Page 308
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Authorship and Policy Compliance in the Linguistic Landscape of
Perak’s Tourist Spaces
1
Nurul Ain Hasni, *
2
Aini Andria Shirin Anuarudin
1
Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Perak, Seri Iskandar Campus,
Malaysia,
*2
Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Ahah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID0034
Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 30 October 2025
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to examine the linguistic landscape (LL) of tourist sites in Perak, Malaysia, focusing on
language choice, code preference, and policy adherence in public signs. The analysis is based on visual data
collected from three prominent tourist sites in Perak, Malaysia-Pulau Pangkor, Lost World of Tambun, and
Teluk Batik. Using a mixed-method approach, this study identified the preferred language on the survey sites
using observation and photographed data images. Drawing on a dataset of 1039 signs, the study categorizes the
signs based on three aspects which are government and private authorship, monolingual and multilingual, and
code preference in order to see the adherence with the national language policy. The results showed that most
government signs utilised Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the prominent language, reflecting policy compliance and
promoting national identity. On the other hand, private signs exhibit greater linguistic diversity, particularly in
multilingual signs. The strong presence of other languages in private signs, particularly English, reflects the
non-compliance to the policy, which driven by the need to cater to a broader audience and enhance commercial
appeal. The findings underscore the dual role of LL in upholding national and cultural values while meeting
the economic demands in multicultural tourism contexts. It also contributes to the growing body of LL
research by exploring the dynamic interplay between government and private linguistic practices.
Keywords: Code Preference, Linguistic Landscape, Language Policy, Tourist space, Multilingual Signs
INTRODUCTION
The linguistic landscape (LL) is a concept introduced by Landry and Bourhis (1997), which refers to the
visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs. LL serves as a lens through which the
sociolinguistic dynamics of a community can be understood. It represents a unique form of mass
communication, connecting people with their surrounding through written language in public spaces. As a
subfield of sociolinguistics, LL investigates the use and distribution of written language on signs, offering
insights into language practices, cultural identities, and implementation of language policies. Over the years,
LL has become a foundational framework for defining and examining the relationship between language and
society. The concept of LL has been manifested in diverse forms, including commercial signs, billboards, shop
signs, banners, street signs, and building plaques. This diversity has made LL a rich area for exploration,
attracting research from multiple perspectives. Scholars have delved into multilingualism (Degi, 2012; Muth &
Wolf, 2009), semiotics and symbolism (Scollon & Scollon, 2003; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006), power
relations and language hierarchies (Hult, 2014; Blackwood, Lanza, & Woldemariam, 2016), identity
construction (Shohamy & Gorter, 2009; Backhaus, 2007), ethnography (Bloomaert & Maly, 2016), online and
digital spaces (Ivkovic & Lotherington, 2009; Pavlenko, 2010) and tourism (Kallen, 2009; Bruyel-Olmedo &
Juan-Garau, 2009; Andriyanti, 2019; Lu et al., 2020). Despite these evolving research areas, research focusing
on tourist sites in Malaysia has not been thoroughly investigated, particularly in exploring the dynamic
interplay between government and private authorship in shaping the language use in public tourist spaces.
Page 309
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Authorship plays a critical role in shaping the LL of tourist areas. Government-authored signs typically adhere
to national language policies, prioritising its own national language, while private-authored signs tend to
prioritise English due to the commercial appeal and multilingual accessibility. Previous studies indicate that
English dominates the LL in many tourist destinations (Bruyel-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009; Djonda &
Madrunio, 2023), but it remains unclear whether this trend is also mirrored in Perak’s tourist sites. Given
Malaysia’s multilingual heritage and tourism-driven economy, an investigation into language choice and
authorship in public signs is essential, particularly in popular destinations like Pulau Pangkor, Teluk Batik, and
Lost World of Tambun. Furthermore, globalization has further intensified the complexity of LL in tourist
spaces, resulting in increasingly dynamic and linguistically diverse signs (Gorter & Cenoz, 2017; Moriarty,
2015; Thurlow & Jaworski, 2011; Rong, 2018; Sari et al., 2024). As emphasized by Low (2022), LL reflects
the relative power and status of linguistic communication in public spaces, shaped by sociopolitical and
economic influences. To better understand these dynamics, this study explored how government and private
entities construct the LL in Perak’s tourist sites, focusing on language choice and the extent to which public
signs align with Malaysia’s national language policy. Following Gorter’s (2006) suggestion that LL research
should be explored beyond linguistic composition, this study categorizes the LL data into official (government)
and non-official (private) signs, monolingual and multilingual, and code preference. This distinction allows for
a deeper understanding of how different types of authorship construct the LL and provide insights into the
consistencies between adherence of policy and actual practices. Based on the objectives identified, this study
addresses the following research questions:
How do government and private entities construct the LL in the selected tourist sites?
To what extent do public signs in these survey sites comply with Malaysia’s national language policy?
