1

Codes of Behavior in the Roman Tourist Culture

When I learned I was going to be studying abroad in Rome for three months I
immediately began planning all the tourist destinations in Rome I wanted to visit. As luck would
have it one of my reasons for being in Rome was so I could travel to the tourist destinations in
and around Rome to observe culture and communication at those sites. After visiting several of
the sites in Rome, I began to notice tourists doing the same sorts of behavior at each of the sites.
This lead me to wonder if these behaviors showed up at all tourist sites in Rome or if it was just
at these sites I had visited thus far. These observations set up the focus for all the rest of my
observations at tourist sites in Rome. After discovering that the same patterns of behavior did in
fact show up at all sites I visited in Rome I became interested in making a claim about the
behavior of Roman tourists at tourist destinations in Rome. Using Speech Codes Theory,
Ethnography of Communication, and Cultural Discourse, I will argue in this paper that based on
eight weeks of observations at tourist trafficked sites in Rome, there are speech codes in the
Roman tourist culture that dictate the behavior of tourists at tourist sites in Rome.
This topic is an interesting area of study because it shows a type of human behavior
specific to a culture, the Roman tourist culture. The results of this paper will help visitors to
Rome understand how is appropriate to interact with sites. In addition, this research will help
locals and researchers of Rome understand the behavior of the tourists of Rome.
In the literature review section of this paper, I use past research to define a tourist,
tourism, and cultural tourism. Using these definitions I discuss how the tourists of Rome have
their own culture. I then go on to define and discuss how I will be using Speech Codes Theory,
Cultural Discourse Analysis, and Ethnography of Communication as a means of analysis in this
paper. I then discuss the method of research I used to collect data. From there I go on to analyze

3
my observations at tourist sites around Rome in order to find codes about the behavior of tourists
at tourists site in Rome.
Literature Review
Background Information and Previous Research
Very little research has been done on how tourists interact with tourist destinations. There
has been extensive research done on how locals and tourists interact and how tourism affects
society and the economy. However, those studies are not relevant to the argument this paper is
making. There has been extensive research done defining a tourist and tourism. As this paper is
analyzing tourist behavior at tourist sites in Rome, it is helpful to fully understand what the
characteristics of a tourist and tourism are and how past research has defined a tourist and
tourism.
According to the International Union of Official Travel Organizations tourists are
temporary visitors staying at least twenty-four hours in the country visited and the purpose of
whose journey can be classified under one of the following headings:(a) leisure (recreation,
holiday, health, study, religion and sport); (b) business (family mission, meeting) (Cohen, 1984,
p. 374). Richards (1996) asserts that tourism is the temporary short-term movement of people to
destinations outside the places where they normally live and work, and activities during their
stay at these destinations; it includes movement for all purposes, as well as day visits and
excursions (p. 21). Similarity, the World Trade Organization defines tourism to include the
activities of persons during their travel and stay in a place outside their usual place of residence,
for a continuous period of less than one year, for leisure, business or other purposes (Richards,
1996, p. 21). All three of these definitions are very similar. The common thread between them all

4
is the idea that a tourist is someone who has left their home to travel to somewhere else and that
the activities that they participate in while being away from home is tourism.
Each person has his or her own reason for being a tourist and is looking for a specific
experience in their travels. According to Isaac (2008) there are five group classifications of
tourists based on the type of experience they are seeking: the recreational tourist (focus on
recreational activity), the diversionary tourist (focus on forgetting their everyday life at home),
the experiential tourist (seeks authentic experiences), the experimental tourist (desires contact
with local people and communities), and the existential tourist (goal to totally immerse
themselves in the culture and lifestyles of their vacation destination). Based on the experience
that they are looking for tourists have different motivations for traveling. There are two different
schools of thought when it comes to what the overarching motivations of tourists are as a whole.
Cohen (1984) is of the mindset that tourists motivations for traveling are linked to individuals
long term psychological needs, life goals, and desire for self-actualization. Craik (1997) adds
onto this idea by asserting that tourists motivation for traveling is an egocentric pursuit in which
tourists focus on self-indulgence and self-delusion. They achieve self-delusion by reveling in the
otherness of the destination, peoples, and activities (Craik, 1997). This is because otherness
offers the illusion of fantasy and highlights the difference between the tourist destination and
everyday life (Craik, 1997). Admittedly most tourists will probably not confess to this line of
motivation, instead they are more likely to say their motivation for traveling has to do with
finding authenticity. Craik (1997) introduces this school of thought by claiming that tourism is a
quest for authenticity, which encompasses a desire to find deep and meaningful crosses cultural
communication, self-discovery, origins, and forms of culture untainted by civilization. This paper
subscribes to the school of thought that tourists are searching for authenticity.

5
Due to most tourists stated motivation for traveling being the search for authenticity,
tourism is packaged in terms of cultural values and experiences (Craik, 1997). This is because
tourists gain culture through seeking authenticity and meaning through their tourist experiences
(Richards, 1996). Culture is defined as a product of individual or group activities to which
certain meanings are attached (Richards, 1996). Craik (1997) claims that culture is a resource,
product, experience, and outcome of tourism. From these schools of thoughts, a new sub
category of tourism has been developed. This category of tourism is called cultural tourism.
Cultural tourism is used to define culture based tourist experiences and to define the wide
range of culturally related aspects of tourism (Craik, 1997). Cultural tourism involves and is
stimulated by the performing arts, visual arts, festivals and heritage tourism (Craik, 1997).
Heritage tourism is tourism that involves visiting selected landscapes, historic sites, buildings or
monuments and seeking encounters with nature or feeling part of the history of a place (Craik,
1997). Richards (1996) uses two separate definitions of cultural tourism that have same
underlying premise. One definition is the movement of persons to cultural attractions away
from their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information and
experiences to satisfy their cultural needs (p. 24). The other definition Richards (1996) uses is
all aspects of travel, whereby travelers learn about the history and heritage of others or about
their contemporary ways of life or thought (p. 23). All three definitions of cultural tourism
highlight the idea of tourists traveling to a location away from their home for the purpose of
learning more about that locations culture.
Based on the idea of cultural tourism it should come as no surprise that the majority of
tourists are primarily interested in historic monuments and sites, followed by museums, art, and

