Exploring Concepts of the English Language Tourism Advertising Discourse in Pre-Pandemic and Pandemic Times

In general, we determined 56 frequency concepts in the METAD. However, as the autochthons of the METAD are considered only those of them, the frequency of verbalizers' usage of which is not less than 95% of the confidence interval (see table 4).

Therefore, the autochthons, which form the discourse framework of the METAD, are 46 concepts-autochthons including:

1) VISIT (3.7%), TOUR (2.8%), TRAVEL (2.6%), JOURNEY (2.0%) from the domain travel (11.1%), e.g.: Travel by air in the northern region is very safe and reliable.

2) DESTINATION (3.0%), PLACE (2.9%), AREA (2.3%), LAND (1.6%), SETTLEMENT (1.6%) from the domain destination (10.4%), e.g.: A voyage is a trouble-free way to travel, offering fantastic vistas of archipelagos before finally arriving in your destination.

3) ACTIVITY (3.7%), ENTERTAINMENT (3.0%), FUN (2.0%), HOLIDAY (1.9%) from the domain entertainment (9.6%), e.g.: ...book the

accommodation, relax and enjoy your holiday.

4) EVENT (2.4%), EXHIBITION (2.0%), TIME (1.6%), HISTORY (1.0%) TRADITION from the domain culture (7.2%), e.g.: Many traditional ceremonies are open to the public.

5) HEALTH (2.1%), COVID (2.0%), SAFETY (1.2%) from the domain safety (6.5%), e.g.: Flight attendants wearing masks, sanitising all surfaces between flights.

6) RESTAURANT (2.6%), DINING (2.6%), FOOD (1.9%) from the domain dining (6.4%), e.g.: Spoil yourself with a traditional tall aromatic coffee and a calorie-busting apfelstrudel!

7) PLEASURE (2.6%), ENJOYMENT (1.9%) SATISFACTION (1.7%) from the domain satisfaction (6.3%), e.g.: The interests and enjoyment of our clients are paramount as they travel the world.

8) DESIGN (2.1%), BUILDING (1.6%), FAME (1.4%), INTEREST (1.0%) from the domain architecture (5.9%), e.g.: ...iconic architecture seems to be around every corner.

9) LOCALS (1.7%), VISITOR (1.7%), PEOPLE (1.5%) from the domain people (5.8%), e.g.: In these semi-detached wooden houses, you have a great spot to relax with your family.

10) SERVICE (2.7%), COMFORT (2.0%), LUXURY (1.4%) from the domain comfort (5.5%), e.g.: Enjoy the highlights of our destinations from the comfort of a coach with a guide.

11) TRANSPORT (2.6%), VEHICLE (1.9%), ROAD (1.5%) from the domain transport (5.4%), e.g.:

> Enjoy the freedom of your own vehicle, and drive around the city at your own pace.

12) RESIDENCE (2.4%), APARTMENT (2.3%), ACCOMODATION (1.1%) from the domain residence (5.2%), e.g.:

> Experience the Kimberley in Comfort-style accommodation.

13) BUDGET (2.3%), PRICE (1.7%), BUSINESS (1.6%) from the domain budget (5.0%), e.g.:

> Rail travel is a budget-friendly and convenient way to travel between major and minor cities.

Information about autochthons demonstrates that during the pandemic period the modern English-speaking (potential) tourist continues to realize the significance of the fact and process of traveling, in general, considers traveling as one of the main elements of vacation and holiday, gets interested in travel tours and tourist attractions, places to stay during the journey (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1

Discourse-forming framework of the METAD

In the METAD it is fixed 387 repetitive pairs of autochthons, which can be characterized both, due to the quantity (power of connection) and quality. Referring to quality, the matrix of inter-autochthons relations consists of 4 dominant types of relations - inclusion, consequence, causation and mutual exclusion, which are conditionally illustrated through the following schemes: "X includes (is) Y", "Y is a consequence of (^) X", "X" causes (=>) "Y" and "X excludes (^) Y" (Osovska, 2014; Prykhodko, 2013) (see table 5):

Table 5

Matrix of inter-autochthons relations in the METAD

The analysis of inter-autochthon pairs of the METAD, according to the Student's t-test, makes it possible to statistically verify 251 correlative pairs of autochthons, from which strong ones account for 9.8%, average - 40.1%, and weak - 50.1%. Relations, which refer to the first and second types, are considered to be discourse-forming.

Strong conceptual relations form 8 correlative pairs of autochthons in the METAD: VISIT is DESTINATION (1.7%); VISIT is PLACE (1.4%); JOURNEY is SETTLEMENT (1.3%); TIME is TRADITION (1.2%); LOCALS is PLACE (1.1%); ENTERTAINMENT "- EVENT (1.1%); PLEASURE is SETTLEMENT (1%); ACTIVITY is PLACE (1%).

