Language for Tourism

MIGUEL F. RUIZ-GARRIDO AND ANA MARÍA SAORÍN-IBORRA

Language for tourism has developed relatively recently as a field within languages for
specific purposes (LSP), joining other more widely known and longer-established specific
language disciplines such as business, science and technology, and academic purposes.
Owing to the socioeconomic importance of tourism and its business nature, the language
for tourism has often been included within the language for business. In fact, in some
tourism dictionaries (e.g., Reily-Collins, 1996; Alcaraz Varó, Hughes, Campos Pardillo,
Pina Medina & Alesón Carbonell, 2000), apart from the specific semantic fields related to
tourism (catering, accommodation, weather, art, or culture), some sections are devoted to
more purely business fields (accounting or finance). However, many scholars claim there
is distinct specificity within the language of tourism (e.g., Dann, 1996; Gotti, 2006), and
thus it warrants separate treatment. Although English seems to be the most widely
researched language in the field of tourism, other languages have also been studied, such
as Spanish and French, among others (see Dann & Johanson, 2009).
Defining language for tourism is not easy. Nigro (2006, p. 187) notes that language for
tourism has been classified in different ways, as for example the language of promotion
(Dann, 1996) or the language of consumerism (Moeran, 1983). Thus, the attempts to define
language for tourism reveal that it is a multifaceted term reflecting both complexity and
heterogeneity; it mirrors both the professional and contextual structure where it is used.
According to the World Tourism Organization, tourism comprises

the activities of persons traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment
for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related
to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited. (2007, p. 1)

This industry definition substantiates the interdisciplinary character of language for tourism
and highlights its diverse features (lexical/semantic, syntactic, etc.). Consequently, in order
to describe this specific type of language, it is first necessary to explain the professional
context of tourism.

The Complex Domain of the Tourist Industry and

the Language for Tourism

The linguistic features of tourism discourse are strongly connected to the diverse services
of the tourism industry, which is divided into many independent businesses with different
organizations, aims, and types of services offered (e.g., Aguirre Beltrán & Hernández, 1985;
Youell, 2000; Calvi, 2001).
The tourism industry covers any activity carried out by people traveling for any reason
(leisure, business, and visiting relatives and friends) as well as any services visitors/tourists
are offered during their stay. Ruiz-Garrido and Saorín-Iborra (2006, p. 10) summarize some
complementary divisions in this field, including

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0620
2 language for tourism

• services offered and related industries: accommodation (hotels, hostels, campsites,

resorts), food (restaurants, pubs, meals, gastronomy), transport, travel agencies, tourist
information centers, leisure (guided tours, tourist attractions, tourist development,
promotion), tourist operators, etc.;
• stages in a trip, including tourists’ needs: initial arrangements and journey (information,
buying/booking, transport), customs (document control), and services at destination
(transport, accommodation and meals, information, attractions, leisure, buying, public
services); and
• jobs: professionals managing and running the different tourist services (hotel managers,
market researchers) and professionals with a very specific training (tour guides, flight
attendants, hotel concierges, skiing instructors).

In order to understand the complexity of the field of tourism, it is important to consider

the roles of the client and the product of the tourist industry. On the one hand, the tourist
product is rather a service, something intangible, unlike many business-related products
(e.g., Dale & Oliver, 2000; Holloway, 2002). On the other hand, it is the client who deter-
mines the success or failure of the tourist businesses/services. Considering some authors’
works (Calvi, 2006; Gotti, 2006), specialists in the tourism industry may be involved in three
main communicative situations: (a) specialist–specialist communication, (b) specialist–non-
specialist communication, and (c) specialist–client communication. The first situation hap-
pens when “the expert addresses other specialists to debate issues within his professional
field, to discuss a project, report results, explain the use of equipment, etc.” (Gotti, 2006,
p. 20). The second situation is when specialists prepare informative documents addressed
to non-specialists or semi-specialists, such as textbooks or articles in specialized news-
papers/magazines. Finally, the third situation, probably the most common one, is when
the communication between clients/non-specialists and specialists happens and in which
experts need to adapt their discourse to the clients’ level of expertise, having to use every-
day language together with some specialized expressions (e.g., in travel agencies, guided
touring, and popular newspapers/magazines). Personal contact with tourists/travelers
stands out as a basic difference between the language for tourism and professional com-
munication in general (Calvi, 2001). Thus, customer care is perhaps the most important
task within the tourist industry, since the quality of services the customers receive will
determine the future of any tourist business. It is for these reasons that the distinct features
of the language of tourism require a special focus and investigation.