6
music respectively (Craik, 1997). Even though, there is a hierarchy in the preferences of what
kind of attraction tourist go to, tourists still tend to visit the main advertised and popular cultural
sites and locations or attractions of their vacation destination (Isaac, 2008). Depending on
motives, preferences and capabilities, tourists tend to combine several and different attractions
and facilities during a holiday (Isaac 2008). A typical list of the types of cultural sites or
attractions visited by tourists include: archaeological sites and museums; architecture (ruins,
famous building, whole towns); art, sculpture, crafts, galleries, events; music and dance
(classical, folk, contemporary); drama (theatre, films); language and literature study, tours;
religious festivals, pilgrimages; complete (folk or primitive) cultures and sub-cultures (Isaac
2008). These sites are of general interest to the masses due to their motivations as a cultural
tourist, even though they probably have few personal ties to the sites (Timothy, 1997). These
attractions may invoke feelings of awe, however they probably do not invoke feelings of
personal attachment (Timothy, 1997). Visits to ancient monuments are largely motivated by the
belief that such objects really are linked to the remote past and therefore have cultural
significance (Timothy, 1997). Therefore the sites that tourists choose to visit are linked to their
desire learn more about the locations culture, thus making them cultural tourists.
Culture heritage is the essence of tourism in many destinations worldwide (Timothy,
1997). Likewise, Isaac (2008) agrees that culture can pays a dominant role in developing tourism
in a city or a region. This phenomenon can be seen in Italian tourism. More than 50% of global
cultural and historical heritage is concentrated in Italy (Borg & Costa, 1996). Art, culture, and
history are important motivations for at least a part of the many people visiting Italy each year
(Borg & Costa, 1996). Rome is at the center of Italian tourism due its wealth of cultural sites.
Based on this, it is easy to infer that the primary type of tourism in Rome is cultural tourism.

7
Tourists come to Rome to see the ancient heritage sites that exist there. At each of sites there is a
mass of tourists. It is often assumed that the culture which tourists bring on vacation will be their
own, or that of their country. However this is not the case. Boniface (1998) asserts that local,
tourist, and residual cultures blend to produce a new breed of culture at each destination. At each
of these tourist sites there is a special and distinguishing culture consisting of the behavior of not
only tourists but also those offering them hospitality services. Both groups behave together
differently from the way in which each behave at home (Boniface, 1998). The behavior of all
those involved in the tourism process at tourist destinations is sufficiently distinct as a tourism
culture (Boniface, 1998). The tourist culture can be defined as a synthesis of the characteristics
and motivations of tourists along with behavior that they display at tourist sites. At each of the
tourist sites in Roman, the tourist culture is present and specific to Rome.
Theory
There are many theories and forms of analysis that can be used to understand culture.
This paper uses Speech Codes Theory to understand the Roman tourist culture. This paper uses
the analytical methods of Ethnography of Communication and Cultural Discourse to prove that
there are speech codes in the Roman tourist culture that dictate how one should act at a tourist
destination in Rome.
Philipsen (1997) defines Speech Code Theory asa system ofsocially
constructed symbols and meanings, premises, andrules, pertainingtocommunicative
conduct. In other words, a speech code is a rule about what to say, how to say it, and in what
context. The idea of premise is central to Speech Codes Theory. Premise is defined as why you
communicate in a certain way in a certain context. In other words, what you get out of doing
something. This idea is used in this paper to explain why tourists behave in a certain way at

8
tourist sites around Rome. Philipsen makes six propositions based on Speech Codes
Theory. Propositions one, two, three, and five can be used to discover the codes that are present
in the tourist culture that dictate how a tourist should behave at tourist
destination. Proposition one asserts, Wherever there is a distinctive culture, there is to be found
a distinctive speech code (Philipsen, 1997, p. 135). This proposition sets up the foundation for
this paper because it justifies that because the tourist culture is a distinctive culture, there is a
distinctive speech code. Proposition two states, In any given speech community multiple speech
codes are deployed (Philipsen, 1997, p. 138). A speech community is a group of people who
share rules for using and interpreting communication practices (Carbaugh, 2007b). Based on this
definition the tourist culture is a speech community and therefore has multiple speech codes at
work. Speech Codes Theory proposition three asserts that, a speech code implicates
a culturally distinctive psychology, sociology, andrhetoric (Philipsen, 1997, p.140). In other
words, a speech code reveals a unique belief of the community that is deploying it. The fifth
proposition of speech codes states that, the terms, rules, and premises of a speech code are
inextricably woven into speaking itself (Philipsen, 1997, p. 147). In other words,
communication demonstrates codes. A principle of Speech Codes Theory that this paper uses to
understand the codes of the Roman tourist culture is that if youre better at the speech code you
are more ingrained in the culture that is using that speech code. Therefore the Roman tourists
who are better at the speech codes of the Roman tourist culture are more central and ingrained in
the Roman tourist culture. These propositions and principle are used in this paper as a foundation
to understand that there are codes in the Roman tourist culture that are be found by looking at the
communication of the culture and that these codes indicate distinctive beliefs about how one
should at a tourist destination.