By examining language used and preference as well as policy adherence, this study offers a comprehensive
analysis of the LL in Perak’s prominent tourist sites. It also addresses the extent to which these sites reflect
Malaysia’s multicultural identity and cater to the linguistic needs of tourists.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Linguistic Landscape and Tourism
The linguistic landscape (LL), introduced by Landry and Bourhis (1997), refers to the visibility and use of
languages in public spaces through signs, billboards, shop names, and other written displays. LL serves both
informational and symbolic functions, allowing visitors to navigate spaces while reflecting the sociolinguistic
dynamics and cultural identity of a region (Kallen, 2009; Gorter, 2006). Within the tourism context, LL plays a
critical role in shaping the experiences of visitors, who often rely on multilingual signs for identification,
navigation, and accessing services (Ballantyne et al., 2008). The presence of familiar languages fosters
inclusivity and accessibility of tourist spaces, making LL an essential aspect of visitor’s satisfaction (Chen &
Hsu, 2000; Fox, 2012). LL in tourism also functions as a cultural marker by revealing the local heritage,
values, and language practices embedded in a particular destination. Scolars like Fox (2012) and Kallen (2009)
argue that LL plays a crucial role in shaping the symbolic identity of tourist sites, transforming physical spaces
into culturally meaningful and marketable attractions. Furthermore, globalization has intensified the
multilingual dynamics of LL in tourist spaces, with English often serves as the dominant language due to its
role as a global lingua franca (Huebner, 2006; Bruyel-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009). While this enhances
international accessibility, it can also marginalize local languages, creating tension between global economic
demands and local cultural preservation (Yang et al., 2022; Andriyanti, 2019).
In Malaysia, where multilingualism is deeply embedded in its cultural identity, the LL of tourist sites reflects a
unique interplay between language policy, economic priorities, and cultural representation. The extent to which
LL balances Bahasa Malaysia (BM), English, and other local languages remains a critical area of exploration,
particularly in popular destinations like Perak.
Page 310
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Authorship in LL
The distinction between government-initiated (top-down) signs and private-initiated (bottom-up) signs has
been a central concern in most LL studies (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006). In the context of tourism, the role of
authorship is particularly important as it determines which language are made visible and how they function in
public spaces. Offical signs, usually produced by government bodies, typically used for displaying official
announcement, reinforcing national identity through the prominence of national language (Coluzzi, 2017). In
contrast, private signs, such as those display on hotels, restaurants, advertising billboard, and shops frequently
embraces multilingualism, prioritizing languages that resonate most with their target audiences (Andriyanti,
2019; Artawa et al., 2023). Several LL studies, particularly in Southeast Asia, have shown that private signs
often display dominance of English to enhance commercial value and appeal in public spaces (Fakhiroh &
Rohmah, 2018; Yang et al., 2022).
The LL practices of both government and private authorship reveal how different actors contribute to the
construction of LL in tourist spaces. Although this dynamic interplay has been documented globally (Bruyel-
Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009; Kallen, 2009), it has not been extensively examined in Malaysia. By analysing
the LL in Perak tourist destinations, it provides opportunity to study how language practices are influenced by
cultural, economic, and policy-related factors. Furthermore, previous research also discovered that most
language policy failed to be implemented in real practices, leading to a degree of incoherence in the LL (Du
Plessis, 2007). This would be interesting to find out, especially in the local tourism context, to see how far LL
influences the adherence of language policy in one’s area. Therefore, this study addresses the gap by exploring
how authorship, language choice, and policy compliance intersect to shape multilingual landscape of
Malaysian tourist destinations.
Malaysia’s Current Policy on the use of Language in Public Signs
The use of language on public signs in Malaysia is regulated under the National Language Policy, which
mandates that Bahasa Malaysia (BM) must take precedence in all forms of public displays. This regulation
applies across various domains, including commercial signs, advertisements, shop signs, street names, and
directional signs, ensuring that the national language remains dominant in public spaces. Based on this
research context, the enforcement of policy falls under the jurisdiction of the Ipoh City Council (Majlis
Bandaraya Ipoh, MBI) and the Manjung Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Manjung, MPM), which are
responsible for monitoring and implementing these standards within their respective territories. According to
the guidelines set forth by MBI and MPM, public signs must adhere to the following language guidelines: (1)
BM must be the primary language on all signs, taking precedence over other languages, (2) The words and
letters in BM must be given prominence in terms of colour, position, and clarity, ensuring greater visibility
compared to other languages. If additional languages are used, their size must not exceed the measurement of
BM text to maintain the national language’s dominance. These guidelines are aligned with the country’s efforts
to uphold BM as the official language, while still accommodating the country’s linguistic diversity. While
government signs generally adhere to these regulations, private signs, particularly in tourist areas, often deviate
from the adherence (Manan, David, & Dumanig, 2015; Du Plessis, 2012; Wang & Gao, 2025; Degi, 2012).
Commercial interests can lead to instances where other language(s) takes a more prominent role, especially in
business districts and popular tourist sites. This instance raises important questions regarding the consistency
between language policy and its actual practices. Therefore, it important for this study to investigate the extent
to which these policies are implemented in practice, particularly in private signs, and how language choices
reflect both compliance and commercial priorities.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a mixed method approach to examine the LL of the selected survey sites. To address the
research questions (i. How do government and private entities construct the LL in the selected tourist sites; ii.
To what extent do public signs in these sites comply with Malaysia’s national language policy?), the study
adopts a descriptive approach, focusing on textual analysis to explore language choice and preferences and
type of signs displayed by different authorship. Similar methodological approach has been used in other LL
Page 311
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
studies such as Djonda and Madrunio (2023) in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia, and Fitriani and Alamsyah (2020) in
Kuta, Bali, both of which relied on descriptive analysis of sign composition, authorship, and language patterns.
Although inferential statistics were not applied in this study, descriptive analysis remains relevant and widely
accepted in most LL research (Backhaus, 2007; Edelman, 2010; Bruyel-Olmedo & Juan-Garau, 2009). Due to
the contextual focus on policy compliance and actual practices, descriptive analysis was considered the most
appropriate approach for this study.
Data collection involved on-site observations and photographic images of written signs across the three
selected tourist sites. This qualitative data collected in the survey areas are quantified as part of the analysis to
obtain a full understanding of the phenomena under observation (Gorter, as cited in Andriyanti, 2019, Mubarok
et al., 2024). It also captures the linguistic reality of public spaces, providing insights into how language is
used in practice and whether it aligns with the official policy implemented. Data was gathered from the
surrounding areas between March and June 2022, following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions in Malaysia.
The government's implementation of movement control measures had previously hindered the data collection
efforts. Acknowledging the need for up-to-date and accurate information, the researcher revisited the sites from
January to March 2023 for further data collection. This one was done to assess any post-pandemic changes in
the LL and to ensure that the findings remained relevant and reflective of the current state, rather than
outdated. Random images of different types of signs were photographed by the researcher using high
resolution phone camera. Following the framework of Backhaus (2007), LL in this study is defined as “any
piece of written text within a spatially definable frame” (p. 66). Therefore, only written signs were considered
for analysis, while semiotic elements such as symbols, logos, icons, and indexes were excluded to focus solely
on textual features and to ensure clarity and consistency in the coding process. This approach aligns with
several foundational LL studies (e.g., Edelman, 2010; Gorter & Cenoz, 2017) that prioritize textual analysis for
greater precision in evaluating code preference, authorship, and language policy adherence.
The dataset consists of photographs of public signs, including road signs, place names, commercial shop signs,
advertisements, and regulatory notices. Redundant or identical signs were counted as a single entry to prevent
data duplication. Therefore, out of 1093 signs found in the public spaces of the survey sites that had been
recorded, only 1039 were analysed. The collected data were then analysed using a coding framework derived
from previous studies by Edelman (2010), Ben Rafael et al. (2006), Huebner (2009), Cenoz and Gorter (2009),
Scollon and Scollon (2003) and Spolsky and Cooper (1991). The framework consists of the following
categories: number of languages displayed (monolingual and multilingual), authorship (distinguishing
between government or private sign), and code preference (which language is most prominent in terms of size,
position, and visibility). This is to identify trends and patterns of languages present in government and private
signs as well as to see the adherence of policy and the actual practices of the survey sites. The data were then
validated by two well-versed LL researchers to confirm on the validity of the categories applied.
Research Location
The study focused on three major tourist destinations in Perak, Malaysia: Pulau Pangkor, Lost World of
Tambun and Teluk Batik. These sites were selected based on their high visitation rates among both local and
international tourists, as reported in the 2019 Domestic Tourism Survey conducted by the Department of
Statistics Malaysia. Each site represents a distinct type of tourist attraction, providing a diverse LL for analysis.
Pulau Pangkor is a well-known island destination offering a blend of beach holiday tourism, cultural heritage,
and local commerce. In contrast, Lost World of Tambun, a privately managed theme park and hot spring resort,
attracts diverse mix of local and international visitors, making it an ideal site for examining private-authored
signs. Meanwhile, Teluk Batik is a coastal recreational site primarily visited by domestic tourists, where
government efforts in tourism promotion are visibly reflected in the LL of the site. The COVID-19 pandemic
in early 2020 had a global impact on global tourism, leading to decline numbers of visitors, including these
survey locations. However, with the gradual reopening of Malaysia’s borders, these sites have regained influx
number of tourists, making them relevant case studies for examining the evolving LL.
Page 312
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
RESULTS
Types of LL and Features in the Selected Survey Sites
This section examines the diverse LL present in the selected survey sites. It categorizes signs based on the
linguistic properties such as authorship (government versus private), monolingual and multilingual, language
patterns, and code preference. The analysis not only provides a quantitative overview of the distribution of sign
but also provides insights into the visual and features that define the LL in these tourist spaces.
Table 1 Distribution of government and private signs in the survey sites (n=1039)
The analysis of LL in the survey sites reveals a notable predominance of private signs, particularly in Lost
World of Tambun. As shown in Table 1, private signs were most dominant in Lost World of Tambun,
constituting 100% of the signs. This reflects the highly commercialized nature of the area. In Pulau Pangkor,
private signs slightly outnumbered the government signs (50.8% vs. 49.2%), indicating a balanced distribution
that caters both official and non-official signs. In contrast, Teluk Batik shows a predominance of government
signs (53.6%), likely due to its public recreational nature which requires regulatory and informational signs.
Based on the overall findings, two out of three survey areas show the dominance of private signs in their LL.
The dominance of private signs in the selected tourist areas aligns with the findings from Ben-Rafael et al.
(2020) and Mansoor et al. (2023) study, which noted that private signs in multicultural and commercial
environments tends to exhibit greater linguistic diversity. This is largely due to the need for businesses to
attract diverse audience, necessitating visually appealing and engaging signs. In competitive market like tourist
destinations, private signs play a crucial role in marketing and promotion, allowing businesses to be flexible in
constructing signs to cater to customers’ preferences.
Despite the prevalence of private signs, government signs also maintain their significant presence, particularly
in Teluk Batik and Pulau Pangkor. These signs primarily serve informational, regulatory, and safety functions,
contributing to the overall functionality of the LL (Fitriani & Alamsyah, 2020). Furthermore, government signs
reinforce language policy and promote national identity through the consistent use of BM, which resonates
with local cultural values and fosters a sense of unity and belonging within society.
