1. Investigating English and Italian Tourist Wor(l)ds through Automated Semantic Categorisation and Corpus Linguistics TaC CONFERENCE Lecce 25-27 February 2016 Angela D’Egidio Angela D’Egidio University of Salento, Lecce, Italy angela.degidio@unisalento.it

2. Literature review The language of tourism has been investigated by a number of corpus linguists (e.g. Cappelli 2012; 2013a; 2013b; D’Egidio 2009; 2014; Fina 2011; Francesconi 2007; Manca 2011; 2013) Different research questions Different methodological approaches: computer-assisted corpus analysis at the lexical level + inductive and manual semantic categorization of results Different aims: cultural representations, stylistic choices and linguistic strategies This study presents a novel approach capable of linguistic operationalisation of the tourist gaze (Urry, J. & Larsen, J. 2011) = what tourists actually do and gaze at when visiting a tourist site, using corpus-based methods and automated semantic categorisation of travel blogs and trip reports. 2

3. AIMS 1.Explore the effectiveness of tools of automated semantic categorisation of corpora to analyse the language used by tourists (the tourist gaze): -WMatrix for the English language -A prototype semantic annotation tool for Italian 2.Identify similarities and differences in the way tourists perceived and experienced two Italian tourist destinations (Florence and Puglia): -Common patterns of the English language tourists’ gaze -Common patterns of the Italian language tourists’ gaze -Differences between the English and Italian language tourists’ gaze 3

4. Data 4 comparable corpora of travel blogs and trip reports in English by a variety of travellers (British, Americans and other English language users) in Italian about Florence and Puglia COMPOSITION OF THE CORPORA 4 CORPORA on FLORENCECORPORA on PUGLIA Number of Texts Running Words Number of Texts Running Words FEC (English Florence corpus) 262456,618 PEC (English Puglia corpus) 110 205,938 FIC (Italian Florence corpus) 99137,403 PIC (Italian Puglia corpus) 64102,935

5. Methodology WMatrix/Prototype annotation tool for Italian Automated semantic analysis of the corpora Extraction of the most frequently occurring semantic categories Wmatrix Keyness comparison at the semantic level (Rayson 2008) Online UCREL Significance Test System Significance test between frequencies of the PIC/FIC and the PEC/FEC WordSmith Tools 6.0 Examination of lexical items within the semantic fields Identification of the most frequent collocates Identification of patterns in concordances 5

6. Analysis 6 1.Semantic tag frequency lists for each of the 4 corpora (FEC, PEC, FIC and PIC) 2.Keyness comparison between the FEC and the PEC (WMatrix) 3.Significance test between frequencies (the online UCREL Significance Test System) = AN EXPECTED GAZE DIFFERENCE ASPECTS OF THE TOURIST GAZE

7. Keyness comparison: FEC vs. PEC 7 ‘Arts and Crafts’ (C1) and ‘Religion and the supernatural’ (S9) ranked high and had a high rel. freq. in the FEC. = tourists’ gaze was mainly on Florentine art and architecture

8. The top semantic fields in the FIC and PIC 8 ‘Arts and Crafts’ (C1) and ‘Religion and the supernatural’ (S9) ranked high and had a high rel. freq. in the FIC. = tourists’ gaze was mainly on Florentine art and architecture

9. The top semantic fields in the FEC and PEC 9 ‘Food’ (F1) and ‘Geographical terms’ (W3) ranked high in the PEC. = tourists’ gaze in Puglia was on natural resources and food

10. Keyness comparison: PEC vs. FEC 10 ‘Food’ (F1), ‘Geographical terms’ (W3), ‘Plants’ (L3), ‘Farming and horticulture’ (F4), ‘Living creatures’ (L2) ranked high in the PEC. = tourists’ gaze in Puglia was on natural resources and food

11. Common patterns of the English language tourists’ gaze 11 1. USAS Category Z99 ‘Unmatched’ among the top 5: Use of Italian words (rel. freq. 22.29% in the FEC and 39.20% in the PEC) Italian words referring to: -Food (gelato, antipasti, orecchiette) -Drinks (Brunello, a type of wine; caffè) -Places (gelateria, trulli), cities/towns, geographical areas (Lecce, Alberobello, Ostuni, Otranto and Salento in the PEC, and Siena, Lucca, Montepulciano, Uffizi and Boboli in the FEC) -Everyday life (pizzica, a dance; sagra, popular festival). Re-sorted into the appropriate semantic categories 2. USAS category M7 ‘Places’ (higher in the PEC) : Interest in what was local In both corpora: local -Top collocates in the FEC: guide (9), wine (9) and market (6) -Top collocates in the PEC: wine (22), wines (12), fresh (11), produce (9), food (8), guide (7), stone (6), restaurants (6), market (6), olive oil (6), people (6)

12. Keyness comparison: PEC vs. FEC 12

13. Common patterns of the English language tourists’ gaze 13 3. Gelato (higher in the FEC), pasta (higher in the PEC), and pizza + olive oil and red wines FEC: national culinary tradition vs. PEC: regional food 4. Countryside and the presence of olive trees, farms and fields 5. Idea of wonder: pristine aspect of Puglia/size of the statue of the David 6. Historical knowledge about landmarks: trulli/ Giotto’s bell tower and the Ponte Vecchio bridge, and art and architecture when mentioning Renaissance or Baroque as artistic styles 7. ‘shopping’ and ‘taking pictures’ 8. Ideal for? -Puglia: to get off-the-beaten-track and relax -Florence: art lovers