9
This paper uses the Ethnography of Communication form of analysis to understand and
analyze the codes in the tourist culture and how they show a distinctive behavior of the tourist
culture at tourist sites in Rome. Ethnographers (researchers of human cultures) of
communication start their analyses of communication by focusing how communication is used
and its meaning in different cultures (Carbaugh, 2007b). In other words, Ethnography of
Communication is the study of the practice of communication in different contexts (Carbaugh,
2007b). The concept of communication event has become a starting point for these analyses,
because communication event defines commutative action as social processes and sequences
(Carbaugh, 2007b). The concept of communication situation is then used to identify specific
settings and scenes for communication (Carbaugh, 2007b). Once ethnographers of
communication have identified a specific communication event, act, situation, or community for
study, it is then time to analyze it.
One tool that can be used for analysis is the SPEAKING mnemonic. The components of
the SPEAKING mnemonic prompts the researcher to ask certain questions about the
communication they have observed, in order to structure both their descriptive and comparative
analyses (Carbaugh, 2007b). These questions also help the researchers understand the special
qualities for specific communication practices and what is common across a variety of
communication practices. Carbaugh (2007b) breaks down SPEAKING into the following
categories: Setting and Scenes, Participants, Ends (the goals and actual outcomes of
participants), Act Sequence (sequential organization of a practice), Key (emotion or feeling),
Instrument (what type of communication is being used), Norms (what is done normally as a
matter of habit and what is the appropriate thing to do), and Genre. This paper uses the elements
of the SPEAKING mnemonic to analyze the communication of the Roman tourist culture in

10
order to find codes in the culture about how it is appropriate to act at tourist sites in Rome. In
particular this paper pays close attention to the ends, genre, key, act sequence, norms, and setting
components of speaking in order to understand that there are codes in the Roman tourist culture
concerning acceptable norms and act sequences at tourist sites in Rome.
Cultural Discourse Analysis is also used in this paper to understand the codes in the
Roman tourist culture. The foundation of Cultural Discourse Analysis, as it pertains to this
paper, is the idea that as people communicate with each other, not only are they saying things
literally about the specific subject being discussed, but they are also saying things culturally,
about who they are, how they are related, what they are doing together, and how they feel about
what is going in (Carbaugh, 2007a). This idea is used in this paper to understand that as Roman
tourists communicate they are saying things about the beliefs of the tourist culture. The
cultural meanings about personhood, relationships, action, emotion, and dwelling, that people are
conveying as they communicate are formulated in to Cultural Discourse Analysis as radiants of
cultural meaning or hubs of cultural meaning (Carbaugh, 2007a). The hubs of meanings are
meanings of: being (personhood, and identity), relating (relationships), acting (action and
practice), feeling (emotion and affect), and dwelling (place, and environment) (Carbaugh,
2007a). This paper uses hubs of meaning to understand how the communication of tourists at
tourist sites in Rome show the tourist cultures beliefs about the meanings of personhood,
relationships, emotion, and environment. This paper primarily focuses of the hubs of meaning
that have to do with being, dwelling, and relating. This paper uses these hubs of meaning and the
foundation of Cultural Discourse Analysis as discussed above to analyze and discover the codes
in the Roman tourist culture that dictate how one should at a Roman tourist site.
Methods

11
The method of research I used for the research in this paper was the ethnographic method
of research. Ethnographic field research is the study of groups and people as they go about their
everyday lives (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). Carrying out ethnographic research involves two
distinct activities. First the researcher enters into a social setting and gets to know the people
involved in it (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). This can be done through participating in the
setting and/or observing in the setting on the sidelines (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). After
getting to know the setting, the ethnographer writes down what he or she observed and learned
while participating or observing in the daily life of the people in the setting (Emerson, Fretz, &
Shaw, 2011). The notes that are taken at these setting are called scratch notes. Scratch notes are
jottings (a brief written record of events and impressions) that researchers take in the fields that
are later used to construct full fieldnotes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). In jottings, researchers
record the key components of the observed scenes, events, or interactions; concrete sensory
details; detailed aspects of scenes, talking and interaction; emotional expressions and
experiences; and general impressions and feelings (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). Jottings
should avoid making generalizations or summaries of what was observed (Emerson, Fretz, &
Shaw, 2011). After making jottings, ethnographers then take these jottings and write up
fieldnotes. Fieldnotes are the detailed, accurate, and comprehensive account of what has been
experienced at a site (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). After writing fieldnotes it is then time to
read them to look for patterns, themes, idea that they suggest (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011).
After identifying a pattern, theme, or idea it is then time to read the fieldnotes again to look for
instances that pertain to that pattern, theme, or idea (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). This
process is called coding (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). The process of writing jotting at sites,
writing fieldnotes based on these jotting, and the coding the fieldnotes to look for common

12
pattern, themes, and ideas is the method I used to conduct the research this paper is based on.
This method is the ethnographic method of research.
The research for this paper is the data from eight week of observations at sites in and
around Rome is the basis of this paper. Although this paper will only be discussing observations
from tourist destinations in Rome, the observations I took at non-tourist site in Rome and at sites
outside of Rome were a good basis of comparison to the tourist sites in Rome. Those
observations highlighted the differences in behaviors between members of the tourist culture and
of the local culture and the behavior of tourists in Rome versus tourist outside Rome. These
contrasting observations solidified the patterns I saw in behavior of Roman tourists as codes
specific to the Roman tourist culture and not to members of other tourist cultures or of the locals
of Rome.
Each afternoon Monday through Thursday from January 12th-March 5th I would go to a
site in Rome or outside Rome and take scratch notes for two hours on what I observed at each
site. Then I would come back from the observation site and write up my jottings into fieldnotes.
Every week or two I read through my fieldnotes and code them looking for patterns, ideas, and
themes that were specific to Roman culture and communication. In coding my fieldnotes I found
a theme concerning the behavior of the tourists at tourist sites in Rome. I was able to find this
theme by using the analytic methods of searching for components of the SPEAKING mnemonic
and by searching for the hubs of meaning from Cultural Discourse Analysis in my coding
process. This theme became the basis for my claim that there are speech codes in the Roman
tourist culture that dictate how tourists should act at tourist sites in Rome.
Finding Codes in the Roman Tourist Culture
Act Sequences at Tourist Sites