Average conceptual relations form 67 correlative pairs: ACTIVITY is DESTINATION (.8%); ACTIVITY is SETTLEMENT (.6%); ACTIVITY is BUBBLE (.6%) etc.

The defined correlations demonstrate that the main presuppositions of the modern English-speaking consumer of tourism services are the following:

(1) tourism is a change of attitudes, development: tourism is one of the ways of self-development, expansion of the world view and improvement of knowledge about other countries and cultures;

(2) tourism is an activity: tourism is a dynamic activity, entertainment and events;

(3) tourism is emotions: tourism is, first of all, about enjoying the process and result of a journey;

(4) tourism is funding: tourism is a budget or luxury holiday;

(5) tourism is a family holiday: tourist attractions are created for the family vacation;

(6) tourism is entertainment: tourism is the best way to have fun;

(7) tourism is people: tourism is a way to get acquainted with local people, learn about their traditions, culture and history;

(8) tourism is business: tourism is an open space for business;

(9) tourism is comfort: comfort is a requirement for carriers and hotels;

(10) tourism is gastronomy: tourism is a possibility to try something new, expand one's gastronomic boundaries through national culinary traditions of the countries of the world.

In addition to the traditional presuppositions, appear the new, pandemic ones: tourism is safety: any journey may jeopardize tourist not only in pandemic conditions; safety of travel and tourist attractions is one of the crucial factors in choosing the destination, route, residence and transportation; disinfection and "touch points" are ones of the most important factors in choosing carriers and hotels; constant sanitizing is one of safety elements.

The determined autochthon correlations are demonstrated in a cognitive map of the METAD (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Cognitive map of the METAD

The final stage, aims to compare cognitive maps of the TETAD and METAD. Based on the data from table 1, we can see that the amount of information has barely changed, as 19 domains are selected in the TETAD (see Figure 3) and 18 - in the METAD. Significance of both discourses is demonstrated by the domains destination; travel; entertainment; culture. Domains ranking has partly changed: in the TETAD, the first place is taken by appeal of the modern English-speaking (potential) consumer of tourism services, in the process of creation of a tourist attraction cognitive image, to the information about the following areas: destination; travel; entertainment; culture; satisfaction; architecture; people; dining; comfort; residence; transport; budget; safety (Kolisnichenko & Koropatnitska, 2021).

Figure 3

Discourse-forming framework of the TETAD

The pandemic transforms the traditional perception of tourism, first of all, highlighting the necessity of the fact of traveling and change of scenes, while the choice of tourist attraction takes the back seat. Safety issue gained new conceptual meaning.

As we can see, the idea about entertainment, culture and transport is constant, while the domains ranking is changed:

> domain travel from second position in the TETAD moved to the first position in the METAD that can be explained by the fact of actualization of necessity to change the surroundings and locations, visit other cities and countries, in comparison with traditional pre-pandemic period, when firstly, attention was paid to a tourist attraction. The dominant position of the domain travel in the METAD proves that the pandemic has brought certain changes to the cognitive space of tourism services consumers, as the obligation to be in continues quarantine in their country and closed borders have deprived of the freedom to travel. People had to learn to live in a new way - with restrictions (Kostruba, 2021, p. 13). Earlier we investigated that in person's consciousness any deprivation of human rights and freedoms that is accompanied by certain isolation is equal to prison. So, people were trapped in some kind of prison during the pandemic. Consequently, we are not surprised by the fact that the possibility to travel and change the surroundings became precious;

> domain destination moved from the first position in the TETAD to second position in the METAD that demonstrates the revalorization and can be explained by the post-pandemic people's desire to travel;

> domain satisfaction from fifth position in the TETAD moved to seventh position in the METAD, obviously, as the result of restrictions on mass gatherings with an aim to avoid the expansion of COVID that, respectively, wound influence on the fact of needs satisfaction;

> domain comfort moved from ninth position in the TETAD to tenth position in the METAD, illustrating that comfort issue is less important than change of surroundings and safety;

> domain residence from tenth position in the TETAD moved to twelfth position in the METAD, obviously, because of the fact that quarantine restrictions made it almost impossible to travel;

> domain budget moved from twelfth position in the TETAD to thirteenth position in the METAD, defining that the main effort of tourism is its revival;

> domain safety with lexemes-verbalizers, which mainly referred to the issue of safety in the country, in general (for instance, the absence of military actions), after addition of a number of new pandemic concepts (for example, COVID, SOCIAL DISTANCE, NEW PROTOCOL, MASK), moved from thirteenth position in the TETAD to fifth position in the METAD, which is clearly explained by special attention to not only common security, but also global pandemic requirements of social distance, isolation, constant sanitizing, vaccination etc. The concept TRAVEL BUBBLE deserves special attention. It embodies the new idea about a peculiar way of traveling in a constant group of people.

