Language choice and rhetorical persuasion in the linguistic landscape of Koh Samet, Thailand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62819/jel.2026.2348Keywords:
bilingual signs, Koh Samet, linguistic landscape, rhetorical devices, tourism communicationAbstract
This study investigates language choice and rhetorical persuasion in the English-containing linguistic landscape of Koh Samet, a popular tourist destination in Rayong Province, Thailand. Previous linguistic landscape research in Thai tourism contexts has primarily focused on the visibility and distribution of languages on public signs, with less attention paid to how rhetorical resources enhance persuasive communication. Addressing this gap, the analysis explores both language combinations displayed on signs and how rhetorical devices in English contribute to tourism branding, place representation, and the construction of local and global meanings. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, total of 226 publicly visible signs were photographed along the main road and accessible routes on Koh Samet and analyzed using linguistic landscape frameworks (Landry & Bourhis,1997) in combination with rhetorical frameworks proposed by Leigh (1994) and McQuarrie and Mick (1996). Bilingual signs were the most prevalent within the English-containing corpus, with English-Thai combinations as the dominant pairing, followed by monolingual English, and multilingual signs appeared less frequently. This distribution suggests that English functions as both a communicative and symbolic resource in tourism signage, while Thai remains central to expressing local identity and audience accessibility. The rhetorical analysis identified 108 occurrences of tropes and schemes, especially imagery and alliteration, which help create memorable, appealing, and more commercially persuasive in tourist destinations. The study demonstrates that tourism signs should be viewed not only as multilingual displays of language choice but also as persuasive discourse that contributes to destination branding, potentially shape visitor expectations, and expressing the connection between local identity and globalization by incorporating rhetorical analysis into linguistic landscape research.
References
Backhaus, P. (2006). Multilingualism in Tokyo: A look into the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 52-66.
Bennui, P. (2024). English in the linguistic landscape of Koh Lipe, Satun, Thailand: Lexis and glocalization. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 239-265.
Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3–18.
Chanthao, R., & Kobbun, P. (2024). Multilingual signs in Khon Kaen city: Transportation. International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, 3(4), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.56472/25835238/IRJEMS-V3I4P104
Choeirod, R., & Chanthao, R. (2023). Linguistic landscape at Patong, Phuket, Thailand: Language perception on public signs. NeuroQuantology, 21(1), 250–261.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca. Bloomsbury.
Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Multilingual Matters.
Hazaea, A. N., Al-Sofi, B. B. M. A., & Alfaifi, A. (2024). Tourism representation and strategies on public signs: Linguistic landscape of a Saudi southern tourist destination. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 10(1), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-05-2023-0104
Hélot, C., Barni, M., Janssens, R., & Bagna, C. (2012). Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism and social change. In C. Hélot, M. Barni, R. Janssens, & C. Bagna (Eds.), Linguistic landscapes, multilingualism and social change (pp. 1–12). Peter Lang.
Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, code-mixing and language change. In D. Gorter (Ed.), Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism (pp. 31–51). Multilingual Matters.
Iamsamai, P. (2025). English as a lingua franca in the linguistic landscape of Lop Buri’s tourist attractions. Journal of Studies in the Field of Humanities, 32(2), 152–168. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/abc/article/view/283087
Kallen, J. L. (2010). Changing landscapes: Language, space and policy in the Dublin linguistic landscape. In R. Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic landscape in the city (pp. 41–58). Multilingual Matters.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23-49.
Leigh, J. H. (1994). The use of figures of speech in print ad headlines. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 17–33.
Low, P. (2022). The linguistic landscape and prospects of a seaside destination in the East of Thailand. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(5), 965-973. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1305.08
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424–438.
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (2003). Visual and verbal rhetorical figures under directed processing versus incidental exposure to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 579-587.
Ngampramuan, W. (2022). Linguistic landscape in Thailand: A case study of languages used on signs at Suvarnabhumi International Airport. The Liberal Arts Journal, 5(2), 314–331.
Pathanasin, S. (2025). A study of the linguistic landscape on Phuket Island: Identity, tourism and policy. REFLections, 32(1), 213–233. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1470744.pdf
Potisuwan, S. (2019). Exploring the role of English in shaping the linguistic landscape:A case study of the metropolitan area of Chiang Mai, Thailand. Naresuan University Institutional Repository.
Prasert, K., & Zilli, P. J. (2019). A linguistic landscape analysis of Pattaya, Thailand’s sin city. Discourse and Interaction, 12(1), 75–95.
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–44). Sage.
Romaine, S. (2013). 18 The bilingual and multilingual community. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism, 445.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci064
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Conceptualizing ‘English’ for a multilingual Europe. In A. De Houwer & A. Wilton (Eds.), English in Europe today: Sociocultural and educational perspectives (pp. 133–146). John Benjamins.
Thongtong, T. (2016). A linguistic landscape study of signage on Nimmanhemin Road, a Lanna Chiang Mai chill-out street. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, Special Issue, 22, 72-87.
Tourism Authority of Thailand. (2024). Ko Samet tourist map. https://www.tourismthailand.org
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
Weerasin, C., & Tantiniranat, S. (2022). Language choices and rhetorical devices used on signs in Bang Saen, Chon Buri Province. In Proceedings of the 15th National and 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 953–967). Burapha University.
Yanhong, M. & Rungruang, A. (2013) ‘Chiang Mai’s linguistic landscape in the tourist attraction areas: A study on the English language use on signs.’ Sakthong: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. Khampeangphet Rajabhat University 19(2), 59-70.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