13
Over the course of my eight weeks of observations at tourist sites in Rome a pattern
concerning the order in which tourists go about interacting with a site (their act sequence) began
to emerge in my fieldnotes. Based on this pattern, I assert that at tourist sites in Rome there is a
code about what the appropriate act sequence is when interacting with a site. I observed this act
sequence at all the sites I observed in Rome, however it was most pronounced at the Pantheon,
Piazza Navona, and Piazza Farnese. All of these sites are different types of tourist destinations
however at each the same act sequence was apparent.
Piazza Navona was one of my first observation sites in Rome. I observed Piazza Navona
the afternoon of Tuesday January 17, 2015. Piazza Navona is one of the main tourist destinations
in Rome. It always makes the list of one of the top sites that you should visit while in Rome.
Piazza Navona is a long rectangular square. It has three fountains about evenly spaced
throughout the length of it. The middle fountain has an obelisk coming out of the center
of it. All the fountains are made of white stone. The perimeter of the square is a road with
buildings surrounding it. On the left side is a decorative building (maybe a church) and
some restaurants. The right side is mostly restaurants and the top of the square has a
couple shops. However, most of the piazza is a pedestrian area. The pedestrian area is
paved with old cobblestones. The top end of the piazza is in the shade and the bottom is
in the sun. The side in the sun has vendors selling caricatures and pictures/painting of
Rome.
People walk into Piazza Navona from the bottom of the square and then immediately move to the
middle of the square where the biggest fountain is. They then proceed to take photos of the
fountain and sometimes will take a panorama of the entire piazza. After taking a photo of the
middle fountain, which is the main attraction of the piazza, tourists then move on to the top of
the piazza to look at the goods of the vendors or to the fountain at the top of the piazza. Once
arriving at the fountain at the top of the piazza they then proceed to take pictures with that
fountain as well.

14
The observations above demonstrate an act sequence. The act sequence of people moving
into at tourist site (moving into the square) and then moving to the main attraction of the site (the
middle fountain), observing the main attraction for a minute and then taking photo of the main
attraction (taking pictures of the middle fountain). From here the act sequence is moving on to
the secondary attraction of site, so in the case of Piazza Navona moving on to the fountain at the
top of square. Then once tourists are at the secondary attraction of the site they then proceed to
take pictures of that attraction as well. After observing and documenting the secondary
attraction(s) tourist then leave the site. This pattern describes an act sequence.
Another site in Rome that I observed this act sequence was at the Pantheon. The
Pantheon is relic of Ancient Rome and a Roman temple. I took my observations in the Pantheon
the afternoon Monday January 19, 2015 while sitting on a pew near the altar turned around
facing the entrance of the building. The Pantheon is circular building that that has an altar at the
center top of the room with pews facing it. Then at intervals around the wall of the building there
are tombs with significance figures buried in them. The most striking and well-known element of
the Pantheon is the dome and the large open hole in the center of the dome. The main attraction
of the Pantheon is the dome because it is the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world.
When entering the Pantheon tourist go about the same act sequence as the one I described for
Piazza Navona. I observed the following while in the Pantheon:
An Asian man wearing jeans and a red fleece front zipping sweatshirt slowly walks up
the aisle to the alter pausing to take multiple pictures with at different intervals with his
professional looking camera. Once he arrives at the alter he takes multiple pictures
flipping his camera around for each one to get a different orientationA man in kaki
pants, a down coat with a fur hood, sunglasses, and backpack circles slowly as he takes a
panorama picture on his phoneAs people enter the Pantheon the look up at the dome.
They then either move to the center to take pictures of the main altar and then to one of
the sides to slowly circle and take pictures of each altar or tomb. They move in groups
A young girl enters with her family, kneels in the center below the center of the dome,

15
and looks up. She stands to get the camera from her dad and then kneels again to take a
pictureA man lies on one of the pews on his back and takes a picture of the dome.
People entering the Pantheon looking up the dome and taking a picture of the dome and
then moving around the perimeter of the Pantheon to observe and take picture of the altars and
tombs on the perimeter sums up the act sequence of tourists at the Pantheon. Each of the
observations I noted above show some element of that act sequence. The Asian man moving up
the aisle to take pictures of the main alter is an example of the part of the act sequence of
observing and documenting secondary attractions. The Asian man had already entered the
Pantheon and taken in the dome and then after taking in the dome he moved on to take in the
altar. He was precise in the way he documented the altar by taking pictures from various angles
and positions, however all his actions in the situation demonstrate the second step of the act
sequence. The man in the kakis and fur coat was also demonstrating the second step of the act
sequence. He had already taken a picture of the dome and then was moving on the document the
secondary features of the Pantheon, the perimeter, by taking a panorama of the entire building.
The young girl kneeing on the ground to look at the dome is an example of the first component
of the act sequence. As soon as she entered the site she immediately moved to the look at dome,
the main attraction of the Pantheon and proceeded to take a photograph of it. The man taking a
picture of the dome lying down on of these pews is another example of the first component of the
act sequence. This man entered the Pantheon and observed the dome and then moved onto the
pew to take a picture of the dome. Each of these observations demonstrates one element of the
act sequence. However, each person also partook in the other elements of the act sequence as
well. Not only did all these people demonstrate the act sequence at the Pantheon, but all the other
participants at the Pantheon who were tourists demonstrated this act sequence as well. These

