Flexibility in the linguistic landscape during the pandemic: tourism services in Helsinki

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism linguistic landscape in Helsinki has changed. Travel restrictions and safety measures have reduced the number of tourists visiting the city, and as a result, there were fewer multilingual signs and advertisements. Additionally, businesses catering to tourists, such as hotels and restaurants, have closed or reduced their operations. The present research is a combination of tourism and linguistic landscape studies, as well as of investigations into the consequences of the pandemic. The goal is to research how the tourism-oriented companies have adjusted their activities to the new situation linguistically and what their motivation has been, with a focus on the most salient languages in tourism scene of Helsinki. It also investigates what constitutes good language use strategy when a major proportion of foreign clients disappears. The international language English was used more than the other foreign languages but still less than before, and Finnish and Swedish, the two national languages of Finland, took partly its place. The study showed that companies have started to direct their marketing towards domestic travellers. The use of Finnish has increased more than Swedish, whereas the use of foreign languages has decreased.

Keywords

linguistic landscape, tourism, Helsinki, pandemic, COVID-19, border crossings, number of bednights

Acknowledgment

I want to thank my supervisors for the MA Thesis, which was the base for this article.

Received

05.03.2023

Publication date

05.03.2023

Number of characters

25960

Cite Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

GOST	Protassova M. Flexibility in the linguistic landscape during the pandemic: tourism services in Helsinki // Pskov Journal of Regional Studies – 2023. – Volume 19. No1/2023 C. 44-55 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://prj.pskgu.ru/S221979310024230-6-1 (circulation date: 04.05.2024). DOI: 10.37490/S221979310024230-6
MLA	Protassova, Maria Margarita "Flexibility in the linguistic landscape during the pandemic: tourism services in Helsinki." Pskov Journal of Regional Studies 1 (2023):44-55. DOI: 10.37490/S221979310024230-6
APA	Protassova M. (2023). Flexibility in the linguistic landscape during the pandemic: tourism services in Helsinki. Pskov Journal of Regional Studies (1), pp.44-55 DOI: 10.37490/S221979310024230-6

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.


