarza et al. 2002; White 2004). Such definitions try to capture the subjective nature of TDI, defining it as the ‘impres- sion’, ‘perception’, and ‘interpretation’ of a destination, or the ‘beliefs’ and ‘ideas’ about a place. However, ‘attitude’ is argued to be the most suitable way to represent how a destination is understood and how it might affect the decision-making process (Frias et al. 2011; White 2004), following the definition provided by Baloglu and McCleary (1999, 870) according to which a TDI is “an attitudinal construct consisting of an individual’s mental representation of knowledge (beliefs), feelings and global impression about an object or destination”. Understanding how exactly a TDI is created, as well as the elements of its plurality, is of paramount importance, since tourism can profoundly shape the country’s economic destiny, as well as its sense of identity (Hallet and Kaplan-Weinger 2010). TDI is naturally closely linked to destination branding, since one aspect of such branding is the imagery promoted. This needs to rely on originality and difference, since the same imagery is often used by different destinations to attract visitors, but at the same time it needs to be sustainable, believable, and relevant (Morgan and Pritchard 2002). Although not mentioned in the literature on TDI and destination branding, translation plays a key role in communicating  2 The Language of Tourism 25 the destination brand globally and helps promote a certain imagery, considering that consumers quite frequently do not have access to the language in which the tourism text was originally written. However, the majority of national tourism organisations have limited budgets, yet they have to market globally, which often means that translation is not a priority within this overall limited budget. It is important to stress that a TDI may or may not correspond to reality (Andreu et al. 2000; Bennett 1995), and, considering the key role that it plays in destination promotion, it might be assumed that the reality of tourism is less important for destination promoters than its expressive representations. Govers et al. 2007 warns about the dangers of overreliance on imagery though, which can result in the creation of a tourism product which is not in line with destination identity. The relationship between the perceived TDI and the actual tourism experi- ence has been defined as “evaluative coherence” by Chon (1990), who argues that the higher the evaluative coherence, the higher the satis- faction level, which is one of the determining elements in destination evaluation (Bigné and Zorio 1989). If evaluation coherence is low, this means that tourist expectations, as shaped by an often unrealistic TDI, have not been met during the tourism experience, which will have a negative effect on repeat visits and the dissatisfaction is likely to be communicated to other individuals (Gitelson and Kerstetter 1994). This scenario is not infrequent, as what is delivered in terms of tourism experi- ence tends to be different from the tourist’s expectations, which are often exaggerated by tourism promotion. 2.2.2 Destination Image Formation Definitions of TDI, such as the one by Baloglu and McCleary (1999) provided earlier, try to identify some of the components that contribute to destination image formation, particularly highlighting the importance of psychological factors. However, given the key role that TDI plays in informing the destination selection process by reader-tourists, it is neces- sary to better understand how a destination is selected among many and, hence, examine in more detail how exactly a TDI is formed, or 26 S. Malamatidou as eloquently put by Brokaw (1990, 32) “[b]efore image can be used to influence behaviour, it is important to understand what influences image”. A number of models have been proposed over the years focusing on destination image formation. It is worth highlighting that these models do not compete with each other but have developed based on each other in an integrated manner, with each new model building on the previous one. This has resulted in significant overlap, with differences observed mainly regarding terminology. Gartner (1993) was the first to propose that TDIs are formed by three “distinctly different but hierarchically interrelated” components—cogni- tive, affective, and conative—and many researchers have since supported this classification (Dann 1996; Pike and Ryan 2004; Tasci and Gartner 2007; Tasci et al. 2007). The cognitive (also known as intellectual or perceptual) component relates to the reader-tourist’s knowledge and beliefs about the attributes of a destination. It derives typically from facts (e.g. geographical location), whether true or perceived as being true. This creates an internally accepted picture of the destination; it refers to what we think about a destination. For instance, the knowl- edge that Greece is situated in southern Europe will give rise to an image of a hot and sunny summer destination. The affective component is guided by the feelings that we have about a destination. This is strongly activated during the evaluation process, that is, when selecting from a number of possible destinations, and is tightly linked to the motiva- tion of travel. For instance, having positive feelings about Greece will increase the chances of it being selected as a travel destination. Finally, the conative component refers to the action of selecting a destination (it may also refer to revisiting a destination and/or recommending it to others) and is therefore the ‘outcome’ of the other two components. For instance, one might select Greece instead of Italy as a travel desti- nation. Given the pragmatic nature of this last component, it is often seen as distinct from the other two, and that is why it is missing from more recent models (e.g. Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Beerli and Martín 2004). These components combined give rise to the global component, which is the overall image of a destination as a result of both cogni- tive and affective considerations. This model is inspired by Boulding’s (1956) research on individual behaviour and social dynamics, according  2 The Language of Tourism 27 to which an image consists of three elements: what one knows and thinks about an object (cognitive), how one feels about it (affective), and how one acts using this information (conative). Focusing on the cognitive and affective components, there exists a hierarchical relationship between the two (Baloglu and McCleary 1999). Specifically, the cognitive component is said to be activated first, followed by the affective component, but the two are not independent—affect is informed to a large extent by cognition. Understanding how cognitive and affective components affect TDIs can be used to predict tourists’ reaction to a destination. It has also been proposed that the affective component has a stronger impact on the global component than the cognitive one (Cai et al. 2004; Kim and Yoon 2003; Konecnik and Gartner 2007; Pike and Ryan 2004; Tasci et al. 2007). This is not surprising if we consider the importance of emotional response in adver- tising, and research has shown that emotions might be better predictors of behaviour than perception (Yu and Dean 2001). For this reason, Sirgy and Su (2000) argue in favour of avoiding informational advertising when addressing people who have not visited a destination before. This provides further support to the idea that the main aim of a tourism text is to promote rather than to inform, even though at first glance such texts might appear as largely informational (see Chapter 3 for more detailed discussion). Research on TDI formation might appear as elusive, considering the many, often subjective, factors involved, but it is nevertheless significant as it helps us to better understand how exactly a destination might be chosen among many. This is because, as mentioned earlier, potential tourists are purchasing an intangible product which cannot be experi- enced until after the purchase. Unlike typical products, tourism involves many more risks, which can be monetary, functional, physical, social, and psychological (Jacobsen and Munar 2012). Risk reduction is neces- sary in the case of tourism, especially if it is the first time visiting a place, which can be achieved by engaging in extensive information searches before purchasing (e.g. Gursoy and McCleary 2004). 28 S. Malamatidou 2.2.3 Factors Affecting Tourism Destination Image According to Gartner, destination image formation is driven by several ‘agents’, which he defines as “force(s) producing a specific result” (1993, 197); in the case of tourism, the desired result is to create an attrac- tive TDI. Essentially, ‘agents’ refer to the different types of information that individuals are exposed to, which can affect the destination selec- tion process. These include information sources (e.g. brochures, TV, and radio ads), word-of-mouth, as well as previous personal experiences of visiting a destination. More recent models (Agapito et al. 2013; Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Beerli and Martín 2004) also recognise the impor- tance of psychological and social criteria and introduce (inter)personal factors to the model. Beerli and Martín’s (2004) model is schematically presented here due to its greater semantic transparency (Fig. 2.1). According to Beerli and Martín, a TDI is affected by both information sources and personal factors. Information sources can be considered ‘pull’ factors attracting an individual to a particular destination, while personal factors can be considered ‘push’ factors’ consisting of the variables that predispose an individual to travel more generally. 2.2.3.1 Information Sources Information sources are divided into primary and secondary, and can affect both cognitive and affective components. Primary information sources relate to information acquired through personal experience, for Fig. 2.1 Tourism Destination Image formation  2 The Language of Tourism 29 example by visiting a destination. Factors such as the intensity of visit (e.g. time spent exploring the area) will naturally affect the TDI. Subse- quently, using the TDI created during the first visit as a source informing return to a destination can have a strong impact on destination selection. Secondary information sources are divided into induced, organic, and autonomous. Their main function, according to Mansfield (1992), is to help create an image of the destination, to minimise the risk involved in destination selection, and help justify destination choice. Induced information sources originate from marketing efforts of destination promoters and can be either overt or covert. Overt induced sources include traditional forms of advertising (e.g. TV, radio, brochures, etc.) that are associated with the official marketing efforts of destination promoters (e.g. tourism boards) or produced by organisations whose aim is to promote a particular destination, even though they might not be associated with that particular area (e.g. destination information on a tour operator website). Covert induced sources include second- party endorsements either by using someone recognisable (e.g. a celebrity in a tourism advertising campaign) or through written reports, such as newspaper articles (e.g. travel writing), which although appearing unbiased, in reality, are often guided by overt induced sources. Unlike induced sources, organic sources are relatively unbiased and indepen- dent of the destination and do not have control over destination. They form a large category which includes word-of-mouth, or more recently ‘word-of-mouse’ (through digital forms), accounts of visiting a desti- nation, whether solicited or unsolicited. Finally, autonomous sources include independently produced news and popular culture, such as documentaries, news stories, and movies. These might involve reports commenting on the political situation or economic conditions of a desti- nation, technological advancements, or social changes, either positive or negative. The focus is not on promoting a destination, but images of that destination might be present (e.g. a news report about an earthquake in south Asia or a film shot in Paris). Earlier research into the impact of information sources on TDI suggested that the Internet did not play a significant role in the forma- tion of the cognitive component (Beerli and Martín 2004). However, as potential tourists became more IT-skilled and tourism professionals found better ways to exploit the possibilities offered by web platforms, 30 S. Malamatidou the importance of the Internet for destination selection has increased. In recent years, the entire tourism experience has been transformed by advances in IT (Buhalis and Law 2008), making it easier than ever to publish online content, while a significant rise has been noted in online bookings and ecommerce in tourism (Fesenmaier and Cook 2009). Nowadays, the vast majority of tourism enterprises, including national tourism organisations, communicate with prospective tourists through the Internet. Further support to this argument is provided by the most recent Eurobarometer (2021) survey on the attitudes of Europeans towards tourism, which identifies different online sources (i.e. websites and social media) as some of the most important sources of informa- tion. As a result, the majority of recent studies agree that the Internet is an important information source when selecting a destination, playing a crucial role in TDI formation (Bastida and Huan 2014; Fernández Cavia et al. 2014; Kim and Lehto 2013; Phau et al. 2010; Rodríguez- Molina et al. 2015), while some (Anderson 2006; Hwang et al. 2006; Kim and Fesenmaier 2008) argue that it is the most persuasive means available to influence destination selection. In the last decade, the rise of user-generated content on social media and in the form of travel blogs and reviews has also attracted attention as a new way of managing TDI (Christodoulides and Jevons 2011; Christodoulides et al. 2012; Huang et al. 2010). The proliferation of different web platforms means that they can follow the classification of traditional offline information sources, namely induced (mostly Web 1.0, e.g. official tourism websites), organic (mostly Web 2.0, e.g. social media), and autonomous (mostly Web 1.0, e.g. news items). Focusing specifically on official tourism websites (i.e. websites produced by a government or an official tourism body), which form the focus of this book as they are translated into multiple languages, these have been claimed to be “one of the most important tools that desti- nations have to disseminate or project their image” (Marine-Roig and Clavé 2016, 255). Although in the past (Gartner 1993) induced forms of advertising have been perceived as least influential further research into official tourism websites suggests the opposite, arguing in favour of the influence they can exert on potential tourists (Bastida and Huan 2014) and even their capacity to change a TDI (Dragova et al. 2014). Hallet  2 The Language of Tourism 31 and Kaplan-Weinger (2010) stress the importance of official tourism websites, which they argue serve as important mediators between poten- tial tourists and destinations. Through this mediation, visitors to the websites are engaged in the construction of self as tourists and of locale as a tourist site. Finally, according to the detailed study conducted by Llodrà-Riera et al. (2015), who investigated the information sources that potential visitors to Mallorca consult, the Internet, as a general category, was found to be the most useful source, followed by organic sources, such as friends and family. In terms of web platforms, most useful were considered to be search engines and online maps, followed by webpages created by official tourism websites. Related to this is research comparing official government websites to other tourism-related websites (e.g. tour operators, travel agents, travel guides, etc.) which concludes that official tourism websites place greater emphasis on destination image than more marketing-focused websites (Choi et al. 2007; Govers and Go 2005). Based on this, Lepp et al. (2011, 676) argue that such websites are the “ideal starting place for exploring the Internet’s potential to induce a favourable destination image”. This is further supported by a study conducted by Mohammed (2004) who found that the vast majority of small developing countries had official government tourism websites, and a significant proportion of these websites focused on promotion, that is, on creating a positive TDI through self-presentation. As this is still a nascent area of investigation, more research is needed into the role that the Internet plays as an induced source and how exactly information is presented, since typically a considerable budget is spent on the development of official tourism websites. For instance, Loda et al. (2009) argue that destination promoters should focus on presenting basic information in a credible way, instead of spending energy to develop novel website elements. If basic information does not appear to be credible, this can have a negative effect on TDI and might encourage potential visitors to seek information about the destination elsewhere (online or offline). Similarly, Rodriguez-Molina et al. (2015) conclude that a TDI is more positive when the website includes emotional trig- gers and advocate the use of more emotive messages. Finally, since the Internet offers each individual tourism supplier the opportunity to easily 32 S. Malamatidou present themselves and communicate with potential consumers, there must exist a coherent strategy to develop and promote a destination image (Palmer 2002), which is why it is important to gain a deeper understanding of how a TDI is formed, not least linguistically. 2.2.3.2 Personal Factors Personal factors also have a strong effect on TDI, mostly through the affective component. They consist of the psychological (e.g. motivations, preferences, personality, lifestyle), the socio-demographic characteristics of individuals (e.g. age, social class, and country of origin), and previous vacation experiences, since past experiences can affect the interpretation of present situations (Schreyer et al. 1984). Even though we might be exposed to the same external information sources, insofar as our cognitive structures are different, we will form different images of a destination. Ultimately, what convinces potential tourists to visit a place is whether they have “empathy with the destination and its values” (Morgan and Pritchard 2002, 12). For instance, the same potential destination will be viewed very differently by a teenager and a retired person, depending on whether they live in a big city or a rural area, whether they enjoy outdoors activities, and so on. It is within the category of personal factors that we find the most interesting elements for cross-linguistic research. Specifically, one of the socio-demographic characteristics typically identified is the country of origin, with various studies suggesting that it can affect the perceived destination image (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and Martín, 2004; Chen and Kerstetter, 1999; Walmsley and Jenkins 1993). In fact, Beerli and Martín (2004) have identified the country of origin as the socio-demographic characteristic that has the greatest influence on both first-time and returning visitors. The reason for this is that our cultural background affects our cognitive struc- tures, allowing us to interpret the world differently and create different associations with destinations. Country of origin is naturally tightly linked to cultural background. Without going into an in-depth discussion of culture, national culture  2 The Language of Tourism 33 is understood here as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (Hofstede 2001, 21). The limitations of associating country and nation with culture aside, the notion of national culture can be useful in distinguishing among different groups (Hsieh and Tsai 2009), and it has been used to explain many of the patterns found in tourist preferences and behaviours (You et al. 2001; Reisinger and Turner 1998). Some studies even suggest that culture might play a role in the information searches carried out (Gursoy and Chen 2000; Gursoy and Umbreit 2004; Money and Crotts 2003; Uysal et al. 1990) with some cultures, for example, showing a stronger preference for the Internet compared to travel agents than others. In summary, previous studies agree that culture plays a key role in the overall destination selection process. Since destinations are not singular units, but rather have the potential of multiple interpretations based on the characteristics of the perceiver, destination promoters need to decide not only which elements would work best in attracting visitors (Govers and Go 2005), but importantly how they need to be adjusted, not least in terms of the linguistic and cultural background of potential visitors. This is in line with adver- tising research discussed earlier stressing the importance of culture and language for promotion. What this means is that, no matter how conve- nient, a single, consistent image of a destination is unlikely to work for destination marketing purposes. This echoes the debate around global- isation and localisation. Although early research into tourism assumed that there is an underlying universality behind tourism behaviour— similar to the assumption that consumer attitudes converge globally—in reality there is a significant “segmentation of international markets” (MacKay and Fesenmaier 2000, 417), which results in distinctive locales defined as “the combination of a sociocultural region and a language” (Jiménez-Crespo 2013, 12). The problem with a standardised approach to destination promotion is that the image promoted can be interpreted differently in different cultures and, notably, not how the producer intended it. It is important that destination promoters segment the tourism market (Kozak 2002), recognise what each market is attracted to, and adapt their communication strategies accordingly (Beerli and Martín 2004). However, it is also possible that several cultures interpret 34 S. Malamatidou the destination in a similar way and a destination can generate certain “internationally shared meanings” (Therkelsen 2003, 135), that is, a global image of a destination. This does not mean that a global approach is more effective, but rather that cultures, as might be expected, share certain characteristics. Subsequently, Therkelsen advocates for a glocal approach to tourism destination promotion, which “combines global and culture specific meaning structures and thereby holds the potential of creating a world-wide recognizable image which simultaneously has a specific appeal to local markets” (2003, 136). In other words, there is no need for a completely new approach each time a new audience is being addressed, rather a global approach with locally adapted features. Recognising the importance of adaptation, the next question that needs to be addressed is how this adaptation is to be achieved in terms of the written text, which is the focus of this book. Going back to the key role that personal factors play in TDI formation, it is perhaps convenient to associate country of origin, and by extension culture, with language, and in many cases this association might prove helpful, for example when adapting a British tourism text for a Japanese audience. However, coun- tries, or locales, should not be confused with languages, as the same language might be shared by a number of locales, with different socio- cultural characteristics. A typical example is English, which is spoken as a first language in the UK, the USA, Australia, and many other countries of the world. In addition to this, many tourism websites often adapt their pages into a kind of ‘international English’, whatever that might mean, without a clear association with a specific locale. The same can be observed for other widely spoken languages, such as French and Spanish. Ideally, a tourism text needs to be adapted according to the locale it is addressing, which will naturally often result in slightly different messages in the same language. Practical, mostly financial, implica- tions suggest that this cannot be easily achieved. However, some official tourism websites have started recognising the importance of locale over language. For example, at the time of writing, the official tourism website for Australia (australia.com) is available in a number of locales where English is spoken, such as USA (English), UK (English), and Interna- tional (English), although an Australian version is conspicuously absent. Destination promoters, in this case, official tourism boards, are becoming  2 The Language of Tourism 35 more and more aware of the key role that country of origin plays in TDI formation, even though their attempts are limited to the macro-structure of the webpages and the adaptation of prominent practical information. Any adaptation of the actual textual message is, sadly, entirely missing, which suggests that micro-level considerations have not been taken into account during the localisation process and local messages are not easy to separate from overseas messages. Responsibility for this should at least partly be assigned to tourism and translation studies scholars, as there is surprisingly very little research focusing on an in-depth exami- nation of the different communication strategies that are employed in destination promotion, how these vary across cultures, and how they can be negotiated in translation. Although a lot of attention is paid to building powerful destination brands (Morgan and Pritchard 2002), which is argued to be a long-term effort, no reference is made to the role of translation in this process. The only fleeting reference to the poten- tially significant role that translation might play in destination branding is found in Hallet and Kaplan-Weinger (2010), who however encourage others to explore the role of