Main Features of the Language for Tourism

Dann’s (1996) sociolinguistic study is considered by many the seminal work about the
language for tourism. He considers this specialized language mainly as a promotional act
with a discourse of its own, and is typically limited to the professionals and customers
who use it. He emphasizes that this language tries to persuade, attract, and seduce through
images, written texts, and audiovisual means (that is, through multimodal discourse), to
entice thousands of people to become customers. Research literature on the issue validates
this approach as the most common view of the language for tourism (e.g., Cappelli, 2006),
although purely informative and objective materials for tourists and professionals also
exist within this field.
Dann (1996) describes these promotional and persuasive characteristics of the language
for tourism according to four theoretical sociolinguistic perspectives: authenticity, stranger-
hood, play, and conflict perspectives. Authenticity and the language of authentication
refer to the real sociocultural symbols tourists look for when visiting a place (e.g., Tapas
isn’t Spain’s national dish, but rather Spain’s way of life [www.in-spain.info]). Strangerhood
 language for tourism 3

and the language of differentiation deal with tourists’ desires to experience something
new, a dissimilar reality from their own (e.g., There is something unique about Istanbul.
It is the only city in the world that straddles two continents – Europe and Asia [http://www.
bloggersbase.com/travel/unique-istanbul/]). The play perspective and the language of
recreation focus on tourism as a game and tourists as players looking for pleasure and
fun (e.g., Sun, water and fun: the Spanish coast is the perfect place to enjoy water sports [http://
www.spain.info/en_US/disfruta/)]). Finally, the conflict perspective and the language
of appropriation refer to the contrast tourists try to find when traveling (e.g., Within the
borders of a single country, you will find savannahs rich with big game, timeless cultures unchanged
by the modern world, . . . [http://www.magicalkenya.com/]). Those perspectives and the
language they represent do not necessarily appear individually but they are often combined
through the use of different linguistic techniques. That way, the motivational effect on the
tourist is achieved.
As Gotti (2006) notes, disciplinary variation is based on lexical/semantic, morphosyntactic,
textual, and pragmatic features. Therefore, the knowledge and proper combination of the
different competences involved in a language (linguistic, discourse, functional, etc.) are
key matters to develop accurate communicative situations between professionals and
tourists/visitors (Ruiz-Garrido & Saorín-Iborra, 2006).
In terms of linguistic competence, vocabulary is probably the linguistic aspect that
differs most significantly from other LSP disciplines like business, and thus requires the
greatest attention from teachers and students alike. Most words used in tourism are con-
sidered semi-technical; that is, the field draws on everyday vocabulary, however these
words either appear more frequently or with a more specific meaning than typically used
in everyday contexts (e.g., finger, a part of the hands or a long thin-shaped area of land,
whereas at the airport it’s the walkway used to embark to or disembark from the aircraft;
package used in combination with other daily terms can form specialized expressions, such
as tour package, holiday package, combined package). According to some scholars (Dann, 1996;
Calvi, 2001; Cappelli, 2006; Gotti, 2006), some characteristic lexical/semantic features of
the language of tourism include

• choosing appropriate keywords that draw the customer’s attention (e.g., perfect seaside
holidays, magnificent seafood restaurants) or other language techniques such as using
words in the original language;
• using certain expressions which mean only one thing in specific contexts (monorefer-
entiality, e.g., boarding card, tour operator);
• expressing concepts in the shortest possible form (i.e., blending, acronyms, e.g.,
campsite vs. camping site, ID vs. identity document);
• creating specialized new terms derived from general and common language, for
example through metaphorization (using similes and metaphors, e.g., island-hopping,
package holidays);
• borrowing terms from the specialized language of closely related fields, such as
economics (e.g., handling agents, seasonality), geography (e.g., border, gorge), history of
art (e.g., chancel, choir), craftsmanship (e.g., handmade, pottery), and transport (e.g., ground
staff, open-jaw ticket); and
• using emphatic and evaluative lexis, including emphasizers (e.g., breathtaking scenery,
exquisite service), superlative forms (e.g., the best option, the most peaceful of all the lakes),
or intensifier adverbs (e.g., totally unspoiled, a very good buy). This is called hyperbolic
language by Alcaraz Varó et al. (2000).