1	Introduction. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the emergence of new linguistic expressions and terms, as well as the popularization of existing ones. Some examples include: “social distancing” and “physical distancing” which refer to the practice of keeping a safe distance from others to prevent the spread of the virus; “flattening the curve” which refers to slowing the rate of infection to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed; “zoom fatigue” which refers to feeling tired from excessive use of video conferencing platforms; “quarantine” and “self-isolation” which refer to the practice of staying at home and avoiding contact with others to prevent the spread of the virus; “pandemic speak” which refers to the new jargon and technical terms used to describe the virus and its effects; “new normal” which is used to describe the changes and adaptations made to daily life as a result of the pandemic. These terms are used globally and have become part of the common language in the context of pandemic. Additionally, there is a great need of translation and interpreting services as many languages are spoken in different countries, while countries are cooperating to fight the pandemics.
2	When Finland closed its national borders on 19 March in 2020, there was no travel for leisure purposes across its borders till 15 June. Then, restrictions were lifted for the summer peak season, and later, the borders were opened only for some countries in Europe with few cases of coronavirus. From 20 August (the end of the usual high season) on, the change in border-crossings happened gradually. As autumn progressed, borders were closed with more and more countries. Restrictions were implemented on domestic as well as international travel. Finland’s restaurants remained closed from 24 March until 31 May, although the options of home delivery or take-away were still available.
3	Hypothesis. Multilingual tourism services refer to travel and hospitality services that are able to accommodate guests who speak different languages. This may include providing translated materials, having staff who speak multiple languages, or offering language classes or translation services to guests. The goal is to ensure that guests are able to communicate effectively and feel welcomed and comfortable during their stay.
4	Changing market orientation towards domestic clients would likely result in an increased focus on serving customers who speak the national language(s). This could include offering information, customer service, and other interactions in the local language, hiring staff who are fluent in the language, and providing language support for non-native speakers. The shift in focus to domestic clients may also result in the promotion of local culture, traditions, and attractions, further enhancing the overall experience for domestic travellers. My hypothesis was that businesses would adjust their market orientation, making more use of the two state languages, Finnish and Swedish. which would lead to an increase in the use of the national languages, the use of Finnish increasing more than Swedish, whereas the most significant changes would be seen in social media, since this is the most flexible media form, and the lockdown has alternated the manners in which we are using it [23; 25]. I assumed that, owing to the decrease in the number of foreign tourists, a shift in market orientation towards domestic clients and an increased emphasis on using the national languages can lead to a decrease in revenue for companies. This reduction in revenue may require companies to lay off some of their staff, including those who do not speak the local languages. However, it is important to note that laying off staff members can have negative impacts on both the employees and the company, such as lower morale and decreased productivity. Companies may consider alternative cost-cutting measures, such as reducing hours or salaries, before resorting to layoffs. Moreover, if summer help is hired, it is likely that there will be a greater stress on the standard of Finnish language skills. This may involve stricter hiring criteria or language proficiency tests or providing language training for new hires. The goal would be to ensure that the summer staff are able to effectively communicate with customers who speak the local languages, thereby providing better customer service and improving the overall customer experience as in previous years. This may also help to promote the use of the national language and support local culture and traditions.
5	Theoretical background. The scope of Linguistic Landscape (LL) refers to the study of language as it appears in various texts and signs in both public and private spaces. This includes outdoor public spaces, such as streets and parks, as well as indoor public spaces, such as shops and public transportation, company staff rooms with their utensils, and the virtual world of websites and social media. LL also covers private spaces, such as homes, schools, and businesses. The focus of LL is on how languages are used and displayed in these spaces, including the type of texts and signs, the languages used, and their relative frequency and dominance. By examining the language use in these spaces, LL provides insight into the multilingual and multicultural aspects of society, including internal communication among the staff members. In emulation of cityscape [8] and schoolscape [3], I could use the term of linguistic business-scape, to highlight the focus on public information signs that are not normally studied in conventional LL research instead of LL that I refer to throughout the paper.

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Abbas J., Mubeen R., Iorember P. T., Raza S., Mamirkulova G. (2021), Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on tourism: transformational potential and implications for a sustainable recovery of the travel and leisure industry, Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 2, art. 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100033.

2. Backhaus P. (2006), Multilingualism in Tokyo: a look into the linguistic landscape, The International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 52–66, https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668385.

3. Brown K. D. (2012), The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: language revitalisation and schools in Southeastern Estonia, Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape, Gorter D., Marten H. F., Van Mensel F. (eds.), Basingstroke, Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230360235_16.

4. Bruyèl-Olmedo A., Juan-Garau M. (2009), English as a lingua franca in the linguistic landscape of the multilingual resort of S’Arenal in Mallorca, International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 386–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710903125010.

5. Cenoz J., Gorter D. (2006), Linguistic landscape and minority languages, The International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668386.

6. Chouinard S., Normand M. (2020), Talk COVID to me: language rights and Canadian government responses to the pandemic, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000359.

7. Goddard C., Wierzbicka A. (2021), Semantics in the time of coronavirus: “virus”, “bacteria”, “germs”, “disease”, and related concepts, Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 7–23. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687‐0088‐2021‐25‐1‐7‐23.

8. Gorter D. (2006), Introduction: The study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism, International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668382.

9. Gorter D. (2019), Language contact in the linguistic landscape, Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, Darquennes J., Salmons J., Vandenbussche W. (eds.), vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110435351-036.

10. Halonen M., Ihalainen P., Saarinen T. (2015), Language Policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and Multi-Sited Comparisons, Bristol, Multilingual Matters, 277 p.

11. Hellén A. E. (2019), Kielimaiseman vaikutus maahanmuuttajien liikkuvuuteen pääkaupunkiseudulla [Influence of the linguistic landscape on the activity of immigrants in the capital area], Alue ja ympäristö [Region and Environment], vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 85–100. (In Finnish). https://doi.org/10.30663/ay.71010.