language in TDI formation, instead of doing so themselves. The starting point for this exploration is arguably the tourism text and its properties, which is what the next and final section of this chapter will focus on. 2.3 The Tourism Text 2.3.1 Functions of Tourism Texts Tourism texts are crucial elements of the tourism process, as they mediate the relationship between tourist and destination and between host and guest (Bhattacharya 1997). Reading a tourism text prior to travelling is part of the preparation for travelling and it helps shape that all-important TDI. According to Kelly, who is a translation scholar, a tourism text is defined as “any text published by a public or private organisation of any kind intended (a) to give information to any kind of visitor or (b) to advertise a destination (city, hotel, restaurant, etc.) and encourage visitors to go there” (1997, 35). Therefore, in this account tourism texts can fulfil 36 S. Malamatidou either an informative or a promotional function. For example, the infor- mative function dominates in guidebooks, while leaflets and brochures have primarily a promotional function (Calvi 2010). Tourism texts might also fulfil both functions at the same time, albeit to different degrees. Seen from this perspective, official tourism websites are considered to be info-promotional, combining information and promotion, according to Valdeón (2009), who examined the translation of these texts. The main aim of such websites is “to present a location to the addressee, to deepen their understanding of it, to catch their attention and to try to persuade them to visit the location or to return there” (Klimova 2016, 169). As these websites encourage tourism, they also develop and promote for their own communities an identity “as a welcoming, soothing (divinely) poignant setting for spiritual, intellectual and cultural fulfilment” (Hallet and Kaplan-Weinger 2010, 7). The representations that inhabit tourism websites are given meaning by potential tourists, while these potential tourists construct their own identity as tourists and the identity of the locale as tourism site. This complex communicative intent of official tourism websites—as well as the fact that they have a strong impact on TDI formation, and are often translated into multiple languages—is the reason they have been chosen as a focus of study in this book. Addition- ally, tourism boards, which are typically responsible for the creation of official tourism websites, have been found to play a significant role in bringing suppliers and consumers closer through active promotion, not least through electronic channels (Palmer, 2002). Therefore, any refer- ences to tourism texts in this section, and the rest of book, will refer to official tourism websites. The promotional function of tourism texts has been extensively discussed in the otherwise limited literature on the language of tourism, and persuasion is typically identified as the main function of tourism discourse (Dann 1996; Gotti 2006; Maci 2007), although this may vary according to the particular genre, as pointed out above. Tourism texts such as the official tourism websites at the centre of the current case studies aim to control attitudes and behaviours by promoting a specific TDI, therefore actively encouraging readers to become visitors. Considering that reader-tourists cannot experience the product before buying it, the tourism text aims to recreate the illusion of visiting a  2 The Language of Tourism 37 destination, helping them minimise the risk associated with destina- tion selection. Conversely, the informative function of tourism texts is often neglected in existing studies of tourism discourse (although not in studies examining the translation of tourism texts as discussed in Chapter 3), which might be explained by the fact that this function is often seen as secondary: tourism texts do not aim to simply inform, but to sell, and factual information is used to enhance the attracting power of the destination. For instance, tourism texts might offer suggestions of restaurants, and examples of local dishes served. Mentioning dishes might appear as an obvious informative element (the text informs the reader-tourists about what they can eat), however there is also a strong promotional function (the text produces in the reader-tourists the desire to have a unique tasting experience). Similarly, when a city is described as big or a beach as sandy, although at first glance these descriptions might appear to be serving an informative aim, the ultimate goal is to convince the reader-tourist to visit these places. This intricate interac- tion between promotion and information is what makes the language of tourism particularly complex and there is little point in trying to draw a distinction between the two aims in tourism texts. For this reason, the present book focuses on info-promotion and considers the informational elements of tourism texts as supportive of their promotional function. Importantly, although the tourism text attempts to create an image of the destination through both information and promotion, what matters is how this image is interpreted by potential tourists, which relies on both contextualisation and evaluation (Bhattacharya 1997), and is dependent on their cultural background, among other things. 2.3.2 The Language of Tourism Despite the rapid growth of the tourism industry in recent years, the heavy investment in destination promotion, and the key role played by the destination image, relatively little attention has been paid to the use of language in the tourism industry, with most studies focusing on visual material and how these represent and affect the performance of desti- nations (Jaworski and Pritchard 2005; Pink 2007; Govers et al. 2007; 38 S. Malamatidou Scarles 2010). To some extent, this lack of attention to linguistic means can be explained by the very nature of the tourism activity (Thurlow and Jaworski 2011), since it largely relies on the visual sense (Cronin 2000; Dunn 2005, 2006). However, there is strong evidence that language also plays a key role in tourism (Djafarova and Andersen 2008; Djafarova and Waring 2012). According to Thurlow and Jaworski “language […] is everywhere in tourism; in fact, language and languages sit at the very heart of the tourist experience, its representation and its realization, its enculturation and its enactment” (2011, 289). Language in tourism is not simply a means of advertising, although language is needed in order to make tourism promotion work. According to Dann (1996, 21) “phrase precedes gaze”; it is the discourse of tourism that converts a place into a destination, that creates the idea of sight. In other words, it is because a certain place is promoted through language as having certain qualities that make it worth visiting that we start perceiving it as a touristic destination. Furthermore, the language of tourism presents a certain worldview (Knowles 1989) and allows us to locate ourselves in it (Franklin 2003). Seen that way, the language of tourism contributes to identity construction for both the destination and the potential visitor (Hallet and Kaplan-Weinger 2010). It is also crucial to the development of the idea of the tourist “following a prescribed route through a land- scape of selected and ready-interpreted sites and monuments” (Gilbert 1999, 282). Studying the language of tourism can offer insights into how identities are constructed and communicated, but also into how the ordi- nary is transformed into the extraordinary, and how otherness becomes part of the consumer culture (Manca 2016; Hummon 1988; Francesconi 2007). Notably, as this book aims to show, the language of tourism is not a homogenous discourse across languages, which, in turn, suggests that differences are likely to, and should, be observed in the communicative means employed to negotiate identity construction. Research in this field (Calvi 2010; Edwards and Curado 2003; Fusari 2009; Gotti 2006; Nigro 2006) focuses particularly on whether the language of tourism can be rightfully considered as a type of specialised discourse, similar to medical and legal language. Opinions differ with some scholars, like Dann (1996) and Cappelli (2007), arguing that tourism has a discourse of its own, while others, like Agorni (2012) and  2 The Language of Tourism 39 Gotti (2006), question the existence of a specialised tourism discourse, claiming that it is difficult to predict the linguistic features that might be used in a tourism text, in the same way that we might expect certain linguistic features to appear in a medical or legal text. Further to this, the lexis used in tourism texts tends to lack some of the typical features of specialised vocabulary, such as monoreferentiality, lack of connota- tional meaning, and transparency (Gotti 2006). However, it must be noted that these features are normally associated with referential texts, while tourism texts are primarily persuasive. It has been argued that the language of tourism has a very distinct aim, similar to the language of advertising, that is to “persuade, lure, woo and seduce millions of human beings, and, in doing so, covert them from potential into actual clients” (Dann 1996, 2), and the linguistic features used to achieve this are natu- rally very different to the those employed in scientific, technical, or other specialised texts. Another argument that is often put forward against the existence of a specialised tourism discourse is that it is accessible to the general public. However, according to Cappelli (2012) the seemingly everyday language used in tourism texts, although accessible, functions in a way that is similar to the language used in interactions between specialists and non-specialists. Indeed, in tourism texts, the often anonymous author is presented as an expert in a destination, “an ‘observe-it-all/know-it-all’ professional” (Pierini 2009, 98), addressing an audience that knows little or nothing about it. In the present book, tourism language is understood as specialised, in the sense that it relies on a number of specific linguistic features to achieve its main aim. These linguistic features, although in their majority not necessarily distinct from everyday language, are often used with a different frequency (e.g. more frequently found in tourism texts) and serve the specific aim of turning readers into visitors. At the same time, generalisations that try to identify linguistic features charac- terising the entire tourism discourse are avoided; the focus is rather on different elements (e.g. tourist, space) and how these are realised within the wider framework of a tourism text, following the idea put forward by Nigro (2005) and Dann (1996) that the language of tourism cannot be treated as an undifferentiated whole. 40 S. Malamatidou Since promotion is often considered the primary function of tourism texts, the language of tourism tends to speak only in positive and glowing terms of the attractions and services it aims to promote, and is often characterised as being very emphatic and strongly evaluative, loaded with hyperbolic language (Ip 2008). Evaluation is mainly expressed through positive adjectives (Hassan et al. 2008; Ip 2008; Maci 2007; Pierini 2009), such as beautiful, ideal , and perfect, which is the linguistic feature most typically associated with tourism discourse, together with superlatives (Ip 2008; Pierini 2009), such as best, finest, and largest. This overreliance on adjectives with strong positive connotations, at least in English, makes tourism discourse appear intentionally emphatic (Zuliani 2013) with a tendency to exaggerate. Tourist texts also show a preference for specific verbal strategies. For instance, imperatives and directives are often used to address the reader- tourist (Ip 2008; Maci 2007; Zuliani 2013), as an invitation to enjoy what is on offer (Nigro 2006). Experiential verbs (e.g. enjoy, see) tend to be preferred (Maci 2007), which further strengthens the idea that the text is to be read as an open invitation to visit the destination. This element of choice is also expressed, at least in English, through the modal can (Maci 2007). Alternatively, the future tense is preferred, which allows reader-tourists to anticipate what will be experienced (Zuliani 2013). Focusing on the subject of these verbal structures, the second-person singular pronoun (i.e. you) is the most widespread option, which allows the often anonymous author of the tourism text to build a direct rela- tionship with the audience and generate identification and loyalty (Maci 2007). Like advertisements, tourism texts rely on alliteration, onomatopoeia, the use of familiar expressions in an unusual context, humour, and testi- monies, but also on the use of keywords (such as escape, adventure, and exotic ) (Dann 1996). Regarding the latter, it is important to note that these have been found to correspond to the expectations of the poten- tial visitor, rather than the attributes of the destination (Hanefors and Larsson 1993), which is evidence that tourism texts need to be adapted according to the audience they are addressing (e.g. domestic or inter- national). Finally, figurative language, mainly metaphors and similes, is also prominent in tourism texts, which helps communicate the intangible  2 The Language of Tourism 41 features of tourism (Buckley 2010; Hallet and Kaplan-Weinger 2010) and reduce unfamiliarity (Djafarova and Andersen 2008). At the same time, figurative language attracts attention and supports the creation of a positive destination image (Djafarova and Andersen 2008; Dann 1996), by reinforcing the visual image. Certain linguistic features might also be associated with the perspec- tive adopted in the tourism text, and the values promoted in it. In the first comprehensive examination of the language of tourism, Dann (1996) aptly summarises the theoretical approaches which have signifi- cantly contributed towards the understanding of modern tourism and its sociolinguistic correlates, and identifies four such perspectives: authen- ticity (e.g. traditions and local culture), strangehood (e.g. novelty, away from reality), play (e.g. hedonism and fun), and conflict (e.g. contrast between societies, often applied to tourism in developing countries). Each of these perspectives highlights different aspects of the tourism experience expressed through different choices of lexis. For example, authenticity might be conveyed by adjectives such as actual, authentic, and real , while strangehood though adjectives like different, unique, and remote. Similarly, some scholars, like Maci (2007), identify certain values that characterise destinations, such as preservation (e.g. natural, untouched ), continuity (e.g. traditional, timeless), novelty (e.g. exotic, adventurous), distance (e.g. remote, isolated ), exclusiveness (e.g. exclu- sive, unique), and attractiveness (e.g. picturesque, pretty). Studying the lexis employed in tourism texts can therefore reveal not only the strategy adopted for tourism promotion, but also how a destination identity is selected and communicated. For instance, a study conducted by White (2007) reveals that Fiji tourism discourse focuses on authenticity and otherness by highlighting the ‘primitiveness’ and ‘friendliness’ of Fijians as indigenous people, features which are believed to be attractive to Western tourists, through phrases like genuine friendliness of the Fijian people, the friendliest people on earth, and Fijians were born with an innate sense of hospitality. Dann (1996) also identifies four themes typically employed in tourism texts which are: (a) romanticism, regression, and rebirth; (b) happiness, hedonism, and heliocentrism; (c) fun, fantasy, and fairy tales; and (d) sea, sex, and socialisation. Each text is likely to capi- talise on one of these themes, although some themes might be combined, 42 S. Malamatidou for instance, the second and the fourth one. What all these themes have in common, according to Dann, is that they address the potential tourist as a child so that they can be more easily controlled. The majority of studies on the language of tourism examined here focus on English tourism texts, and therefore, any generalisation can only apply to texts produced in that language, and even so, cultural differences need to be taken into account relating to the specific variety of English (e.g. British or American). However, the investigation of the language of advertising and the discussion of the personal factors affecting TDI suggest that the communicative strategies adopted by destination promoters need to be adapted depending on the audience and its cultural background. Different languages will adopt different strategies in promoting a destination depending on their unique features and how these are perceived (Hassan et al. 2008). Examining the textual approaches employed across languages allows for a much deeper under- standing of the nature of tourism (Djafarova and Andersen 2008) and how exactly promotion is achieved in it. Although there is some implicit recognition that the language of tourism needs to address potential tourists “in terms of their own culturally predicated needs and motiva- tions” (Dann 1996, 2 emphasis added), there is generally very little focus on the cross-linguistic comparison of tourism texts. The next chapter explores previous research focusing on the cross-linguistic differences in the language of tourism, focusing specifically on the key role that translation plays. References Abernethy, Avery, and George Franke. 