The syntax of the language for tourism, also within the linguistic competence, is
characterized by
4 language for tourism

• compact syntactic structures by means of affixes, simplifying sentences by omitting

unnecessary words or using elliptical forms to express conciseness (e.g., self-catering
accommodation vs. accommodation where you can cook your own meals, pre-arranged car rental
vs. car rental which has been arranged previously [Gotti, 2006, pp. 28–9]);
• temporal contrast (e.g., The city does not have outstanding attractions, but it has some
excellent restaurants and many nice shops [Cappelli, 2006, p. 62]);
• informal language structures and conversational style (called ego-targeting by Dann
[1996], e.g., We’ll save you a seat. Call . . . , your very own . . . [Cappelli, 2006, p. 62]);
• tense switching (e.g., During . . . times, the [name] family turned the mansion into a girls’
boarding school, . . . In the main house hangs a Rembrandt . . . ), the historic present (e.g.,
George Washington is elected President of and presides over the Federal Convention of 1787
[http://presidentgeorgewashington.wordpress.com]), or old-fashioned accents to con-
struct the typical “magic effect” which is common in tourism promotional material;
however, this property can also be created visually or through certain lexical choices
(names of hotels, attractions, etc.); and
• imperative mood (e.g., Don’t miss . . . , Come and visit [country]), rhetorical questions
(e.g., Are you looking for accommodation?, Travelling with children?), or negative inter-
rogatives (e.g., Why not discover [country] through its sea beds?, Isn’t it time to treat
yourself?) to build the concept of language for tourism as language for social control
(Dann, 1996).

Textual features are mainly concerned with text genres and their textual organization.
For instance, Cappelli (2006) mentions the testimony technique (other tourists’ personal
opinions about a destination or service from their own experience), which is used in
certain written genres to avoid impersonality and the monological features of promotional
language. Although several oral communicative situations are of great importance in the
tourism sector (customer attention, guided touring), most research has focused on common
written genres like tourist guides/guidebooks, articles in specialized journals and general
magazines, brochures and other advertising materials, commercial and promotional Web
sites, itineraries, professional correspondence, trip reports, reviews, or travelogues. Cappelli
(2006, p. 95) arranges these genres according to what she calls the tourist cycle, following
Dann’s (1996, p. 140) stages of a trip (pre-trip, on-trip, post-trip). Apart from verbal techniques,
those genres also include visual techniques (color, format, visual cliché, and connotation
procedures) or verbal and visual techniques combined (puzzles, temporal contrast, collage,
ousting of competition, infraction of taboo, and significant omission) (Dann, 1996); these
elements produce similar effects on the tourists just as the above lexical/semantic and
syntactical features are designed to do.
Along with the multidisciplinary nature of the language for tourism, Balboni (1989)
states that the language for tourism is made up of a set of interrelated microlanguages
which can be more or less relevant in each involved professional sector: the microlanguage
for hospitality and catering, for international bureaucracy, for transportation, or for the
history of art. Likewise, Dann (1996) refers to different registers found in the language for
tourism when promoting certain market segments: register of nostalgia, of health, of food
and drink, and of ecotourism.
Sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences are also essential because unique situations
may require distinct linguistic performances as tourism professionals encounter diverse
tourists’ needs. Therefore, being aware of linguistic markers of social relationships, polite-
ness conventions, various registers, or even dialectal variations is a necessity. The main
attribute of contemporary tourism is its international character, which requires today’s
professionals to possess a broad knowledge base for all sorts of unpredictable situations
 language for tourism 5

