Linguistic Landscape of English in Thai Tourist Attractions

1. World Englishes& (Linguistic Landscape):A case study of English used on signs in tourist attractions in Wipapan NGAMPRAMUAN 2nd year PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics School of English, The University of Nottingham

2. Mypresentation • World Englishes(& Linguistic Landscape) • Research aims & research questions • Research Methodology • Preliminary results • Contribution to Thailand

3. World Englishes English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) English as an International Language - varieties of English around the world - based on social and cultural contexts - Influenced by multicultural backgrounds, sociolinguistic histories, and contexts of function on the use of English • Bamgbose, A. (2001) • ‘World Englishes and Globalization’, World Englishes, vol. 20, no.3, pp. 357-363

4. Kachru’s three concentric circle model Source: English as a global language by Crystal (2003: 61) Crystal. D. (2003) English as a Global Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Linguistic Landscape ‘The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscapes of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration’ • Landry and Bourhis (1997: 25) • Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: • An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (16), pp. 23-49

6. Previous Literature into LL in Thailand ▪ Huebner, T. (2006) Bangkok’s Linguistic Landscapes: Environment Print, Codemixing and Language Change, International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 31- 51. ▪ Backhaus, P. (2007) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo,Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

7. Research aims • 1) To discover the patterns of Thai English ▪Formulaic language • ‘any sequence of two or more words that are perceived to be more constrained than usual in their co-occurrence’ (Hudson & Wiktorsson, 2009: 81)

8. Research aims • 2) To point out the features of Thai English in comparison with other Englishes especially Asian Englishes such as Chinese English, Singaporean English, Malaysian English and Japanese English

9. Research aims • 3) To disclose cultural identities attached to the English language used by Thai people

10. Research Methodology • ● Qualitative • ▪ Ethnographic fieldwork • ○ Observations • ○ Interviews • Thai people: shop owners, sign makers, government offers, tourists • International visitors

11. Research Methodology • ● Qualitative • ▪ Descriptive Analysis & Theoretical frameworks • ○ World Englishes/ English as a lingua franca • ○Linguistic Landscape • ○ Intercultural communication

12. Research Methodology • ● Quantitative • ▪ A Corpus of English used on signs in tourist attractions in Thailand • Corpus linguistics uses large collections of both spoken and written natural texts that are stored on computers to explore different questions about language use, patterns of usage by mainly focusing on a high degree of recurrence of the individual items that are being analysed. (Reppen and Simpson, 2002; Adolphs, 2008)

13. Data collection • Periods: 1) December 2009, 2) June 2010, • 3) May – June 2011 • 25 areas in 8 provinces: Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Sukhothai, Rachaburi, Tak, Chon Buri (Pattaya), Singburi, Kanchanaburi, SamutSakorn • Attractions: temples, markets, shopping areas, national parks and beaches • 1,227 signs

14. Data Categorisation ● Official vs. commercial signs ● Information vs. advertising ●Permanent vs. non-permanent signs

15. Preliminary Results ● Quantitative analysis  Result from the corpus ● Qualitative analysis Theoretical frameworks from preceding literature

16. Preliminary results Data : 1,227 English & English dominant signs Corpus tool: WordSmith Size : 13, 625 running words

18. Preliminary Results There are two broad categories of Thai English: Grammatical features ○ misspelling / typing errors ○ punctuation marks & capitalisation ○ word order e.g. adjective and noun modification ○ parts of speech e.g. adverb, adjective, noun ○ other grammatical related issues 2. Semantic features ○ direct translation ○ different spelling systems (of the same word) ○ creativity ○ word choices ○ other sociocultural related backgrounds

19. Grammatical features: misspelling/ typo

20. Semantic features CIP = ???

21. Specific socio-cultural knowledge

22. Contribution to Thailand To raise Thai people’s awareness when using English in certain contexts that can lead to communicative breakdown To be used as a resource for developing educational strategies and teaching materials to help Thai learners recognise the patterns of English language used in natural settings that can lead to successful communication or failure of communication To act as guidance for international visitors to Thailand to understand more about Thai culture and Thai society through the English language used by Thai people

23. Conclusion To have a better understanding of a variety of English in Thailand, it is necessary to take contexts surrounded the displayed language into account. It appears that Thai English closely relates to unique characteristics of Thai people, Thai language, Thai culture, Thai society and the main religion, Buddhism. To lessen communication gaps, Thai people should be aware of using English in certain contexts, while international tourists should be aware of the specific social and cultural values and norms attached to the language used.

24. References Adolphs, S. (2008) Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Bamgbose, A. (2001) ‘World Englishes and Globalization’, World Englishes, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 357-363. Backhaus, P. (2007) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crystal. D. (2003) English as a Global Language (2ndedn.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, J., Wiktorsson, M. (2009) ‘Formulaic language and the relater category – the case of about’ in Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E.A., Ouali, H., Wheatley, K.M. (eds.), Formulaic Language Volume 1: Distribution and Historical Change, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Huebner, T. (2006) ‘Bangkok’s Linguist Landscapes: Environment Print, Codemixing and Language Change’, International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 31- 51. Jewitt, C. (ed.)(2009) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, London: Routledge. Kachru, B.B. (1989) ‘Teaching World Englishes’, Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, no.1, pp. 85-95. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: the Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, London: Arnold. Landry, R and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) ‘Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 16, pp. 23-49. Reppen, R., Simpson, R. (2002) ‘Corpus Linguistics’ in Schmitt, N. (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, London, Arnold. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World, London: Routledge. Thomas, J. (1983) ‘Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure’, Applied Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 91-112.

25. Acknowledgement Supervisors: Professor Ronald Carter & Professor SvenjaAdolphs School of English, The University of Nottingham, UK Source of funding: Office of the Higher Education Commission TSAC 2012 Committee

26. Questions, Comments, Suggestions ? aexwn@nottingham.ac.uk