16
examples prove that the act sequence at the Pantheon like at Piazza Navona is enter to site
(building of the Pantheon), stop to observe and document the main attraction (the dome), and
then move on to peruse and photograph the secondary attractions of the site (the alters around the
perimeter of the Pantheon).
Another site that this act sequence was demonstrated at was Piazza Farnese. Piazza
Farnese is the square where the French Embassy is located. I took observations at Piazza Farnese
on the afternoon of Monday February 23, 2015.
Piazza Farnese has a large palace at the top of the square. On the sides are residential
buildings with identical fountains across from each other. Surrounding each fountain is a
railing filled with bikes chained to it. Parked in front of each fountain is a row of cars.
Most are trucks. One truck has its tailgate open and a man is unloading propane tanks
from the back. Other trucks park briefly on the edge of the square to unload their goods.
One of the buildings on the right has mesh over the scaffolding in front of it that depicts
how the building should look. At the bottom right of the square is a caf with tables
outdoors. Everyone at the tables of the caf have order some form of coffee. No one has
food. Some people are reading the newspaper; others are talking with their companion.
To the right of the caf is a newsstand. At the bottom left of the square is a pharmacy.
The genre of Piazza Farnese is different from both Piazza Navona and the Pantheon. Both Piazza
Navona and the Pantheon are heavily trafficked main tourist attraction of Rome. However,
Piazza Farnese, while in most travel guides as a destination to visit in Rome is, is on the bottom
of list of sites to visit; therefore it is a tourist destination, but not a main tourist destination. The
genre of the site is much more of a local square that tourist visits rather than a tourist destination
that both locals and tourists treat as a tourist destination.
The tourists I observed at Piazza Farnese once again followed the same act sequence that
I saw present at the Pantheon and Piazza Navona. At Piazza Farnese I observed several groups of
tourists doing the exact actions. They slowly enter the square from the Campo de Fiori side and
then pointed at Palazzo Farnese (the building that houses the French Embassy) and then
proceeded to take pictures of the Palazzo. The groups then proceed to move to the fountain on

17
the right side of the piazza. At the fountain they then proceeded to sit on the fountain lip and take
pictures with the fountain in the background. These observations support the act sequence that I
have identified at the other sites. Once again tourists enter the site and the proceed to observe and
photograph the main attraction, in this case Palazzo Farnese, and then move on to observe the
secondary attraction, at the Piazza Farnese the fountain.
Not only was this act sequence seen at the sites discussed above, but also at all the tourist
sites I observed in Rome. The reason for this act sequence at each of these sites is because the
tourists at these sites all had the same ends. They all wanted to observe the site and document the
moment by taking pictures. The premise for tourists taking pictures of all the elements of the
sites can be explained by the concept of social capital. Social capital is the capacity of
individuals to obtain value through their membership in networks and/or broad social structures
(Eroglu, 2008). The central premise of social capital is that social networks have value, therefore
the more involved you are in a social network the more social capital you have (Eroglu, 2008).
The more social capital people have the more membership they have in a group (Eroglu, 2008).
One way to obtain social capital is to post pictures on Facebook or other social media platforms.
By posting on these platforms people are gaining more social capital because they are asserting
their membership in that social media platform. The idea of social capital and why it is important
to people can be tied to the idea of social identity and the hub of meaning of being. Social
identity is defined as who one is; depending on where I am, with whom I am, and what I am
doing in that scene (Coutu, 2008). Social identity is constructed in and through communication
(Coutu, 2008). Social identity falls under the Cultural Discourse Analysis hub of meaning
category meaning about being. Social identity is part of how people construct their personhood
and identity. One commutative act that people construct their social identity/ meanings of being

18
through is posting pictures on Facebook. Roman tourists taking pictures of themselves at tourist
destinations in Rome and then posting them on a social media platform demonstrates their social
identity as someone who travels and is cultured. By creating their social identity in this way they
are gaining social capital by integrating themselves more into a social network. In creating their
social identity as someone who travels and is cultured, tourists are also creating their identity as
someone who has social capital. Therefore the act sequence that Roman tourists partake in at
sites is due to their ends of creating their social identity and social capital.
While each of the sites discussed above, Piazza Navona, the Pantheon, and Piazza
Farnese are slightly different types of tourist destinations the act sequence observed at each on is
the same. This act sequence was observed not only at the sites I discussed above but at all the
tourist destinations I observed in Rome. Because this act sequence was something I observed
tourists doing at all the sites I observed in Rome, this shows a pattern of behavior of tourists at
tourist sites in Rome. As discussed above, this pattern of behavior is connected to the ends of
creating social identity and social capital. Because I saw this act sequence at each of the tourist
sites in Rome and the act sequence at each site related to the ends of wanting to create social
capital and social identity, this a code of the Roman tourist culture at tourist sites in Rome. The
code being that in the Roman tourist culture there is a specific act sequence that one should
follow when at tourist site in Rome. This code dictates how tourists behave and interact with the
tourist sites in Rome.
Men in Dominant Roles at Tourist Sites in Rome
Carbaugh (2007b) defines norms as what is done normally as a matter of habit, []
and what is the appropriate thing to do []. In my eight weeks of observations at tourist sites
in Rome I have noticed gender norms at work at those sites. The gender norm that I have noticed

19
is that men are in dominant roles when they are with women at tourist destinations. The norm of
men being in dominant roles at tourist sites in Rome is a speech code that implicates a culturally
distinctive sociology about gender norms in the Roman tourist culture.
One such gender norm that is apparent at Roman tourist attractions is the norm of men
carrying bags for woman. A scene I observed on the afternoon January 27, 2015 in Saint Peters
Square is one such example. St. Peters Square is the square in Vatican City outside St. Peters
Basilica (one of the most important churches to the Catholic faith). In the square I witnessed a
mother and son interacting. They had been walking around the square taking pictures. When they
paused in front St. Peters Basilica to take pictures the women set down the bag she had
previously been carrying. When they started to walk again the woman handed the plastic bag
she had previously been holding to the man. Another instances of men carrying bags leaving the
woman empty handed were sited outside the Pantheon. A teenage boy was spotted carrying an
HM bag for the woman he was accompanying. Also outside the Pantheon I observed an older
couple. The man was carrying the shopping bag leaving the woman empty handed. At Circo
Massimo (a field where the chariot races of Ancient Rome took place; now one of the main
tourist sites of Rome) I observed a couple walking from one end of the field to the other holding
hands and pausing at intervals to take pictures of the site. The hand the man wasnt holding the
womans hand with, held a shopping bag. The womans other hand was free. I observed this
same phenomenon at the tourist site Terme di Caracalla (the ruins of an ancient Roman
bathhouse). I saw a family consisting of father, mother, and two sons walking through the park
surround the baths. The father was carrying a backpack leaving the mother and sons without
bags. Also at the baths I saw a couple walking through the ruins. The man wore a backpack and

20
was carrying a shopping bag. The woman was empty handed. At all these tourist sites, the men
are carrying the bag(s) leaving the woman empty handed.
Another gender norm observed at tourist sites in Roman is men taking photos instead of
women. In St. Peters Square I noticed an interaction of a mother and her daughter and son. The
mom and daughter posed in front of St. Peters Basilica and the son took a picture. The daughter
then posed by herself in front of the basilica and the son once again took the picture. In Villa
Borghese Gardens at the water clock a man and a woman were observed taking a selfie together
with the clock in the background. The man held the camera phone to take the photo. At the
fountain in Piazza Barberini, a man and a woman were observed at taking a selfie with the
fountain in the background. Once again the man was holding the camera phone to take the photo.
In the piazza outside the Pantheon an Asian man was observed taking a picture of his female
companion.. Also outside the Pantheon, a twenty-something aged man was observed taking a
picture of his two female companions. I also saw this norm in action at Terre di Caracalla, Piazza
Farnese, and Piazza del Popolo to name a few. As it was a pattern of behavior that I saw at all the
tourist sites in it indicates a norm.
At multiple tourist destinations in Rome I observed the norm of men dictating when the
couple should leave the site has been observed. In Circo Massimo I observed
several different groups of men and women. One of the couple was sitting and when they got up
the man walked out in front leading the woman towards their destination. In another group
walking from one end of the field to the other, the man was out in front of the women and the
children, leading the way. I saw another man and woman were walking, the man reading the
map. The man pointed and then began leading the woman in the direction he pointed in. At the

21
Coliseum (the ruins of ancient roman amphitheater and one of the most visited tourist sites in
Rome) I overheard a man with a British accent says to the woman hes with, Lets move to let
these girls see. The man was referring to a group of girls that were standing behind him waiting
their turn to stand on the balcony overlooking the stage of the Coliseum. In Saint Peters Square I
observed a woman and her son and daughter huddle together to take a selfie. Her husband (not
included in the picture) gestured at them to follow him as he moved closer to St. Peters Basilica.
All these examples demonstrate the norm of the man dictating when it is time to move on from a
site and where to go next.
All the above norms (men taking pictures, indicting when its time to leave a site, and
carrying bags for women) demonstrate the overall norm of men being in dominant roles over
women. The norm of men carrying bag for women shows male dominance because it shows that
men think that they need to take care of the woman theyre with by carrying their bags for them.
The ancient premise behind this being that women are too weak to carry their own bags,
therefore is the job of the man to carry the bag for them because they are stronger. In other
words, it is a mans role to be the caretaker of a woman and they fulfill this role at tourist sites in
Rome by carrying bags for woman. Men in a dominant role is also shown through them taking
pictures and dictating when its time to leave a location because it shows that they are in control
and in charge. All the norms discussed above put men in positions where they either taking care
or women or in control of women, thus putting them in dominant roles over women. This norm
shows a culturally distinctive sociology about how men and women should act toward each at
tourist sites in Rome, therefore demonstrating a speech code of the Roman tourist culture (based
of proposition three of speech codes theory). This speech code is that men should be in the
dominant role when at tourist sites with women in Rome. This code indicates the hub of meaning

22
concerning relationships; in this instance the idea that men and womens relationships should
have the men in a dominant role.
Setting Norms at Tourist Sites
As discussed in the previous section, there are norms at the tourist sites in Rome that
dictate how people act those sites. Another set of norms that I observed at the tourist sites in
Rome is a norm of how one should interaction with a setting based on the features in that setting.
I noted this norm for three different features of settings at tourist sites in Rome: fountains,
religious sites, and statues.
Fountains are a feature of many of the tourist piazzas around Rome. On the afternoon of
Tuesday January 13, 2013 I observed Piazza Navona. At Piazza Navona, people perch on the rail
of fountain and take selfies or have a companion take a picture of them. At the fountain that
doesnt have a railing around it (the middle fountain), people stand and take pictures with the
fountain in the background. At the bottom of the Spanish steps is a piazza with a fountain in the
center. People sit on the railing surrounding it. People at the bottom of the stairs take pictures
looking up the stairs and of the fountain. In St. Peters Square, people sit on the railing of the
fountain and snap photos of themselves and the fountain. At Piazza Barberini, I observed a
couple, a family, and group of girl friends sitting on the railing surrounding the fountain in the
center of the pedestrian piazza taking photos of themselves with the fountain. I observed the
following interaction with a fountain in Piazza Farnese on the afternoon of February 23, 2015:
At the fountain on the right side of the square a woman with a baby stands at the fountain.
She places the baby on the lip of the fountain and tries to take a picture of the baby. The
baby grabs at the fountain as she takes the picture. Two women, one her twenties and one
middle-aged sit on the lip of the fountain facing away from the fountain. In between them
is a plastic grocery bag with food and a Coke Zero and water bottle placed on top of it.
Two young children sit on lip facing the fountain. Their parents stand looking on. A man