1996. “The Information Content of Advertising: A Meta- Analysis.” Journal of Advertising 25 (2): 1–17. Agapito, D., P. Valle, and J. Mendes. 2013. “The Cognitive-Affective-Conative Model of Destination Image: A Confirmatory Analysis.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30 (5): 471–81. Agorni, Mirella. 2012. “Tourism Communication: The Translator’s Responsi- bility in the Translation of Cultural Difference.” PASOS: Revista de Turismo y Patrominio Cultural 10 (4): 5–11.  2 The Language of Tourism 43 Ahn, Jungsun, Carrie La Ferle, and Doohwang Lee. 2016. “Language and Advertising Effectiveness: Code-Switching in the Korean Marketplace.” International Journal of Advertising 36 (3): 477–95. Alpert, Mark, Judy Alpert, and Elliot Maltz. 2005. “Purchase Occasion Influ- ence on the Role of Music in Advertising.” Journal of Business Research 58: 369–76. Anderson, C. 2006. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Seling Less of More. New York: Hyperion Books. Andreu, Luisa, J. Enrique Bigné, and Chris Cooper. 2000. “Projected and Perceived Image of Spain as a Tourist Destination for British Travellers.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 9 (4): 47–67. Bagozzi, R. 1975. “Marketing as Exchange.” Journal of Marketing 39 (4): 32– 39. Baloglu, S., and D. Brinberg. 1997. “Affective Images of Tourism Destina- tions.” Journal of Travel Research 35 (4): 11–15. Baloglu, S., and K. McCleary. 1999. “A Model of Destination Image Forma- tion.” Annals of Tourism Research 26: 868–97. Bastida, U., and T. Huan. 2014. “Performance Evaluation of Tourism Websites’ Information Quality of Four Global Destination Brands: Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Taipei.” Journal of Business Research 67 (2): 167–70. Baumgardner, R. 2006. “The Appeal of English in Mexican Commerce.” World Englishes 25: 251– 66. Beerli, A., and J. Martín. 2004. “Factors Influencing Destination Image.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3): 657–81. Belch, G., and M. Belch. 2001. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bennett, P. D. 1995. Dictionary of Marketing Terms. Edited by NTC Business Books. Chicago. Berlyne, Daniel. 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton. Bhattacharya, D. 1997. “Mediating India: An Analysis of a Guidebook.” Annalsa of Tourism Research 24: 371–89. Bigné, J. E., and M. Zorio. 1989. “Marketing Turístico: El Proceso de Toma de Decisiones Vacacionales.” Revista de Economia y Empresa 9 (23): 91–112. Bigné, J. E., M. I. Sanchez, and J. Sanchez. 2001. “Tourist Image, Evalua- tion Variables and After Purchase Behaviour: Inter-Relationship.” Tourism Management 22: 607–16. Bishop, M., and M. Peterson. 2010. “The Impact of Medium Context on Bilingual Consumers’ Responses to Code-Switched Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 39 (3): 55–67. 44 S. Malamatidou Bolen, William. 1984. Advertising. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Bosomworth, D. (2012, October 17). How to Give Your Content Wings. Smart Insights. https://www.smartinsights.com/content-management/content-mar keting-strategy/how-to-give-your-content-wings/. Accessed 12 March 2023. Boulding, K. 1956. The Image-Knowledge in Life and Society. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brierley, Sean. 1995. The Advertising Handbook. Oxon and New York: Rout- ledge. Brokaw, S. G. 1990. “An Investigation of Jewelry Store Image Structure.” Florida State University, Tallahassee. Bruthiaux, Paul. 2000. “In a Nutshell: Persuasion in the Spatially Constrained Language of Advertising.” Language & Communication 20: 297–310. Buckley, R. 2010. “Communications in Adventure Tour Products: Health and Safety in Rafting and Kayaking.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2): 315–32. Buhalis, D., and R. Law. 2008. “Progress in Information Technology and Tourism Management: 20 Years on and 10 Years After Internet—The State of ETourism Research.” Tourism Management 29 (4): 609–23. Bulmer, Sandy, and Margo Buchanan-Oliver. 2006. “Visual Rhetoric and Global Advertising Imagery.” Journal of Marketing Communications 12 (1): 49–61. Burdick, Anne, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, and Jeffrey Schnapp. 2012. Digital Humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cai, L., B. Wu, and B. Bai. 2004. “Destination Image and Loyalty.” Tourism Review International 7 (3–4): 153–62. Callow, M., and L. Schiffman. 1999. “A Visual Esperanto? The Pictorial Metaphor in Global Advertising.” European Advances in Consumer Research 4: 17–20. Calvi, M. V. 2010. “Los Generos Discursivos En La Lengua Del Turismo: Una Propuesta de Clasificación.” Ibérica 19: 9–32. Cappelli, Gloria. 2007. Sun, Sea, Sex and the Unspoilt Countryside. 2nd ed. Pari: Pari Publishing. ———. 2012. “Travelling in Space: Spatial Representation in English and Italian Tourism Discourse.” Textus: English Studies in Italy 1: 19–36. Caroll, R., and David Luna. 2011. “The Other Meaning of Fluency: Content Accessibility and Language in Advertising to Bilinguals.” Journal of Adver- tising 40 (3): 73–94. Chen, P., and D. Kerstetter. 1999. “International Students’ Image of Rural Pennsylvania as a Travel Destination.” Journal of Travel Research 37: 256–66.  2 The Language of Tourism 45 Chen, C., and D. Tsai. 2007. “How Destination Image and Evaluative Factors Affect Behavioural Intentions.” Tourism Management 28: 1115–22. Chernatony, L. De, and M. McDonald. 1992. Creating Powerful Brands: The Strategic Route to Success in Consumer, Industrial and Service Markets. Oxford: Butterworth. Chiou, Jyh-shen. 2002. “The Effectiveness of Different Advertising Message Appeals in the Eastern Emerging Society: Using Taiwanese TV Commercials as an Example.” International Journal of Advertising 21 (2): 217–36. Choi, S., X. Y. Lehto, and A. M. Morrison. 2007. “Destination Image Repre- sentations on the Web: Content Analysis of Macau Travel Related Websites.” Tourism Management 28: 118–29. Chon, K. S. 1990. “The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: A Review and Discussion.” The Tourist Review 45 (2): 2–9. Chowdhury, Rafi, Douglas Olsen, and John Pracejus. 2011. “How Many Pictures Should Your Print Ad Have?” Journal of Business Research 34: 3–6. Christodoulides, G., and C. Jevons. 2011. “Teh Voice of the Consumer Speaks Forcefully in Brand Identity: User-Generated Content Forces Smart Marketers to Listen.” Journal of Advertising Research 51 (1): 101–11. Christodoulides, G., C. Jevons, and J. Bonhomme. 2012. “Memo to Marketers: Quantitative Evidence for Change: How User-Generated Content Really Affects Brands?” Journal of Advertising Research 52 (1): 53–64. Cook, Guy. 2001. The Discourse of Advertising. 2nd ed. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Corbett, Edward. 1990. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York: Oxford University Press. Crompton, J. L. 1979. “An Assessment of the Image of the Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical Location upon the Image.” Journal of Travel Research 17 (4): 18–23. Crompton, P., and R. McAlea. 2000. “Rhetorical Devices in Television Adver- tising.” In Advertising and Identity in Europe: The I of the Beholder, edited by J. Cannon, P. Odber de Baubeta, and R. Warner, 32–41. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. Cronin, Michael. 2000. Across the Lines: Travel, Language, Translation. Cork: Cork University Press. Cutler, Bob, Rajshekhar Javalgi, and Krishna Erramilli. 1992. “The Visual Component of Print Advertising: A Five-Country Cross-Cultural Analysis.” European Journal of Marketing 26 (4): 7–20. Dann, Graham M. S. 1996. The Language of Tourism. Oxon: CAB Interna- tional. 46 S. Malamatidou Djafarova, Elmira, and H. Andersen. 2008. “Contribution of Figurative Devices to Representation of Tourism Images.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 14 (4): 291–303. Djafarova, Elmira, and Teresa Waring. 2012. “Language of Tourism Adver- tising: A Pragmatic Approach.” Tourism Analysis 17: 233–37. Domzal, T., J. Hunt, and J. Kernen. 1995. “Achtung! The Information Processing of Foreign Words in Advertising.” International Journal of Adver- tising 14: 94–114. Dragova, S., K. Petrovskaya, and R. Egger. 2014. “Measuring the Perceived Image of Lithuania through Its Destination Management Organization Website.” In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014, edited by Z. Xiang and I. Tussyadiah, 679–91. Cham: Springer. Dorfman, Peter, and John Howell. 1988. “Dimension of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede revisited”. In Advanced in Interna- tional Comparative Management: A research annual , edited by R. Farmer and E. Goun, 127–49. Stamford: JAI Press. Dunn, David. 