The coexistence of private and government signs reflects a balanced LL that caters to the needs of both local
and international visitors. Private signs enhance commercial visibility and linguistic diversity, while
government signs convey official information and reinforce national identity. This dual functionality ensures
that the LL effectively communicates with its diverse audience while maintaining social and cultural identity.
Monolingual and Multilingual signs
The LL across the three survey tourist sites—Pulau Pangkor, Lost World of Tambun, and Teluk Batik—reveal
distinct patterns of monolingual and multilingual signs, with noticeable differences between government and
private signs. The signs were categorised into monolingual (single language) and multilingual (two or more
languages) signs.
Page 313
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Table 2: Distribution of monolingual and multilingual signs in the tourist sites (n=1039)
As shown in Table 2, the findings reveal that monolingual sign dominates the LL of all the three survey sites.
This suggests that most signs preferred to employ one language to convey information. In Pulau Pangkor,
monolingual signs accounted for a significant proportion of the overall signs, with government signs
comprising 41.7%, in contrast to private monolingual signs which made up only 24.8%. In Lost World of
Tambun, monolingual signs were highly prevalent in private signs (70%), suggesting the dominance of a single
language, particularly English. This was likely intended to enhance marketability and attract international
visitors. In Teluk Batik, monolingual signs dominated the LL, with government signs making up 47.4% and
private signs accounting for 39.2%
Language Patterns in monolingual and multilingual signs
The distribution of monolingual signs across the survey sites highlights significant variations in language use,
reflecting both government and private sectors’ linguistic preferences and adherence of language policies. The
detailed distribution of the languages in both monolingual and multilingual signs is presented in Table 3 and 4,
accompanied by some images as illustrations.
Table 3: Distribution of monolingual signs
In Pulau Pangkor, most monolingual signs constructed by government and private sectors displayed Bahasa
Malaysia (BM), reaffirming its role as the official national language. Government signs using only BM
accounted for 60.2%, while private signs made up 19.5%. A small proportion of government and private signs
incorporate BM with Jawi transliteration with 2% and 1.7% respectively, reflecting an effort to maintain the
Malay cultural identity in public signs. The use of English on government signs was minimal, accounting for
only 0.5%. However, English was more prominent in private signs, appearing in 15.6% of the total signs.
Page 314
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
A similar pattern also reflected in the LL of Teluk Batik which demonstrates a higher prevalence of BM on
both government and private signs, with total of 39.2% and 1.2% respectively. The use of BM with Jawi
transliteration was relatively low, accounting for only 3.6% of government signs and 1.2% of private signs.
The limited presence of English monolingual signs (21.7% in government and 18.4% in private signage)
indicates that the language does not seems to be significant as in Pulau Pangkor and Lost World of Tambun.
Figures 1 and 2 below show examples of BM only-signs.
Figure 1 BM-only sign (government)
Figure 2 BM-only sign (private)
The LL of Lost World of Tambun nevertheless differs significantly from Pulau Pangkor and Teluk Batik.
English dominates monolingual signs, accounting for 96.1% of all signs, serving as the preferred language for
most private signs. This preference reflects the site's role as a commercial tourist destination, where English
serves as a practical communication tool for international visitors. The relatively high presence of English
monolingual signs further highlights a strategic adaptation to global tourism demands. In addition, Chinese
monolingual signs were also visible but accounted for only 3.9% of the total signs. Their presence might be
attributed to the presence of local Chinese community, that reflects its cultural heritage as well as the influx of
foreign Chinese visitors. Figures 3 and 4 below show examples English-only sign and Chinese-only sign.
Figure 3 English-only sign (private)
Page 315
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Figure 4 Chinese-only sign (private)
Table 4 provides the distribution of multilingual signs.
Table 4: Distribution of the multilingual signs
Even though the occurrence of multilingual signs were not prevalence as the monolingual signs, the presence
still signifies its importance in public tourist areas. As shown in Table 4, the high proportion of BM-English
combination on multilingual signs was evident with the highest occurrence displayed, specifically in Pulau
Pangkor and Teluk Batik. In Pulau Pangkor, 93.5% of government signs employed BM-English, while 55.6%
Page 316
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
of private signs employed BM-English. Similar to the LL of Pulau Pangkor, 83.3% of government signs in
Teluk Batik used BM-English and 85.7% of private signs employed the same. It is not surprising that BM was
widely used in most of the survey areas, given that it is the official language of the country and is spoken by
majority of the population. The inclusion of English together with BM in public tourist spaces is due to
English being known as a global language which has been acknowledged by people around the world. This
shows that English holds secondary significance in tourist spaces. According to Mulyawan et al. (2022), the
acknowledgement of English language is very much associated with notions of prestige, economic status,
modernity, advanced technology which makes it inherent to the language. Furthermore, English is known to
have a special status in Malaysia, which considered the second most important language after BM. The strong
presence of BM-English signs aligns with Malaysia’s national language policy, while also accommodating
English for its role as a global lingua franca, particularly in tourism and commerce. Figures 5 and 6 below
exemplify the combination of two languages on multilingual signs.
Figure 5 BM and English sign (government)
Page 317
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Figure 6 BM and English sign (private)
In contrast, the LL of Lost World of Tambun presents a distinctly different pattern, where English-Chinese
combination was the most common language appeared, accounting for 29.5%. The presence of BM-Chinese
was placed second with 24.2% of the total signs. This indicates a strong emphasis on accommodating both
international and domestic tourists, reflecting the prevalence of English as a global language, BM as the
national language, and Chinese as a widely spoken minority language in Malaysia. All multilingual signs
displayed in the area were constructed by private sectors, including business owners. Figure 7 below display
examples of signs represent the LL in Lost World of Tambun.