12. Kopytowska M., Krakowiak R. (2020), Online incivility in times of COVID-19: social disunity and misperceptions of tourism industry in Poland, Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 743–773. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-4-743–773.

13. Kuße H. (2021), The linguistic landscape of the coronavirus crisis in foreign language didactics by using the example of German, SHS Web of Conferences, no. 99, art. 01001. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219901001.

14. Landry R., Bourhis R. Y. (1997), Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002.

15. Marshall S. (2021), Navigating COVID-19 linguistic landscapes in Vancouver’s North Shore: official signs, grassroots literacy artefacts, monolingualism, and discursive convergence, International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1849225.

16. Mustajoki A., Zorikhina Nilsson N., Guzman Tirado R., Tous-Rovirosa A., Dergacheva D., Vepreva I., Itskovich T. (2020), COVID-19: a disaster in the linguistic dimension of different countries, Quaestio Rossica, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1369–1390. https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2020.4.533.

17. Pavlenko A. (2010), Linguistic landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: a diachronic study, Linguistic Landscape in the City, Shohamy E., Ben-Rafael E., Barni M. (eds.), Bristol, Multilingual Matters, pp. 133–150. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692993-010.

18. Pavlenko A. (ed.) (2023), Multilingualism and History, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 375 p.

19. Piekkari R., Tietze S., Angouri J., Meyer R., Vaara E. (2021), Can you speak COVID‐19? Languages and social inequality in management studies, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 587–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12657.

20. Piller I., Zhang J., Li J. (eds.) (2020), Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, Multilingua, 39 (5).

21. Ponton D. M. (2021), “Never in my life have I heard such a load of absolute nonsense. Wtf.” Political satire on the handling of the COVID-19 crisis, Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 767–788. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-3-767-788.

22. Protassova M. M. (2021), Linguistic reactions to COVID-19: the case of tourism services in Helsinki in summer 2020, An MA Thesis, Helsinki, University of Helsinki, 91 p.

23. Rastegar Kazerooni A., Amini M., Tabari P., Moosavi M. (2020), Peer mentoring for medical students during the COVID‐19 pandemic via a social media platform, Medical Education, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 762–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14206.

24. Sassi M. (2018), Mobility, work, and language hierarchy in a tourist community on the Costa Brava, Language and Intercultural Communication, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2018.1474889.

25. Saud M., Mashud M., Ida R. (2020), Usage of social media during the pandemic: seeking support and awareness about COVID‐19 through social media platforms, Journal of Public Affairs, vol. 20, no. 4, art. e02417–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2417.

26. Scarlett H. G. (2021), Tourism recovery and the economic impact: a panel assessment, Research in Globalization, vol. 3, art. 100044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2021.100044.

27. Schleef E. (2014), Written surveys and questionnaires in sociolinguistics, Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide, Holmes J. & Hazen K. (eds.), Malden, Wiley Blackwell, pp. 42–57.

28. Shohamy E., Gorter D. (eds.) (2009), Linguistic Landscape. Expanding the Scenery. Oxon, Routledge, 360 p.

29. Spolsky B., Cooper R. L. (1991), The Languages of Jerusalem, Oxford, Clarendon, 166 p.

30. Syrjälä V. (2018), Nimet — kielet — paikka: kielenkäyttäjät kaksikielisen Suomen julkisissa tiloissa [Names — languages — place: language users in the bilingual public premises in Finland], Virittäjä, vol. 122, no. 4, pp. 1–6. (In Finnish).

31. Takhtarova S., Kalegina T., Yarrulina F. (2015), The Role of English in shaping the linguistic landscape of Paris, Berlin and Kazan, Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 199, pp. 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.531.

32. Yung R., Khoo-Lattimore C., Potter L. E. (2021), Virtual reality and tourism marketing: conceptualizing a framework on presence, emotion, and intention, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1505−1525. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1820454.