2005. “‘We Are Not Here to Make a Film About Italy, We Are Here to Make A Film About Me...’ British Television Holiday Programmes’ Representations of the Tourist Destination.” In The Media and Tourist Imag- ination: Converging Cultures, edited by David Crouch, Rhona Jackson, and Felix Thompson, 154–69. London. ———. 2006. “Singular Encounters: Mediating the Tourist Destination in British Television Holiday Programmes.” Tourist Studies 6: 37–58. Edwards, Patricia, and Alejandro Curado. 2003. “The Promotion of Tourism Through Key Concepts and Specific Discourse.” LSP & Professional Commu- nication 3 (1): 26–42. Eurobarometer. 2021. “Flash Eurobarometer 499: Attitudes of Europeans Towards Tourism.” Brussels. Fernández Cavia, J., C. Rovira, P. Díaz-Luque, and C. Cavaller. 2014. “Web Quality Index (WQI) for Official Tourist Destination Websites: Proposals for an Assessment System.” Tourism Management Perspectives 9: 5–13. Fesenmaier, D., and S. Cook. 2009. Travellers’ Use of the Internet. Washington: U.S. Travel Association. Francesconi, Sabrina. 2007. English for Tourism Promotion: Italy in British Tourism Texts. Milano: Hoepli. ———. 2014. Reading Tourism Texts: A Multimodal Analysis. Briston, Tonawanda, and Ontario: Channel View Publications. Franklin, A. 2003. Tourism: An Introduction. London: SAGE Publications.  2 The Language of Tourism 47 Frias, D. M., M. A. Rodríguez, J. Alberto Castañeda, C. M. Sabiote, and D. Buhalis. 2011. “The Formation of a Tourist Destination’s Image via Infor- mation Sources: The Moderating Effect of Culture.” International Journal of Tourism Research 14 (5): 437–50. Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro, Marisol Velasco-Sacristan, Ascensión Arribas-Baño, and Eva Samaniego-Fernández. 2001. “Persuasion and Advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (8): 1291–1307. Fusari, Sabrina. 2009. “Multilingual Tourist Videos as Specialized Discourse: The Case Study of Val Gardena.” In Quaderni Del CeSLiC, Occasional Papers, edited by Donna R Miller, 4–26. Bologna: Centro di Studi Linguistico-Culturali. Galí, N., and J. A. Donnaire. 2005. “The Social Construction of the Image of Girona: A Methodological Approach.” Tourism Management 26 (5): 777– 85. Gallarza, M., G. Irene, and H. Calderón. 2002. “Destination Image Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1): 56–78. Gardner, Rod, and Sigrid Luchtenberg. 2000. “Reference, Image, Text in German and Australian Advertising Posters.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1807–21. Gartner, W. 1989. “Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Products Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques.” Journal of Travel Research 28 (2): 16–20. ———. 1993. “Image Formation Process.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 2 (2–3): 191–216. Gilbert, D. 1999. “‘London in All Its Glory—Or How to Enjoy London’ Guidebok Representations of Imperial London.” Journal of Historical Geog- raphy 25 (3): 279–97. Gitelson, R., and D. Kerstetter. 1994. “The Influence of Friends and Relatives in Travel Decision-Making.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 3 (3): 59–68. Gotti, Maurizio. 2006. “The Language of Tourism as Specialized Discourse.” In Translating Tourism: Linguistic/Cultural Representations, edited by Oriana Palusci and Sabrina Francesconi. Trento: Trento University Press. Govers, R., and F. M. Go. 2005. “Projected Destination Image Online: Website Content Analysis of Pictures and Text.” Information Technology and Tourism 7: 73–89. Govers, Robert, Frank M. Go, and Kuldeep Kumar. 2007. “Promoting Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Research 46: 15–23. 48 S. Malamatidou Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gunn, C. 1972. Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Austin: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas. Gursoy, D., and J. Chen. 2000. “Competitive Analysis of Cross-Cultural Information Search Behaviour.” Tourism Management 21 (6): 583–90. Gursoy, D., and K. McCleary. 2004. “An Integrative Model of Tourists’ Information Search Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research 31: 353–73. Gursoy, D., and W. T. Umbreit. 2004. “Tourist Information Search Behaviour: Cross-Cultural Comparison of European Union Member States.” The Inter- national Journal of Hospitality Management 23: 55–70. Guthrie, J., and P. Gale. 1991. “Positioning Ski Areas.” In New Horizons Conference Proceedings, 551–69. Calgary: University of Calgary. Hallet, R. W., and J. Kaplan-Weinger. 2010. Official Tourism Websites: A Discourse Analysis Perspective. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Hanefors, M., and L. Larsson. 1993. “Video Strategies Used by Tour Opera- tors: What Is Really Communicated?” Tourism Management 14 (1): 27–33. Hassan, Hanita, Hadina Habil, and Zaliza Mohd Nasir. 2008. “Persuasive Strategies of Tourism Discourse.” In New Perspectives in Language and Communication Research, edited by Hadina Habil and Hanita Hassan, 1–20. Skudai, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. Hornikx, Jos, Frank Van Meurs, and Robert-jan Hof. 2013. “The Effective- ness of Foreign-Language Display in Advertising for Congruent Versus Incongruent Products.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 25 (3): 152–65. Hsieh, A. T., and C.-W. Tsai. 2009. “Does Culture Really Matter? Hotel Service Perceptions by Taiwan and American Tourists.” Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality 3 (1): 54–69. Huang, C. Y., C. J. Chou, and P. C. Lin. 2010. “Involvement Theory in Constructing Bloggers’ Intention to Purchase Travel Products.” Tourism Management 32: 513–26. Hummon, D. 1988. “Tourist Worlds: Tourist Advertising, Ritual, and Amer- ican Culture.” The Sociological Quarterly 29 (2): 149–337. Hung, K. 2000. “Narrative Music in Congruent and Incongruent TV Adver- tising.” Journal of Advertising 29: 26–34. ———. 2001. “Framing Meaning Perceptions with Music: The Case of Teaser Ads.” Journal of Advertising 30: 39–49.  2 The Language of Tourism 49 Hunt, J. 1975. “Image as a Factor in Tourism Development.” Journal of Travel Research 13 (3): 1–17. Hwang, Y., U. Gretzel, Z. Xiang, and D. Fesenmaier. 2006. “Information Search for Travel Decisions.” In Destination Recommendation Systems: Behav- ioral Foundations and Applications, edited by R. Fesenmaier, H. Werthner, and K. Wöber, 3–16. Cambridge: CAB International. Ip, J. Y. L. 2008. “Analyzing Tourism Discourse: A Case of a Hong Kong Travel Brochure.” LCOM Papers 1: 1–19. Jacobsen, J., and A. Munar. 2012. “Tourist Information Search and Destination Choice in a Digital Age.” Tourism Management Perspectives 1: 39–47. Jaworski, A., and A. Pritchard. 2005. Discourse, Communication and Tourism. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Jiménez-Crespo, M. Á. 2013. Translation and Web Localization. London: Routledge. Kelly, Dorothy. 1997. “The Translation of Texts from the Tourist Sector: Textual Conventions, Cultural Distance and Other Constrains.” TRANS 2: 33–42. Kelly-Holmes, H. 2000. “Bier, Parfum, Kaas: Language Fetish in European Advertising.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 3: 67–82. ———. 2005. Advertising as Multilingual Communication. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Khan, A. 2014. “Social Aspects of Code-Switching: An Analysis of Pakistani Television Advertisements.” Information Management and Business Review 6: 269–79. Kim, H., and D. Fesenmaier. 2008. “Persuasive Design of Destination Websites: An Analysis of First Impressions.” Journal of Travel Research 47: 3–13. Kim, S., and X. Y. Lehto. 2013. “Projected and Perceived Destination Brand Personalities: The Case of South Korea.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (1): 117–30. Kim, S., and Y. Yoon. 2003. “The Hierarchical Effects of Affective and Cogni- tive Components on Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 14 (2): 1–22. Kim, J., J.-S. Lim, and M. Bhargava. 1998. “The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation: A Classical Conditioning Approach.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (2): 143–52. Klimova, Katarina. 2016. “Italy: Web Tourism Promotion.” Italiano LinguaDue 2: 168–80. 50 S. Malamatidou Knowles, Murray. 1989. “Some Characteristics of a Special Language: The Language of Tourism.” In From Ofice to School: Special Language & Inter- nationlisation, edited by Christer Laurén and Marianne Nordman, 59–66. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Konecnik, M., and W. Gartner. 2007. “Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Destination.