When comparing a set of autochthons of the TETAD and METAD, we noticed the following changes: it would be reasonable to admit the appearance of such concepts as SANITIZING, NEW PROTOCOL, BUBBLE, TOUCH POINTS, COVID, which currently have low frequency of usage that is explained by their novelty in tourism. However, the fact of their usage frequency increase is rather noticeable.

Regarding stable autochthon correlations, their quantity in the METAD is bigger (251 pairs) than in the TETAD (151 pairs) owing to the appearance of new concepts- autochthons. Such correlations prove that, against the background of the main traditional pre-pandemic presuppositions of the English-speaking consumer (tourism is a way to have fun and change the surroundings; tourist attraction is a core element of tourism), the tendencies of highlighting in the METAD the fact of traveling that is mainly characterized by safety, is rather noticeable.

Conclusions

The future prospects of our research, from the perspective of investigations actualized here, lie in the analysis of the METAD conceptual system in the format of intercultural comparison, according to the given methodology.

References

1. Василенко О., Сенча І. Матемачно-статистичні методи аналізу у прикладних дослідженнях. Одеса: ОНАЗ ім. О.С. Попова, 2011.

2. Гафу Т., Осовська І. Ментальний ресурс сучасного англомовного гастрономічного рекламного дискурсу. Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Германська філологія. 2021. Вип. 831-832. С. 18-34.

3. Данілов В. Статистична обробка даних. Київ, 2019.

4. Колісниченко Т., Коропатніцька Т. Концептосистема сучасного англомовного туристичного рекламного дискурсу. Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Германська філологія. 2021. Вип. 831-832. С. 114-123. https://doi.org/10.31861/gph2021.831-832.114-123 Колісниченко Т. Рекламний туристичний дискурс: характеристики. SLAVIA. Journal for Slavonic Philology, 2019а. Вип. 88, №2. С. 202-210.

5. URL: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=805295 Колісниченко Т. Контент-категорії рекламного туристичного дискурсу. Наукові записки Міжнародного гуманітарного університету. 2019а. Вип. 31. С. 56-59.

6. URL: http://www.sci-notes.mgu.od.ua/archive/v31/15.pdf Осовська І. Сучасний німецькомовний сімейний дискурс: ментальний і вербальний ресурс. Чернівці: РОДОВІД, 2014.

7. Приходько А. Концепты и концептосистемы. Днепропетровск: Белая Е.А, 2013.

8. Прохоров Ю. К проблеме "концепта" и "концептосферы". Язык, сознание, коммуникация, 2005. Вып. 30. С. 74-94.

9. Серегина М. Туристический дискурс: лингвосемиотические особенности функционирования паремий. Филология: научные исследования. 2021. Вып. 3. С. 59-66.

10. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library read article.php?id=33475 Томнюк, Л. Сучасний німецькомовний тюремний дискурс (когнітивно-семантичний аспект). Дис. канд. філол. наук. 10.02.04 германські мови. Чернівці: Чернівецький національний університет імені Юрія Федьковича, 2018а.

11. URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XVw5luXizMaK-CaamfnaZoulMsWYaYUd/view Томнюк, Л. Дискурс як соціокультурний вимір мови. In Таврійські філологічні наукові читання: матеріали Міжнародної науково-практичної конференції. Київ: Таврійський національний університет імені В. І. Вернадського, 2018b. С. 122-125.

12. IBM SPSS Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2021, from https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss- statistics-software

13. Ignatova, E. (2020). Where have all the people gone: a multimodal critical discourse study of the representation of people in promotional tourism discourse. Tourism, Culture & Communication, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830420X15894802540205 Jalilifar, A., & Moradi, Y. (2019). Tourism discourse revisited: an analysis of evaluative strategies in tourist brochures from a systemic functional linguistics perspective. Journal of English Studies, 17, 211-232. https://doi.org/10.18172/ies.3595 Kostruba, N. (2021). Social Restrictions in the COVID-19 Pandemic As a Traumatic Experience: Psycholinguistic Markers. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.29038/eeipl.202L8.Lkos

14. Osovska, I., & Tomniuk, L. (2019). Modern German Prison Discourse: Mental Resource. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 16(2), 61-87. Retrieved from http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL40/pdf doc/04.pdf Vakhidova, F.S. (2021). Tourism discourse and its terminology. JournalNX- A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, 7(3), 150-152.