14. USAS Category F1 ‘Food’ in the corpora in English 14 (Key in the PEC)

15. Common patterns of the Italian language tourists’ gaze 15 1.References to prices: -free of charge or pay and display parking areas? -very good dishes and very good prices - free of charge beach areas 2. A more detailed gaze when mentioning places or landmarks 3. Sea, also mentioned by the FIC tourists. 4. Food: simply good (e.g. ice-creams), not “the best” 5. A lower interest in what was ‘local’: they share the same culture FIC TOURISTSPIC TOURISTS - a number of chapels in Florence - the churches of Orsanmichele and Santo Spirito - both indoor and outdoor markets. - Convento dei Celestini in Lecce - Baia Verde in Gallipoli - Baia dei Turchi - the Alimini lakes near Otranto - the Swabian Castle in the province of Bari - the Aragonese castles of Otranto and Taranto - the Foresta Umbra in the province of Foggia

16. Differences between tourists writing in English and Italian in Puglia 16 1. PEC tourists: F1 ‘Food’+ W3 ‘Geographical terms’ 2. PIC tourists: W3 ‘Geographical terms’ +F1 ‘Food’

17. Differences between tourists writing in English and Italian 17 3. PEC tourists search for ‘authentic’ experiences in Puglia: -Food: authentic, simple and fresh -Regional food (orecchiette), seafood, different types of cheeses (burrata) or bread products (focaccia and taralli) -Olive oil -Local wines (Primitivo and Negroamaro) 4. PEC tourists Puglian landscape: -extraordinary and unusual -trulli, masserie, olive trees, olive groves, farms, fields, vineyards, gardens and wild flowers 5. PIC tourists: more interested in the sunset and weather conditions than the PEC tourists. 6. PIC tourists: more places -the Gargano area with its main towns Vieste and Peschici -Porto Cesareo -Castro -Pescoluse

18. Conclusions: Suggestions for promoting Puglia 18 Patterns could be used in different ways: 1.The English-speaking tourist market could be directed towards what did not emerge to be frequently mentioned in travel blogs and trip reports in English = architectural landmarks and religious buildings in Puglia RISKY! It would highlight aspects that lie too far outside of their documented gaze 2. The English-speaking tourist market could be directed towards their interests: food and natural resources LESS RISKY! But it is unlikely to significantly increase the levels of international tourism as Puglia already attracts the off-the-beaten track type of traveller.

19. Conclusions: Suggestions for promoting Puglia 19 Patterns could be used in different ways: 3. An alternative way of tourism promotion? The combination of both strategies. = HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS WELL-KNOWN TO TOURISTS (food and natural resources) BUT ALSO TAKE THEM TO THE NEW (art and architecture) -Food can be a tourist attraction on its own -Promotion of cooking events, lessons, courses, exhibitions and food festivals (sagre) -High gastronomic informativity in order to appreciate Puglia as a gastronomic destination -The addition of Italian words and the adjective ‘local’: “local colour and atmosphere” -Explanations of local food products -The use of pictures taken by the tourists themselves: they would look “less touristy and glossy” (Francesconi 2014: 78)

20. Thank you TaC CONFERENCE Lecce 25-27 February 2016 Angela D’Egidio University of Salento (Lecce, Italy) angela.degidio@unisalento.it Any Questions?

21. References Cappelli, G. (2012). ‘Travelling in space: Spatial Representation in English and Italian Tourism Discourse’. In Luisanna Fodde and Georges Van Den Abbeele (eds), Textus 2012 (1), Special Issue on Tourism and Tourists in Language and Linguistics. Roma: Carocci editore, pp. 17-33. Cappelli, G. (2013a). “Travelling words: Languaging in English tourism discourse”. In A. Yarrington, S. Villani and J. Kelly (eds.), Travels and Translations, Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, pp. 353-374. Cappelli, G. (2013b). “‘A perfect Tuscan experience’: destination image and cultural expectations in positive travel reviews in English and Italian”. In Bruti S. (ed.), Investigating the Language- Culture Interface: English vis-à-vis Italian, RILA, Roma, Bulzoni Editore, pp. 59-86. D'Egidio, A. (2009). “Eyeing Puglia. Comparing the Tourist Gaze in English, Italian and German Travel Articles”, Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione 11, pp. 201-212. D'Egidio, A. (2014). “The tourist gaze in English, Italian and German travel articles about Puglia: A corpus-based study.” ICAME Journal 38, pp. 57-72. Fina, M. E. (2011). “What a TripAdvisor Corpus Can Tell Us about Culture.” Cultus 4, pp. 59-80. Francesconi, S. (2007). English for Tourism Promotion: Italy in British Tourism Texts. Milano: Hoepli Katan, D. (forthcoming). Translating for outsider tourists: Cultural informers do it better. In Musacchio, M.T., & Magris, M. (Eds.), Representing and Mediating Otherness. Language, Translation, Media and Local-global Reception. Berlin: Frank und Timme. Manca, E. (2011). “The analysis of meaning between language and culture in the tourism domain” in Languages In Contrast, Amsterdam: Benjamins, vol. 11:2, p. 172-192. Manca, E. (2013). “Describing through the five senses. A contrastive socio-cultural and linguistic analysis of Italian and British tourist websites” in Tourism and tourist promotion around the world: a linguistic and socio-cultural perspective. Lecce: Salento University Publishing, pp. 109-124. Urry, J. & Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0. 3rd ed. ed. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. (2002). The Tourist gaze (Second Edition). London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage publications. 21