Figure 7 English and Chinese sign (private)
The appearance of various multilingual combinations indicates linguistic inclusivity in the area which likely
intended to enhance visitors’ engagement across diverse cultural backgrounds. For instance, the inclusion of
Page 318
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Arabic in the survey sites may indicate the religious influence of the Muslim community or efforts to
accommodate Arabic-speaking visitors. Similarly, the presence of Latin or Korean could be associated with
branding, historical references, or thematic elements within the area.
Code Preference
The data presented in Table 5 and 6 illustrate the patterns of code preference in multilingual signs across the
three survey sites, focusing on both government and private signs. The analysis examines two main features of
code preference: order of appearance (language order) and font size of languages used in multilingual signs.
Scollon and Scollon (2003) stressed that code preference highlights how languages on signs are represented.
Language order as well as font size are two types of code preference that could signify language preference.
The first feature of code preference is analysed through the order of appearance of languages in multilingual
texts. According to Scollon and Scollon (2003), the layout sequence—where the language at the top or on the
left is perceived as dominant determines the language hierarchy. Table 5 indicates that in many of the signs in
the survey areas, specifically in Pulau Pangkor and Teluk Batik, BM was placed either on the first line of the
text or on the left (this applies where the text is horizontal). This scenario denotes that BM, is the preferred
code in accordance with the descriptions made by Scollon and Scollon (2003) and Backhaus (2005). As shown
in Table 5, 91% of government signs and 71% of private signs in Pulau Pangkor prioritised BM, whereas in
Teluk Batik, 100% of government signs and 71% of private signs followed the same pattern. This positioning
aligns with the stipulated language policy, emphasizing BM's role in promoting national identity and ensuring
accessibility for local communities.
In contrast, the situation differs with LL displayed in Lost World of Tambun, where English emerged as the
dominant code in 76% of the private signs. This trend can be attributed to the area’s commercial nature and
international tourist demographic. English, which perceived as a global language, is strategically used to
appeal to a diverse audience, reflecting its status as a lingua franca in tourism and commerce. The preference
for English highlights its commercial value and its effectiveness in attracting international visitors.
Table 5: Main language appeared in accordance with code preference (n=314)
Another aspect analysed in this study was the font size preference in multilingual signs.
Blackwood (2010, p. 299) explains that the ‘code preference system’ formulated by Scollon and Scollon
(2003) established a hierarchy of languages by considering certain aspects such as the language position on the
sign and its font (shape, colour, and size). This is to find out whether the texts in the signs adhere to the
stipulated policy for outdoor signs. Backhaus (2005) also highlighted that the hierarchy of languages based on
position can be cancelled by using different font sizes. The findings from Table 6 indicate that BM and English
were the most frequently prioritised languages in terms of font size. In Pulau Pangkor and Teluk Batik, a high
frequency of the government and private signs in the LL employed larger fonts for the national language. In
Pulau Pangkor, 84.8% of government signs and 68.8% of private signs prioritized BM, while in Teluk Batik,
Page 319
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
83.3% of government signs and 71.4% of private signs followed the same pattern. This indicates strong
compliance with the national language policy, which mandates BM as the primary language on public signs.
Table 6: Total number of signs that prioritised BM based on font size utilised (n=314)
However, the situation differs in Lost World of Tambun, where only 13.7% of private signs prioritise BM in
terms of font size, with the majority favouring English as the dominant code. This reflects a strategic
commercial decision to cater to international tourists and a deviation from the stipulated language policy.
Policy adherence and actual practices
To analyse the consistencies between the policies and actual practice, the analysis is guided based on the
Verification Procedures of National Language in Advertisements issued by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP)
and the corresponding policy documents by-laws from both Ipoh City Council (MBI) and Manjung Municipal
Council (MPM). These regulations mandate the use of BM as the primary language on public signs, requiring
its prominence in terms of order of appearance, font size, colour, and position. The findings are presented by
comparing the consistencies between government and private signs in the selected survey sites.
Although overall observations in the selected survey sites indicate that most signs conform to the regulations,
there are still noticeable instances of non-compliance. In order to analyse the consistencies, monolingual signs
in the survey areas were examined further. Table 7 below shows the distribution of monolingual signs by both
authorship in the survey areas.
Table 7: Types of monolingual signs (n=725)
It could be deduced from the findings that in both Pulau Pangkor and Teluk Batik, the number of government
and private signs using only BM was higher than those using only English. In Pulau Pangkor, 62.2% of
government signs and 21.4% of private signs used BM exclusively. Likewise, in Teluk Batik, 42.9% of
government signs and 37% of private signs indicated a preference for BM in monolingual signs. This
Page 320
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
demonstrates consistencies between most of the monolingual signs and the stipulated policy in both survey
sites.
However, there were monolingual signs in these two survey areas that failed to abide with the regulations set
by the authorities. Even though the number is not significant, it still shows inconsistencies in the LL of the
survey sites. The instances were evident in the presence of English-only and Chinese-only signs. In Pulau
Pangkor, 0.5% of government signs and 15.6% of private signs were exclusively in English, while in Teluk
Batik, 11.9% of government signs and 8.3% of private signs had the same pattern.