15. Yakhshieva, Z., Ortiqova, E., Babadjanova, G., & Khasanova, K. (2021). The Versatility Of Genres Of Tourism Discourse. Psychology and Education Journal, 55(2), 56985700. https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i2.2994

16. References (translated and transliterated)

17. IBM SPSS Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2021, from https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss- statistics-software

18. Ignatova, E. (2020). Where have all the people gone: a multimodal critical discourse study of the representation of people in promotional tourism discourse. Tourism, Culture & Communication, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830420X15894802540205

19. Jalilifar, A., & Moradi, Y. (2019). Tourism discourse revisited: an analysis of evaluative strategies in tourist brochures from a systemic functional linguistics perspective. Journal of English Studies, 17, 211-232. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3595

20. Kostruba, N. (2021). Social Restrictions in the COVID-19 Pandemic As a Traumatic Experience: Psycholinguistic Markers. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2021.8.1.kos

21. Osovska, I., & Tomniuk, L. (2019). Modern German Prison Discourse: Mental Resource. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 16(2), 61-87. Retrieved from http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL40/pdf doc/04.pdf

22. Vakhidova, F.S. (2021). Tourism discourse and its terminology. JournalNX - A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, 7(3), 150-152.

23. Yakhshieva, Z., Ortiqova, E., Babadjanova, G., & Khasanova, K. (2021). The versatility of genres of tourism discourse. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(2), 5698-5700. https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i2.2994

24. Vasylenko, O., & Sencha, I. (2011). Matemachno-statystychni metody analizu u prykladnykh doslidzhenniakh [Mathematical and statistical methods of analysis in applied research]. Odesa: ONAZ im. O. S. Popova.

25. Hafu, T., & Osovska, I. (2021). Mentalnyi resurs suchasnoho anhlomovnoho hastronomichnoho reklamnoho dyskursu [Mental resource of the modern English gastronomic advertising discourse]. Naukovyi Visnyk of Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University. German Philology, 831-832, 18-34.

26. Danilov, V. (2019). Statystychna obrobka danykh [Statistical data processing]. Kyiv.

27. Kolisnychenko, T., & Koropatnitska, T. (2021). Kontseptosystema suchasnoho anhlomovnoho turystychnoho reklamnoho dyskursu [Conceptual system of the modern English-language tourist advertising discourse]. Naukovyi Visnyk of Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University. German Philology, 831-832, 114-123. https://doi.org/10.31861/gph2021.831- 832. 114-123

28. Kolisnychenko, T. (2019a). Reklamnyi turystychnyi dyskurs: kharakterystyky [Advertising tourist discourse: characteristics]. SLAVIA. Journal for Slavonic Philology, 88(2), 202-210. Retrieved from https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=805295

29. Kolisnychenko, T. (2019b). Kontent-katehorii reklamnoho turystychnoho dyskursu [Content categories of advertising tourist discourse]. Naukovi Zapysky of International Humanitarian University, 31, 56-59. Retrieved from http://www.sci-notes.mgu.od.ua/archive/v31/15.pdf

30. Osovska, I. (2014). Suchasnyi nimetskomovnyi simeinyi dyskurs: mentalnyi i verbalnyi resurs [Modern German-speaking family discourse: mental and verbal resources]. Chernivtsi: Rodovid.

31. Prikhodko. A. (2013). Kontsepty i Kontseptosistemy [Concepts and Concept Systems]. Dnepropetrovsk: Belaya E.A.

32. Prokhorov. Yu. (2005). K probleme "kontsepta" i "kontseptosfery" [To the problem of "concept" and "concept sphere"]. Yazyk. Soznaniye. Kommunikatsiya, 30, 74-94.

33. Seregina. M. (2021). Turisticheskiy diskurs: lingvosemioticheskiye osobennosti funktsionirovaniya paremiy [Tourist discourse: linguistic semiotic features of the paremias functioning]. Filologiya: Nauchnyye Issledovaniya, 3, 59-66. Retrieved from https://nbpublish.com/library read article.php?id=33475

34. Tomniuk, L. (2018a). Suchasnyj nimets'komovnyj tyuremnyj dyskurs (kohnityvnosemantychnyj aspekt) [Modern German prison discourse (cognitive-semantic aspect)]. Ph.D. thesis. Chernivtsi: Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XVw5luXizMaK-CaamfnaZoulMsWYaYUd/view

35. Tomniuk, L. (2018b). Dyskurs yak sotsiokulturnyi vymir movy [Discourse as a sociocultural dimension of language]. Tavriiski Filolohichni Naukovi Chytannia: Book of Abstracts. Kyiv: Vernadskyi Taurida National University. (122-125).

Размещено на Allbest.ru