23
and woman sit on the fountain lip. The man takes a picture with a selfie stick. A middleaged man and woman and teenage girl use the railing surrounding the base of the fountain
to hoist themselves onto the fountain lip. Once sitting the girls takes out her selfie stick to
take a picture of herself with the fountain. Another couple sits on the fountain lip eating
sandwiches. A family (a woman, three girls, and man) stands near the fountain. The man
stands a little away from the rest of the group taking pictures. He takes some posed and
some candid.
Tourists sit on the railing of all these fountains and take photos of themselves with the fountain
in the background. The tourists at each of these sites are demonstrating that there is a norm in the
Roman tourist culture that if the tourist setting you are in contains a fountain it is expected that
you will take sit on railing of it and take photo of yourself with it in the background. In the above
illustrations, the setting is the piazza and the feature of the piazza is the fountain. Because the
settings described above all the have the feature of a fountain the tourist act in a certain way in
the those settings; their behavior being taking pictures of the fountain and sitting on railing of the
fountain. In the examples above the feature at the setting indicated the behavior expected, thus
demonstrating a sociology about how to act in those settings, which in turn demonstrates a
speech code. The speech code being that in the Roman tourist culture there is a set of norms of
how once should interaction with a tourist setting based on the feature of the setting.
Another setting in which I noticed the feature of the setting dictating the behavior of the
setting was at religious sites in Rome. Ive observed several churches in Rome, including St.
Peters Basilica, the Pantheon, and Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. At each of these there was
the key (mood) of respect. This key was shown through using hushed tones and through acting
subdued. In the Pantheon there were announces made over a PDA system every 15 minutes
reminding visitors that Pantheon was holy place and to please be quiet and respectful. In both
Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore and St. Peters Basilica there were signs at the entrance
reminding visitors to e quiet. All the tourists and tour guides at these sites were speaking in

24
hushed tones. At each of these churches all the visitors were subdued. Through their acts, the
tourists at each of these sites showed their respect for the religious setting.
Another religious settings that I observed was the Catacombe di Priscilla. This setting was
not a church, however it was still a religious setting because not only is it protected and cared for
by the Christian church, but is also a burial place. In the catacombs no pictures were allowed.
Signs and tour guides reminded visitors of this constantly. Pictures were not allowed out of
respect for the dead and the sacrality of the location. Not allowing photos showed that the site
demanded respect due to its sacrality and its status as a religious setting.
At the setting of the churches and the catacomb the feature of the setting being religious
dictated the behavior at the setting. Because each of the above settings had a religious feature the
tourists at each setting behaved in a respectful manner. This showed the norm of being respectful
at religious settings in Rome. Thus supporting the speech code in the Roman tourist culture there
is a set of norms of how once should interaction with a tourist setting based on the feature of the
setting.
Another feature of settings in Rome are statues. The different Roman tourist settings of
piazzas, museums and park all have the feature of statues. Campo de Fiori is known for the
statue in the center of the piazza of Giordano Bruno. Tourists visiting Campo de Fiori are always
sure to take pictures with the statue of Giordano Bruno. Museums are settings that are notorious
for having statues. The Borghese Gallery, the Vatican Museums, and Musei Capitolini all contain
a multitude of statues. At each of the museums tourists were more likely to take pictures of the
statues in room then they were of the painting in the room. At each location no matter the
significance of the statue, tourists still took photos of the statue. Another setting in Rome that has

25
an abundance of statues is the Villa Borghese park. While, walking around the park I observed
tourists stops at the statues they came up to take pictures of the statues.
At all of these settings the features of a statue dictated the behavior at the setting. At each
of the above settings, when tourist saw the feature of a statue they then proceeded to take a
picture of that statue. This showed the norms Roman tourists of taking statues of any and all
statues at Roman tourist sites. Thus supporting the speech code in the Roman tourist culture there
is a set of norms of how once should interaction with a tourist setting based on the feature of the
setting.
Each of the norms described above concerned the feature of a setting dictating the
behavior of the tourists in that setting. This connects to Cultural Discourse Analysis idea of
meanings about dwellings. In the above examples the dwelling created a meaning about how to
act in the said dwelling. The examples above support the claim that there is a speech code in the
Roman tourist culture there is a set of norms of how once should interaction at a tourist setting
based on the feature of the setting. This speech code shows a culturally distinctive sociology in
the Roman tourist culture about how one should act in a setting based on the features of that
setting.
Concluding Remarks and Future Research Ideas
The claim of this paper is that there are speech codes in Roman tourist culture that dictate
the behavior of tourists at tourist sites in Rome. I discovered these codes after conducting eight
weeks of ethnographic research at tourist sites in Rome. During my observations I noted a
pattern of behavior of tourists at these sites. I was able analyze these patterns to determine codes
that dictate the behavior of tourists by using concepts from Speech Codes Theory, Ethnography
of Communication, and Cultural Discourse Analysis. The foundation of this analysis being the

26
previous research on defining a tourist and tourism. Based on this research I was able to show
that tourism in Rome falls under cultural tourism because tourists in Rome primarily visit sites
(monuments, museums, historic piazzas, ruins, etc.) based on their motivation as tourists to gain
authenticity through immersing themselves in the cultural of the location they are visiting. Using
the research of Boniface (1998) I proved that there is a distinct culture at the tourist sites in
Rome, the Roman tourist culture. All this laid the groundwork of my claims of the different
codes in the tourist culture. Using propositions one, two, three, and five of Speech Codes Theory
I was able to prove that there are multiple speech codes in the Roman tourist culture that that can
be discovered by looking at the communication of Roman tourists that show a distinctive belief
about how they think they should act at tourist destinations in Rome. I used components from the
SPEAKING mnemonic from Ethnography of Communication and the hubs of meaning from
Culture Discourse Analysis to analyze my fieldnotes in order to discover patterns that
demonstrated the codes in the Roman tourist culture. I also used these concepts to justify the
patterns I observed as being speech codes. All this lead me to the claim of this paper that there
are speech codes in Roman tourist culture that dictate the behavior of tourists at tourist sites in
Rome. The codes I found in the Roman tourist culture about how to behave at tourist sites were a
code for the appropriate act sequence, a code for men being in dominant roles, and a code for
how tourist behave based on the feature of the setting they are at, together creating codes for the
overall behavior of tourists at tourist sites in Rome.
These codes are important because they show a specific type of human behavior and how
it is demonstrated through communication. This research shields light on an element of tourism
that has not previously been studied explicitly. These codes show a behavior of a culture (the
tourist culture), therefore showing an element of human behavior in a certain context and

27
location. These codes can help locals and tourists of Rome understand the tourist culture in
Rome.
Although this paper successfully showed that there are speech codes in the Roman tourist
culture that dictate how a tourist should behave at a tourist location there were limitations of the
research of this paper. One limitation was that I only speak English and many of the tourists I
observed spoke a language other than English, therefore I was only able to discern speech codes
that had to do with non-verbal communication. Future research on speech codes in the Roman
tourist culture should be done concerning verbal communication. This would require having
researchers that spoke multiple languages. Another limitation was that because I was only in
Rome for three months, I was only able to visit these tourist sites once. In future research, I
would recommend having the researchers visit the sites they were observing multiple times at
different times of the day and different days of the week so that they get a full picture of what the
site is like. My own personal biases were also a limitation of this research. As an American living
in Rome for three months I was biased by my American perception of the world. I was also
biased in what I thought was unique in the tourists I observed . There are probably many more
speech codes to be found in the tourist culture of Rome, however I did not discover them because
I was biased in observing situations and people that interested me. In future research on this topic
it would useful to have multiple researchers with different cultural backgrounds take
observations, so that cultural biases are limited. If all future research overcame the limitations of
this paper they probably could make more claims about speech codes in the Roman tourist
culture.
There is also addition research that could be done concerning the origin of these speech
codes. Are the behaviors at these sites copied or are they part of human instinct? Research could

28
also be done on whether or not different tourist cultures have the same speech codes or if these
speech codes are unique to the Roman tourist culture. These topics for future research would
shield more light on the tourist culture as a whole.
Living in Rome for the past eight weeks, not only have I been able to observe multiple
tourist sites, but Ive also gotten to be a tourist at those sites. Conducting research for this paper
was able to help me understand what it means to be a tourist at those sites and identity myself as
a member of the Roman tourist culture. Doing research for this paper made me understand the
tourist culture in Rome and how I fit into that culture, therefore making me more self-aware.

29
References
Boniface, P. (1998). Tourism culture. Annals of Tourism Research. 25(3), (746-749). Retrieved
from http:// www.sciencedirect.com
Borg, J. & Costa, P. (1996). Cultural tourism in Italy. In G. Richards (Ed). Cultural tourism in
Europe. (pp. 156-169). Wallingford, UK: CAB International
Carbaugh, D. (2007a). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural
encounters. Journal of intercultural communication research, 36(3), 167-182.
Carbaugh, D. (2007b). Ethnography of communication. In Donsbach Wolfgang (Eds.), The
Blackwell international encyclopedia of communication. Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved
from http://www.blackwellreference.com
Coutu, L. (2008). Contested social identity and communication in text and talk about the
Vietnam War. Research on Language and Communication, 41(4), 387-407.
Craik, J. (1997). The culture of tourism. In C. Rojek & J. Urry (Eds.) Touring cultures:
Transformations of travel and theory (pp. 113-136). London: Routledge
Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism: Approaches, issues, and findings. Annual Review of
Sociology, 10, 373-392. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org .
Emerson, R., Fretz, R. & Shaw L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press

30
Eroglu, S. (2010). The irrelevance of social capital in explaining deprivation: A case study of
Turkish Gecekondu households. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie
(Journal of Economic & Social Geography), 101(1) 37-54
Falk I. & Kilpatrick S. (2000). What is social capital?: A study of interaction in a rural
community. Sociologia Ruralis.40(1), 87-110. Retrieved from http://
www.researchgate.net
Isaac, R. K. I. (2008). Understanding the behaviour of cultural tourists: Towards a classification
of Dutch cultural tourists (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.tramresearch.com
Philipsen, G. (1997). A theory of speech codes. In Developing Communication Theories (pp.119156). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Richards, G. (1996). The scope and significance of cultural tourism. In G. Richards (Ed).
Cultural tourism in Europe. (pp. 21-38). Wallingford, UK: CAB International
Timothy, D. J. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(3), 751-754. Retrieved from http:// www.sciencedirect.com