A more noticeable instances were found in the LL of Lost World of Tambun, with 96.1% of the monolingual
signs were written fully in English, all of which were from the private sectors. The strong presence for
English-only signs clearly demonstrate nonconformity with the stipulated language policies. The data also
reveals that 3.9% of private signs in this location displayed Chinese and there were no BM-only signs recorded
at this site.
DISCUSSION
Language use and code preference in the survey sites
The data showed that the LL across the three survey sites reveal a distinct pattern in language use and code
preference by different authorship. The findings indicate that monolingual signs dominate the LL, with
government signs exhibit strong adherence to BM. The prevalence of government monolingual signs in BM,
particularly in Pulau Pangkor (60.2%) and Teluk Batik (39.2%), reinforces the role of BM as the official
language. This aligns with Landry and Bourhis’ (1997) LL theory, which suggests that government signs serve
as a symbolic marker of national identity and contributes to social cohesion. Wang and Xu (2018) also
supported that the visibility of BM in public spaces reflects its sociopolitical status and the power dynamics
within a society. Despite that, private signs in these areas also displayed a higher preference for BM
monolingual signs, which the total number of signs were slightly higher than English-only signs.
The preference for English-only sign constructed by the private entities reflects Spolsky and Cooper’s (1991)
Preference Model, which posits that language choices on signs are often driven by the presumed linguistic
preferences of the target audience. The visibility of English in the LL of tourist spaces is seen as a common
practice as the language is known to show modernity, boost commercial opportunities, and attract tourist who
are familiar with the language. Lost World of Tambun provides the strongest instances of this trend, where
96.1% of private monolingual signs were displayed in English. This clearly indicates noncompliance with the
national language policy. As Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) argued, linguistic preferences especially in commercial
signs reflect market forces rather than sociopolitical regulations, explaining why most private business favour
English over other local language(s) in tourist spaces.
Meanwhile, the presence of multilingual signs, particularly BM-English combinations in the survey sites
indicate a dual-language strategy that accommodates both local and international tourists. The high proportion
of BM-English multilingual signs in Pulau Pangkor (55.6%) and Teluk Batik (85.7%) reflects Malaysia’s
bilingual communication practices, where BM remains dominant as the primary language while English
functions as a secondary and complementary language for economic and global engagement. As noted by
Mulyawan et al. (2019), the inclusion of English in multilingual signs is often linked with modernity,
economic mobility, and global connectivity. This indicates that both private and government entities
acknowledge the role of English in supporting tourism and trade while still maintaining BM’s official
linguistic status. Another significant pattern was the use of English-Chinese signs, which was particularly
prominent in Lost World of Tambun. Based on the findings, English-Chinese multilingual signs constitute
29.5% of the total signs in the area, reflecting a targeted linguistic approach that caters to both international
tourists and local Chinese-speaking community. Compared to other local languages, Chinese had a stronger
presence, reflecting its cultural association with the country’s second-largest ethnic group. These patterns
illustrate how linguistic practices in tourist areas often deviate from formal policy requirements. This
Page 321
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
corroborates with Huebner’s (2006) findings on LL study in Bangkok, which revealed that commercial sites
often prioritise the linguistic preference of their consumers rather than complying to the stipulated policy.
The findings from the analysis of code preference in terms of language placement and font size further
underscore the linguistic hierarchy embedded in the LL of the survey sites. Scollon and Scollon (2003) assert
that the language placed at the top or on the left of a sign is perceived as dominant, reflecting both policy
influence and commercial intent. The findings indicate that BM was clearly prioritised in government and
private multilingual signs in terms of placement and font size, particularly in Pulau Pangkor and Teluk Batik,
emphasising its status as the official and preferred language. However, private signs displayed in Lost world of
Tambun showed different practices where English takes precedence in most multilingual signs, with larger and
more prominent lettering. The prominence of English in tourist centric place like the Lost World of Tambun is
indeed driven by its economic value as a global lingua franca. This suggests that private business strategically
construct the LL according to the demand and also to maximise potential tourists’ engagement.
Overall, the findings indicate that government signs largely align with national language policy, ensuring BM
remains the dominant language in the LL of tourist spaces. Private signs, on the other hand, demonstrate
dynamic linguistic practices prioritizing more on commercial needs and readers preferences. Although there
were quite a few of private signs who adhered to the language policy by making BM as the prominent
language in terms of placement and font size, the presence of signs that gave prominence to other languages,
especially English still signifies discrepancies between policy and actual practice.
Consistency between policy and actual practices in the survey sites.
The analysis of the LL across the survey sites reveals a complex linguistic situation between the adherence of
language policy and actual practice. While Pulau Pangkor and Teluk Batik generally adhered to the stipulated
policy, where most monolingual and multilingual signs gave prominence to BM, compliance was less
consistent in Lost World of Tambun. In the former two sites, most government and private signs conformed to
the stipulated policy, ensuring that BM was appropriately prioritised, typically appearing at the top of
multilingual signs and displayed in a larger font.
In contrast, the LL of Lost world of Tambun demonstrated a different practice, as neither monolingual nor
multilingual signs fully complied with the required policy. Instead, English was given prominence and often
appeared in larger fonts and more visually dominant positions than BM. Moreover, there were instances where
BM was entirely absent, indicating a lack of compliance. This shows that the implementation of the official
language policy has still not reached a satisfactory level, similar to Beh’s (2017) LL study in Penang, where
signs without BM were still present in the LL of the survey areas. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively stated
that these survey sites have fully complied with the stipulated language policy.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to the existing LL research by exploring language use, code preference, and policy
adherence by different authorship in tourist spaces. Based on the analysis and discussion, it can be summed up
that the linguistic choices on the survey sites highlight the dynamic interplay between language policy,
economic factor, and sociolinguistic realities in the LL of Perak’s tourist sites. The analysis revealed that while
government signs predominantly adhered to the national language policy by prioritizing BM, private signs
demonstrate greater linguistic diversity, particularly in commercially driven spaces. Pulau Pangkor and Teluk
Batik showed a relatively high degree of compliance with the stipulated language policy, with BM being
featured prominently in both monolingual and multilingual signs. However, inconsistencies were found in the
Lost World of Tambun, where English and Chinese were often given greater prominence, reflecting the
influence of market-driven language preferences.
The widespread use of English in multilingual signs across all three survey sites highlights its role as a global
lingua franca in tourist spaces. Its frequent appearance alongside BM suggests a deliberate linguistic strategy
to accommodate both local and international tourists. Despite that, the significant proportion of English-
Page 322
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Chinese signs in the Lost World of Tambun implicate the intention of private sectors in prioritising languages
that align with their target market rather than strictly adhering to the stipulated policy. The abovementioned
findings provide meaningful insights into how language operates in multilingual tourist contexts, an area that
remains underexplored in LL research.
Furthermore, the findings also reveal inconsistencies between language policy and actual practices. Although
government signs generally followed regulations by giving BM priority in terms of placement and font size,
many private signs in the Lost World of Tambun deviated from these regulations by displaying English
prominently on most signs. In some instances, BM was excluded entirely, indicating non-compliance with the
existing guidelines. This indicates that the language policies are often downplayed for their symbolic function
rather than informational purposes (Mansoor et al., 2023). Such findings carry important implications for
policymakers and tourism stakeholders, as they underscore the need for stricter enforcement while allowing
flexibility for multilingual representation in tourist spaces. Addressing the balance between cultural
preservation (local languages) and commercial needs could enhance the practical implementation of language
policy in tourist spaces.
Despite its contributions, the current study has several limitations that lead to opportunities for future research.
Firstly, the analysis was confined to selected tourist sites in Perak, and the findings, therefore, cannot be
generalised. Secondly, the study focused only on written language, excluding semiotic features such as
symbols and logos, which play an important role in meaning-making, especially in tourist spaces. Future
research could adopt a multimodal approach to incorporate these semiotic elements. Thirdly, while this study
offers a descriptive analysis, it did not include the perspectives of stakeholders (e.g., tourists, business owners,
policymakers), whose inclusion could enrich the interpretation of the LL. Future studies could also benefit
from applying inferential statistical methods or comparative frameworks to strengthen analytical depth.
Furthermore, cross-site comparative studies and longitudinal approaches would help identify broader trends
and variations in LL practices over time. Lastly, since inconsistencies were found in some of the tourist areas,
examining why such policy-practice gaps exist would help clarify the reasons for non-compliance. Addressing
these dimensions would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the complex relations between
language, policy and tourism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express gratitude to the Academy of Language Studies, UiTM, the local authorities
in Ipoh and Manjung, and the sign creators at the selected tourist sites for their cooperation during data
collection.
REFERENCES
1. Andriyanti, E. (2019). Linguistic landscape at Yogyakarta’s senior high schools in multilingual context:
Patterns and representation. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 85-97.
2. Aini, A.A.S., Chan, S.H., & Abdullah, N. A. (2013). Exploring multilingual practices in billboard
advertisements in a linguistic landscape. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 21(2): 783-
796.
3. Ariffin, K., & Husin, M. S. (2013). Patterns of language use in shop signs in Malaysian towns. Journal of
Arts, Science & Commerce, 4(3), 12–20.
4. Artawa, K., Paramarta, I. M. S., Mulyanah, A., & Atmawati, D. (2023). Centripetal and centrifugal
interconnection on hotel and restaurant linguistic landscape of Bali, Indonesia. Cogent Arts & Humanities,
10(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2218189
5. Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes. A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
6. Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., Weiler, B., & Moscardo, G. (2008). Tourists' use of roadside signage: A case
study of the Great Southern touring route. Australia, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd.
7. Beh, Y. J. (2017). Language policy as reflected in the linguistic landscape in George Town, Penang
[Master’s thesis, University of Malaya]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Page 323
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
https://www.proquest.com/openview/7029f8d99b4ec55026428970628121ee/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=
2026366&diss=y
8. Ben-Rafael, E. et al. (2006). Linguistic Landscape as Symbolic Construction of the Public Space: The
Case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), pp. 7–30.
doi:10.1080/14790710608668383.
9. Blackwood, R., Lanza, E., & Woldemariam, H. (Eds.). (2016). Negotiating and Contesting Identities in
Linguistic Landscapes. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
10. Blackwood, R. J. (2011). The linguistic landscape of Brittany and Corsica: A comparative study of the
presence of France’s regional languages in the public space. Journal of French Language Studies 21(2),
111–30.
11. Bruyel-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, 6(4), 386-411.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710903125010.
12. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2009). Language economy and linguistic landscape. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter
(Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery, (pp. 55–69). Routledge.
13. Chen, J. S., & Hsu, C. (2000). Measurement of Korean Tourists’ Perceived Images of Overseas
Destinations. (38, Ed.) Journal of Travel Research, 411-416.