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (2): 400–21. Kotler, Philip, and S. Levy. 1969. “Broadening the Concept of Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 33: 10–15. Kozak, M. 2002. “Comparative Analysis of Tourist Motivations by Nationality and Destinations.” Tourism Management 23: 221–32. Kroeber-Riel, Werner. 1992. “Globalisierung Der Euro- Werbung. Ein Konzep- tioneller Ansatz Der Konsumentenforschung.” Marketing ZFFP 14 (4): 261–67. Leclerc, F., B. Schmitt, and L. Dube. 1994. “Foreign Branding and Its Effects on Product Perceptions and Attitudes.” Journal of Marketing Research 31: 263–70. Leech, Geoffrey. 1966. English in Advertising: A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. London: Longman. Lepp, A., H. Gibson, and C. Lane. 2011. “Image and Perceived Risk: A Study of Uganda and Its Official Tourism Website.” Tourism Management 32 (3): 675–84. Lin, Carolyn. 2001. “Cultural Values Reflected in Chinese and American Television Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 30 (4): 83–94. Llodrà-Riera, I., M. P. Martínez-Ruiz, and A. Jiménez-Zarco, A. I. Izquierdo- Yusta. 2015. “A Multidimensional Analysis of the Information Sources Construct and Its Relevance for Destination Image Formation.” Tourism Management 48: 319–28. Loda, M., K. Teichmann, and A. Zins. 2009. “Destination Websites’ Persua- siveness.” International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 3 (1): 70–80. Luna, David, and Laura Peracchio. 1999. “What’s in a Bilingual’s Mind? How Bilingual Consumers Process Information.” In Advances in Consumer Research, edited by Eric Arnould and Linda Scott, 306–11. Provo: Associa- tion for Consumer Research. ———. 2001. “Moderators of Language Effects in Advertising to Bilinguals: A Psycholinguistic Approach.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (2): 284–95. ———. 2002. “‘Where There Is a Will...’: Motivation as a Moderator of Language Processing by Bilingual Consumers.” Psychology & Marketing 19 (7–8): 573–93.  2 The Language of Tourism 51 ———. 2005a. “Advertising to Bilingual Consumers: The Impact of Code- Switching on Persuasion.” Journal of Consumer Research 31 (4): 760–65. ———. 2005b. “Sociolinguistic Effects on Code-Switched Ads Targeting Bilingual Consumers.” Journal of Advertising 34 (2): 43–56. Luna, David, D. Lerman, and Laura Peracchio. 2005. “Structural Constraints in Code-Switched Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 32: 416–23. Maci, Stefania. 2007. “Virtual Touring: The Web-Language of Tourism.” Linguistica e Filologia 25: 41–65. MacInnis, D. J., and C. W. Park. 1991. “The Differential Role of Charac- teristics of Music on High- and Low-Involvement Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Research 18: 161–73. MacKay, Kelly, and Daniel Fesenmaier. 2000. “An Exploration of Cross- Cultural Destination Image Assessment.” Journal of Travel Research 38: 417–23. Manca, Elena. 2016. “Official Tourist Websites and the Cultural Communica- tion Grammar Model: Analysing Language, Visuals, and Cultural Features.” Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication 9 (1): 2–22. Mansfield, Y. 1992. “Motivation to Actual Travel.” Annals of Tourism Research 19: 399–419. Marine-Roig, Estela, and S. A. Clavé. 2016. “Destination Image Gaps Between Official Tourism Websites and User-Generated Content.” In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016 , edited by A. Inversini and R. Schegg, 253–65. Cham: Springer. Martenson, Rita. 1987. “Advertising Strategies and Information Content in American and Swedish Advertising: A Comparative Content Analysis in Cross-Cultural Copy Research.” International Journal of Advertising 6: 133–44. Martin, Elizabeth. 2008. “Language-Mixing in French Print Advertising.” Journal of Creative Communications 3 (1): 49–76. Mattila, A., and J. Wirtz. 2001. “Congruency of Scent and Music as a Driver of Instore Evaluations and Behaviour.” Journal of Retailing 77: 273–89. Mayo, E. J. 1973. “Regional Images and Regional Travel Behaviour.” In Proceedings of the Travel Research Association 4th Annual Conference, 211–18. McQuarrie, Edward, and David Mick. 1996. “Figures of Rhetoric in Adver- tising Language.” Journal of Consumer Research 22 (4): 424–38. Mohammed, S. N. 2004. “Self-Representation of Small Developing Countries on the World Wide Web.” New Media and Society 6 (4): 469–86. 52 S. Malamatidou Money, R. B., and J. C. Crotts. 2003. “The Effect of Uncertainty-Avoidance on Information Search, Planning, and Purchases of International Travel Vacations.” Tourism Management 24: 191–202. Morgan, N., and A. Pritchard. 2002. “Contextualising Destination Branding.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride, 11–41. Oxford: Buterworth Heinemann. Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Pride. 2002. “Introduction.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride, 3–10. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Moriarty, Sandra, and Thomas Duncan. 1991. “Global Advertising: Issues and Practices.” Current Issues and Research in Advertising 13 (2): 313–41. Mulken, M. van. 2003. “Analyzing Rhetorical Devices in Print Advertise- ments.” Document Design 4 (2): 114–28. Murray, Noel, and Sandra Murray. 1996. “Music and Lyrics in Commercials: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Commercials Run in the Dominican Republic and in the United States.” Journal of Advertising 25 (2): 51–63. Myers, Greg. 1994. Words in Ads. London: Arnold. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Code Switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Nadeau, J., L. Heslop, N. O’Reilly, and P. Luk. 2008. “Destination in a Country Image Context.” Annals of Tourism Research 35 (1): 84–106. Newman, Karen, and Stanley Nollen. 1996. “Culture and Congruence: The Fit Between Management Practices and National Culture.” Journal of International Business Studies 27(4): 753–79. Nigro, Maria Giovanna. 2005. “The Language of Tourism as LSP? A Corpus- Based Study of the Discourse of Guidebooks.” In Modern Approaches to Terminological Theories and Applications, edited by H. Picht, 187–97. Bern and Oxford: Peter Lang. ———. 2006. Il Linguaggio Specialistico Del Turismo: Aspetti Storici, Teorici e Traduttivi. Roma: Aracne. Noriega, Jaime, and Edward Blair. 2008. “Advertising to Bilinguals: Does the Language of Advertising Influence the Nature of Thoughts?” Journal of Marketing 72: 69–83. Oakes, Steve. 2007. “Evaluating Empirical Research into Music in Advertising: A Congruity Perspective.” Journal of Advertising Research 47 (1): 38–50. Palmer, Adrian. 2002. “Destination Branding and the Web.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride, 186–98. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.  2 The Language of Tourism 53 Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. 1991. “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitudes in an Advertising Context.” In Proceedings of the Division 23 Program, edited by G. Gom and M. Goldberg, 75–79. Montreal: American Psychological Association. Phau, Ian, Tekle Shanka, and Neema Dhayan. 2010. “Destination Image and Choice Intention of University Student Travellers to Mauritius.” Interna- tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (5): 758–64. Phillips, Barbara, and Edward McQuarrie. 2004. “Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising.” Marketing Theory 4: 111–34. Pierini, Patrzia. 2009. “Adjectives in Tourism English on the Web: A Corpus- Based Study.” CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación (Clac) 40: 93–116. Pieters, R., and M. Wedel. 2004. “Attention Capture and Transfer in Adver- tising: Brand, Pictorial and Text Size Effects.” Journal of Marketing 68 (2): 36–50. Pike, S., and C. Ryan. 2004. “Destination Positioning Analysis Through a Comparison of Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perceptions.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (4): 333–42. Pink, S. 2007. The Future of Visual Anthropology: Engaging the Senses. London: Routledge. Pritchard, Annette, and Nigel Morgan. 1998. “‘Mood Marketing’—The New Destination Branding Strategy: A Case Study of ‘Wales’ The Brand.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 4: 215–29. Ray, N., M. Ryder, and S. Scott. 1991. “Toward an Understanding of the Use of Foreign Words in Print Advertising.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 3: 69–97. Reisinger, Y., and L. Turner. 1998. “Cultural Differences Between Mandarin- Speaking Tourists and Australian Hosts and Their Impact on Cross-Cultural Tourist-Host Interaction.” Journal of Business Research 42: 175–87. Rodríguez-Molina, M. A., D. M. Frías-Jamilena, and J. A. Castañeda- García. 2015. “The Contribution of Website Design to the Generation of Touri