that they may encounter in daily tasks so that they can respond in culturally appropriate
ways—often across different cultures and languages.
This international dimension, together with the wide range of professional fields included
in the tourism industry, leads to another pertinent feature: the cultural factor (Dimanche,
1994). Although this element is also present in other specialized languages, it is within the
language for tourism that the intercultural competence is especially relevant (e.g., Calvi,
2001). Calvi (2001) indicates four components of the intercultural competence tourist pro-
fessionals need to use: identify and overcome the stereotypes of the foreign culture, cultural
awareness, communicative and pragmatic competence, and knowledge of diverse fields
and the ability to relate this knowledge to the appropriate linguistic elements.
Overall, the language for tourism has several peculiarities that make it different from
other specialized languages. Although it shares some characteristics with other LSPs (such
as the language for business), the particular features highlighted above are unique as a
result of the intrinsic complexity of the tourist industry.

SEE ALSO: English for Business; English for Occupational Purposes

References

Aguirre Beltrán, B., & Hernández, C. (1985). El lenguaje del turismo y de las relaciones públicas.
Alcobendas, Spain: SGEL.
Alcaraz Varó, E., Hughes, B., Campos Pardillo, M. A., Pina Medina, V. M., & Alesón Carbonell,
M. A. (2000). Diccionario de términos de turismo y de ocio. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.
Balboni, P. E. (1989). La microlingua del turismo come “fascio di microlingue.” In P. E. Balboni
(Ed.), Microlingue e letteratura nella scuola superiore (pp. 56–61). Brescia, Italy: La Scuola.
Calvi, M. V. (2001). El español del turismo: Problemas didácticos. In F. Luttikhuizen (Ed.),
IV Congrés internacional sobre llengües per a finalitats específiques. The language of international
communication. Español de los negocios (pp. 299–303). Barcelona, Spain: Universitat de
Barcelona.
Calvi, M. V. (2006). Lengua y comunicación en el español del turismo. Madrid, Spain: Arco Libros.
Cappelli, G. (2006). Sun, sea, sex and the unspoilt countryside. How the English language makes tour-
ists out of readers. Pari, Italy: Pari Publishing.
Dale, G., & Oliver, H. (2000). Travel and tourism. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
Dann, G. M. S. (1996). The language of tourism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Wallingford, England:
CAB International.
Dann, G. M. S., & Johanson, L. B. (2009). Pérdidas en la traducción. Los cambios en la imaginería
verbal de la “Laponia” noruega. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, 18, 449–75.
Dimanche, F. (1994). Cross-cultural tourism marketing research: An assessment and re-
commendations for future studies. In M. Vysal (Ed.), Global tourist behavior (pp. 123–34).
New York, NY: International Business Press.
Gotti, M. (2006). The language of tourism as specialised discourse. In O. Palusci & S. Francesconi
(Eds.), Translating tourism: Linguistic/cultural representations (pp. 15–34). Trento, Italy:
Università degli Studi di Trento.
Holloway, J. C. (2002). The business of tourism. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Moeran, B. (1983). The language of Japanese tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 93–108.
Nigro, M. G. (2006). The language of tourism as LSP? A corpus-based study of the discourse
of guidebooks. In H. Picht (Ed.), Modern approaches to terminological theories and applications
(pp. 187–97). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Reily-Collins, V. (1996). The authentically English dictionary for the tourism industry. London,
England: Travel Tourism Teaching.
6 language for tourism

Ruiz-Garrido, M. F., & Saorín-Iborra, A. M. (2006). Why call it business English if we mean
English for tourism? Some reflections. Professional and Academic English. Newsletter of the
IATEFL ESP SIG, 29(December), 9–13.
World Tourism Organization (2007). Study on the concepts and realities of social and solidarity
tourism in Africa. Madrid, Spain: WTO.
Youell, R. (2000). Travel and tourism. Harlow, England: Longman.

Suggested Readings

Calvi, M. V. (2010). Los géneros discursivos en la lengua del turismo: una propuesta de clasifi-
cación. Ibérica, 19, 9–32.
Dann, G. M. S. (1993). Advertising in tourism and travel: Tourism brochures. In M. Khan,
M. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), VNR’s Encyclopaedia of hospitality and tourism (pp. 893–901).
New York, NY: Nostrand Reinhold.