14. Degi, Z. (2012). The Linguistic Landscape of Miercurea Ciuc (Csikszereda). Acta Universitatis Sapientiae
Philologica. 4(2): 341-365.
15. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2020). Population and housing census of Malaysia. Department of
Statistics Malaysia.
16. Djonda, U., & Madrunio, M. R. (2023). Multilingual characteristics of touristic linguistic landscape of
Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. IDEAS Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning Linguistic and
Literature. 5(1):44-72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372829890_Multilingual_Characteristics
_of_TouristicLinguisticLandscape_of_Labuan_Bajo_Indonesia
17. Du Plessis, T. (2012). The role of language policy in linguistic landscape changes in a rural area of the
Free State Province of South Africa. Language Matters, 43(2), 263-282.
18. Edelman, L. (2010). Linguistic landscape in the Netherlands. A study of multilingualism in Amsterdam
and Friesland [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. UvA-DARE.
https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.339112
19. Fakhiroh, Z., & Rohmah, Z. (2018). Linguistic landscape in Sidoarjo city. NOBEL: Journal of Literature
and Language Teaching, 9(2), 96-116. https://doi.org/10.15642/NOBEL.2018.9.2.96-116.
20. Fitriani, E., & Alamsyah, A. (2020). Linguistic landscape in Kuta Beach, Bali: The use of multilingual
signs in tourist communication. Journal of Language and Communication, 7(1), 45-57.
21. Fox, C. (2012). The role of signage in visitor experience and knowledge building. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 4, 48–52.
22. Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The Study of the Linguistic Landscape as a New Approach to
Multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 1-6.
23. Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Linguistic landscape and multilingualism. In Language Awareness and
Multilingualism (3rd ed.).
24. Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing and language
change. International Journal of Multilingualism 3(1): 31– 51.
25. Hult, F.M. (2014). Drive-thru linguistic landscaping: Constructing a linguistically dominant place in a
bilingual space. International Journal of Bilingualism 18, 507-523.
26. Ivkovic, D., & Lotherington, H. (2009). Multilingualism in cyberspace: Conceptualising the virtual
linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6 (1): 17-36.
27. Kallen, J. (2009). Tourism and representation in the Irish linguistic landscape. In E. Shohamy & D.
Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape. Expanding the scenery (pp. 270–283). Routledge.
28. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London:
Routledge.
29. Landry, R., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1997). Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical
Study, Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol 16 No 23-49.
Page 324
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
30. 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
31. Manan, S. A., David, M. K., Dumanig, F. P., & Naqeebullah, K. (2015). Politics, economics and identity:
mapping the linguistic landscape of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. International Journal of Multilingualism,
12(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.9055 81
32. Mansoor, S. S., Hamzah, N. H., & Shangeetha, R. K. (2023). Linguistic landscape in Malaysia: The case
of language choice used in signboards. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(2), 1062-1083.
33. Moriarty, M. (2014). Languages in motion: Multilingualism and mobility in the linguistic landscape.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(5), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913484208
34. Mubarok, Y., Sudana, D., Nurhuda, Z., & Yanti, D. (2024). Linguistic landscape in the tourist area,
Lembang Bandung, Indonesia. World Journal of English Language, 14(2), 230–243.
https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p230
35. Mulyawan, I. W., & Erawati, N. K. R. (2019). Linguistic Landscapes in Desa Kuta’. e-Journal of
Linguistics,13(2), p. 327. doi:10.24843/e-JL.2019.v13.i02.p12.
36. Mulyawan, I. W., Paramarta, I. M. S., & Suparwa, I. N. (2022). Language contestation at Batukau
Temple, Bali (a linguistic landscape study). Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2090651
37. Muth, S., & Wolf, F. (2009). The linguistic landscapes of Chisinau: Forms and functions of urban public
verbal signs in a post-Soviet setting. Linguistics & Language Teaching.
38. Pavlenko, A. (2010). Linguistic Landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: A diachronic study. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-
Rafael and M. Barni (eds) Linguistic Landscape in the City, 133-150. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.
39. Rong, X. (2018). The linguistic landscape of Beijing tourism spots: A field-based sociolinguistic approach.
International Journal of Languages Literature and Linguistics, 4(1), 23-28.
https://doi.org/10.18178/IJLLL.2018.4.1.144
40. Ruzaite, J. (2017). The linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts.
ESUKA-JEFUL, 8(1), 197-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2017.8.1.11
41. Sari, D. F., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Putri, V. N. (2024). Shop names and language culture: A study of linguistic
landscape in Aceh's tourist hub. Journal of Language and Culture Research.
42. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourse in place: Language in the material world. Routledge.
43. Spolsky, B. and Cooper, R.L. (1991). The Languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: New York: Clarendon Press;
Oxford University Press (Oxford studies in language contact).
44. Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2011). Tourism discourse: Languages and banal globalization. Applied
Linguistics Review, 2011, 285-312.
45. Wang, X., & Xu, D. (2018). The mismatches between minority language practices and national language
policy in Malaysia: A linguistic landscape approach. Kajian Malaysia, 36(1), 105–125.
https://doi.org/10.21315/km2018.36.1.5
46. Wang, X., & Gao, Y. (2025). The role of English in the linguistic landscape of Luang Prabang: Perceptions
from merchants and consumers. English Today, 41(1), 31–39.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078424000476
47. Yang, H., Xue, M., & Song, H. (2022). Restaurants’ signs say more than you think: An enquiry from a
linguistic landscape perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, 102924.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103054
