Language Preservation Challenges in Tourism Information Signage at World Heritage Sites

This article focuses on the challenges of language preservation in tourism information signage at heritage sites. Tourist signage serves as an essential medium of communication, connecting visitors with historical locations and conveying cultural, historical, and identity-related information about a destination. However, common issues include poorly maintained signage, missing or faded information, and outdated translations. Such shortcomings undermine the primary function of signage as a medium for preserving linguistic and heritage information. From a linguistic perspective, weaknesses in translation are evident in spelling errors, inaccurate word choices, rigid sentence structures, and inconsistent terminology between source and target languages. These challenges stem from literal translation practices, insufficient reference to specialized terminology, and the lack of systematic linguistic review. Furthermore, preservation efforts tend to emphasize the physical aspects of signage, such as structural restoration and materials, while linguistic aspects receive less attention. This situation highlights the need for a balance between structural preservation and language maintenance to ensure that signage effectively serves its role as an information conduit. The study proposes that local authorities and relevant agencies conduct regular maintenance of tourism signage, establish language review teams, and adopt communicative translation strategies that consider cultural contexts and tourists’ needs. Overall, language preservation in tourist signage not only enhances the effectiveness of information delivery but also contributes to safeguarding heritage identity, strengthening destination image, and enriching the tourism experience.

language preservation, tourism information signage

1. Buletin Mutiara. (2024, November 13). Penang’s George Town attracts 1.6m tourists in first half of 2024. Buletin Mutiara. https://www.buletinmutiara.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Çalışkan, M. (2024). Tourism, globalization, and the erosion of local languages in urban spaces. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 22(1), 45–61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. García, M. (2022). Language policy and tourism signage in Barcelona: Negotiating multilingual identities. International Journal of Multilingualism, 19(3), 317–335. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI). (2020). Draft Special Area Plan for George Town World Heritage Site 2030. Penang: GTWHI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ismail, N., & Hassan, R. (2023). Language preservation and policy implementation in Malaysia’s tourism sector. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 54(2), 221–238. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (2023). Semiotics of tourism: Mobility, materiality, and multilingualism. Tourism Studies, 23(2), 123–141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2024). Multilingual signage and language policy in Seoul: A case of tourism and heritage preservation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 25(2), 156–173. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Khoo, J. (2023). Heritage tourism and language use in George Town, Penang: An analysis of linguistic landscapes. Malaysian Journal of Tourism Research, 12(1), 33–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lei, Y., & Teng, C. (2024). Linguistic landscapes and tourism discourse: Multilingualism in Asian heritage cities. Tourism Management Perspectives, 49, 101058. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Malay Mail. (2025, January 18). Melaka records 12.325 million tourist arrivals in 2024. Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Marín-Gutiérrez, J., Herrero-Diz, P., & Segarra-Saavedra, J. (2023). Cultural heritage, language, and tourism: The role of signage in sustainable destinations. Sustainability, 15(12), 9331. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mohd Yusof, Z., & Ibrahim, H. (2022). Translation quality of tourism signage in Malacca heritage sites. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(4), 113–129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Pérez-Sabater, C., & Montero-Fleta, B. (2023). Linguistic landscapes and intercultural communication in European tourist spaces. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 44(8), 742–758. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Uysal, M. (2022). Semiotics of tourism signage: Language, symbols, and cultural narratives. Annals of Tourism Research, 92, 103348. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. UNESCO. (2023). World Heritage List. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://whc.unesco.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests