Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47 — 57

The semiotic paradigm:

implications for tourism research
Charlotte M. Echtner*
James Cook University, Tourism Program-Cairns Campus, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Qld, 4870, Australia

Abstract

This paper examines the application of semiotics to tourism studies. The first section of the paper provides the theoretical
background by briefly outlining the history, concepts, ontology and epistemology of the semiotic approach. The second section of the
paper reviews the applications of semiotics to date in tourism research, focusing mainly on studies of tourism marketing. It highlights
the usefulness of this approach for uncovering the systems of signs and the ‘deep structure’ of meaning in tourism marketing discourse.
A framework for integrating semiotics with the study of tourism marketing is also introduced. In the final section, this framework is
used to identify existing gaps in the research and to suggest directions for future applications of semiotics to tourism research.  1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Semiotics; Tourism marketing; Tourism research; Paradigm; Signs; Signification; Symbols

1. Introduction semiotic approach. The second section of the paper re-

Signs and symbols have always constituted an impor-
tant part of the human experience. Indeed, it could be
argued that the use of a complex system of signs is
a distinguishing characteristic of the human species.
Signs are identified as anything that can be used to
represent something else (Berger, 1984). Language, ges-
tures, documents, art, religion and dress all contain signs
that are used to communicate certain meanings.
The study of systems of signs is called semiotics. Since
signs are used to create and convey meaning, semiotics
has also been referred to as the study of the structure of
meaning. Semiotics examines the communication of
meaning in its direct, indirect, intentional and uninten-
tional forms. By uncovering the structure of systems of
signs, semiotics can contribute to more fully understand-
ing human communication and behaviour.
This paper examines the application of semiotics to
tourism studies. The first section of the paper provides
the theoretical background by briefly outlining the his-
tory, concepts, ontology and epistemology of the
* Tel.: 00 61 70 4042 1446; fax: 00 61 70 4042 1080; e-mail: charlotte.
echtner@jcu.edu.au
views the applications of semiotics to date in tourism
research, focusing mainly on studies of tourism market-
ing. It highlights the usefulness of this approach for
uncovering the systems of signs and the ‘deep structure’
of meaning in tourism marketing discourse. A framework
for integrating semiotics with the study of tourism mar-
keting is also introduced. In the final section, this frame-
work is used to identify existing gaps in the research and
to suggest directions for future applications of semiotics
to tourism research.
2. The semiotic world view
2.1. History and main concepts
The history of semiotics is comprehensively sum-
marized in the first section of Noth’s (1990) Handbook of
Semiotics. Noth traces the roots of semiotics to the
ancient Graeco-Roman period, where the nature of signs
and meaning started to be addressed. Indeed, the roots of
the term ‘semiotics’ derive from the Greek words for sign
or signal. The study of signs and meaning continued to be
explored by numerous scholars throughout the medieval
ages and renaissance. However, the birth of the so-called
‘modern’ semiotics occurred later in the 19th century

0261-5177/99/$ — see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 0 5 - 8
48 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
with the work of two scholars, now regarded as founders
in the field. These were Ferdinand de Saussure
(1857—1913), a Swiss linguist, and Charles Sanders Peirce
(1839—1914), an American philosopher. In order to intro-
duce modern semiotics, the following discussion provides
a necessarily brief introduction to their contributions.
For more complete explanations of the history and con-
cepts of semiotics, the reader is referred to Noth (1990)
and Hawkes (1977).
Ferdinand de Saussure coined the term ‘semiology’,
which he defined as ‘a science that studies signs within
society’ (Saussure, 1916, p. 16). Since Saussure was a lin-
guist, he focused primarily on words and language as sign
systems. He characterized a sign as the relationship be-
tween a signifier (word) and the signified (object/concept).
He used the following equation to illustrate this relation-
ship:
SIGN"SIGNIFIER  SIGNIFIED.
For example, a sign might consist of a physical object,
such as a sandy shoreline (signified), plus the associated
signifier, the word ‘beach’ (or playa, strand, plage de-
pending on the language spoken). Saussure pointed out
that meaning is generated and communicated through
the association between the signifier and signified in the
sign system.
Saussure was particularly interested in the structure of
language and its relationship to meaning. He suggested
that language should be studied not only in terms of its
individual parts (i.e. the history and definitions of words)
but also with greater regard to the relationship between
particular patterns of words (Hawkes, 1977). According
to Saussure, syntagmatic relationships (sequences of
words) and associative relationships (the choice of one
word over others) are paramount in understanding the
sign structure of language.
Saussure emphasized that language is a complex, hu-
manly created sign structure. The choice of particular
words or patterns of words to convey meaning is arbit-
rary and established by social convention. Thus, systems
Fig. 1. Peirce’s semiotic triangle.
of signs, and their associated meanings, must be learned
through a process of semiotic socialization.
Charles Sanders Peirce had a much broader inter-
pretation of sign systems. As a philosopher, he was con-
cerned with examining the structure of meaning in the
total human experience. Therefore, he used the term
‘semiotics’ to refer to not only verbal, but also nonverbal
systems of signification — ‘this universe is perfused with
signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs’ (Peirce,
1934, p. 302).
Besides expanding semiotics to include nonverbal sign
structures, Peirce included an interpretant in the sign
system (Fig. 1). His ‘semiotic triangle’ suggests that
meaning is derived through a triadic relationship be-
tween the designatum (the object/concept signified), the
sign (the signifier used to represent the object) and the
interpretant (the one interpreting the sign). Thus, a sign
not only stands for something, but it also stands for
something to somebody in a certain respect (Hawkes,
1977).
Each point of this semiotic triangle interacts with the
other two points. The system of signification can only be
understood by examining all of the possible relationships
created around the periphery of the triangle: (1) desig-
natum/sign — what is the nature of the relationship be-
tween the object/concept signified and the signifier, (2)
sign/interpretant — what is the nature of the relationship
between the signifier and interpretant, and (3) interpretant/
designatum — what is the nature of the relationship be-
tween the interpretant and the object/concept signified
(Fiske, 1990).
Peirce also developed a typology of signs consisting of
three categories: icon, index and symbol. An icon re-
sembles the object signified in some way. For example,
a miniature souvenir replica of the Eiffel Tower is an
icon. Other examples of potential icons include pictures,
maps, diagrams, photographs and post cards. It is impor-
tant to note that ‘resemblance’ is bound to certain cul-
tures and contexts. In other words, the miniature replica
of the Eiffel Tower is an icon (and souvenir) for the recent
 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
tourist to Paris, but does not resemble or mean anything
(i.e. is not an icon) to a foreigner to this cultural context
— for example, a Kalahari Bushman.
Peirce’s second type of sign, the index, has a causal
relation to its designate. For instance, a suntan is an
index of the amount of sun exposure. However, a suntan
may also be used as an index of ‘ruggedness’ or ‘healthi-
ness’. As with an icon, the signification system of the
index must be learned and is socially bound. Again, the
Kalahari Bushman probably has no notion of the vari-
ous indexical meanings of the suntan but has an entirely
different range of sun-related icons and indices unrecog-
nizable to outsiders.
The third sign, a symbol, refers to its designate only by
arbitrary social agreement. In this case, there is no resem-
blance or causal connection between signifier and signi-
fied. Words are the most commonly used symbols, and
accordingly, language is often regarded as the most im-
portant symbolic semiotic system. However, objects are
also commonly infused with symbolic meaning. For in-
stance, the Statue of Liberty is used to symbolize freedom
and the American way of life. Important sites, such as the
Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower, are often used in
tourist brochures to symbolize and represent a destina-
tion. When used extensively in such a context, they can
become symbols, or ‘symbolic markers’ (MacCannell,
1989), of the tourism destination.
These three types of signs are not mutually exclusive,
since a sign often functions in more than one capacity
(Mick, 1986). For example, a picture of the Eiffel Tower
in a tourist brochure is an icon, but can also be used as
a symbol when representing Paris. In a similar vein, a sun
tan is an index, but, in addition, can be used to symbolize
the status associated with a holiday in a tropical destina-
tion. Correspondingly, all three types of signs are com-
bined in a postcard featuring a beach with deeply tanned
tourists: the iconic picture of the beach is combined with
the indexical and symbolic representation of the sun tan.
These examples, while relatively simple, illustrate the
usefulness of Peirce’s typology in uncovering the combina-
tions of signification that constitute tourism’s sign systems.
Through their definition and examination of significa-
tion systems, Saussure and Peirce provided the founda-
tions for the modern semiotic approach. Subsequently,
numerous scholars from various disciplines have contrib-
uted to and moulded modern semiotics, most notably
Morris, Hjelmslev, Jakobson, Griemas, Eco and Barthes.
While it is not possible in this paper to summarize the
extensive works of each of these scholars, a short exam-
ination of Barthes’ discussion of secondary signification
and myth is worthwhile.
Barthes was interested in layers of meaning. He high-
lighted that language is not only used in a literal, de-
notative sense, but also in a symbolic, figurative or
connotative manner. Building upon Saussure’s sign sys-
tem, he linked denotative and connotative sign systems
49
as follows (modified by Silverman, 1983, originally from
Barthes, 1984, p. 115):
According to Barthes’ conceptualization, the de-
notative level is the first-order structure, which relates to
the linguistic or language structure — it is the simple sign
as originally described by Saussure. The second-order
semiological system occurs at the connotative level. As
the above figure illustrates, the entire sign in the
denotative system functions as the signifier in the con-
notative system. Barthes labelled this second-order sys-
tem as ‘myth’. As he explains, ‘myth is a peculiar system,
in that it is constructed from a semiological chain which
existed before it: it is a second-order semiological system.
That which is a sign (namely, the associative total of
a concept and an image) in the first system, becomes
a mere signifier in the second’ (Barthes, 1984, p. 114). Part
of the semiological enterprise becomes moving beyond
the denotated sign system to the mythical level. Such
a layered view of semiotics has particular relevance to the
analysis of tourism’s signification systems, with their em-
phasis on denotation, myth and fantasy.
3. The Ontology and Epistemology of Semiotics
For a fuller understanding of semiotics, its ontological
and epistemological foundations must also be explored.
This underpinning is briefly discussed in the following
sections (once again, the reader is referred to Noth, 1990,
and Hawkes, 1977, for greater elaboration).
Ontologically speaking, semiotics views ‘reality’ as
a social construction, consisting of systems of signs, in
which language plays a primary role. This approach, akin
to structuralism, sees man as a creator of structure and
his ‘reality’ as subsequently defined by these structures.
In other words, the structures which ‘spring from the
human mind itself 2 become the shape of the world that
[is] perceive[d] as ‘natural’, ‘given’ or ‘true’ (Hawkes,
1977, pp. 14—15). From the semiotic perspective’ 2 the
whole of human experience, without exception, is an
interpretive structure mediated and sustained by signs’
(Deely, 1990, p. 5, italics added).
Semioticians also point out that the meaning of sign
structures (i.e. the relationships between the signifiers,
50 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
signified and interpretants) is not inherent or universal,
but is arbitrary and established through particular social
conventions. Therefore, sign systems need to be learned
and are inexorably bound in particular cultures and
contexts. Since meaning is arbitrary, certain rules, or
codes, govern the usage of signs within each social system
(Eco, 1979). Epistemologically, the aims of semiotics are
to identify the codes and recurring patterns in a particular
sign system, and to understand how they are used to
construct and communicate meaning (Fiol, 1991).
Semiotics, therefore, is concerned with uncovering the
underlying structures of meaning.
In addition to identifying the importance of patterns
and structure, semiotics also recognizes that there are
usually several layers of meaning within a sign system. In
other words, language is not only used in a literal sense,
but also in a symbolic, figurative or metaphorical way.
Thus, the semiotic approach attempts to uncover suc-
cessively deeper layers of meaning and symbolism. In so
doing, semiotics encourages deeper insight — interpreta-
tion beyond the obvious, direct and intentional levels to
reveal the obscure, indirect and unintentional commun-
ication of meaning.
Semiotics has formed the basis for the study of signs
and symbols in numerous fields, including psychology
(psychoanalysis) (Freud, 1973; Jung, 1956), sociology
(symbolic interactionist theory) (Kinch, 1967; Mead,
1934; Rose, 1962), anthropology (structural anthropol-
ogy) (Levi-Strauss, 1963), cultural studies (Hall, 1980;
Hall, 1997) and even biology/zoology (Deely, 1990). It
has been used extensively in marketing (Mick, 1986),
especially in the examination of the sign systems used
in advertising (Berger, 1986; Bertrand, 1988; Durgee
& Stuart, 1987; Henny, 1986; Kaushik & Sen, 1990;
Umiker-Sebeok, 1987; Zakia, 1986; Zakia & Nadin,
1987) and in understanding the symbolic nature of con-
sumption (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993; Kehret-Ward,
1988; Leigh & Gabel, 1992; Levy, 1959; Mick et al., 1992;
Solomon, 1983; Solomon & Assael, 1987). These studies
have repeatedly demonstrated the usefulness of the
semiotic approach for understanding the role of structure
in influencing human behaviour.
To sum up, semiotics is concerned with examining
a system of signs in order to uncover the recurring
patterns (determine structure) and the various layers of
meaning (delve deeper). Therefore, the aim of the semiotic
approach is to uncover the deep structure of meaning.
These goals are reflected in the process followed during
semiotic inquiry.
4. The semiotic process
In all research, a particular world view or paradigm
influences the choice of the procedures used in data
collection and analysis. In this manner, the semiotic
paradigm suggests certain processes for the examination
and interpretation of data. As with most nonpositivist,
qualitative approaches, semiotic analysis need not follow
a strictly defined, linear procedure. Indeed, as Langholz
Leymore (1975, p. 21) points out, ‘there is no such thing
as a standard structural analysis’. However, certain ‘op-
erational arrangements’ (to quote Barthes, 1988, p. 229)
are often followed by semioticians when examining data.
By combining the procedures from several definitive
sources, including Barthes (1988), Hawkes (1977), Lan-
gholz Leymore (1975), Manning (1987) and Noth (1990),
a number of ‘operational arrangements’ can be extracted.
Before continuing, it is important to stress that while
the following discussion creates the impression of a set,
somewhat linear semiotic process, these ‘stages’ are not
definitive. In general, the semiotic/structuralist approach
allows considerable analytic freedom and creativity in
terms of research procedures. The stages are presented
only as an illustration of the more traditional semiotic
approach and to provide a baseline for developing
a semiotic research process that can then be tailored to
address specific research goals.
4.1. Chose a representative, closed corpus of data in order
to apply a synchronic perspective
The semiotician selects and isolates a specifically de-
fined data set for analysis. Traditionally, according to
Saussure, the data set should then be considered from
a mainly synchronic perspective — that is, as a static,
distinct and self-sufficient system. A synchronic perspect-
ive focuses on the current structure and not the historical
context. For example, in order to understand the struc-
ture of the language of tourist brochures, the researcher
might select a sample of current brochures for a particu-
lar set of destinations. These would then be examined as
a distinct, self-sufficient system.
4.2. Specify and segment the relevant elements (or units)
of analysis
The semiotician begins by breaking the whole into
parts. The most important elements, or units, of analysis
are chosen and isolated. The identification of these speci-
fic, relevant elements is informed and guided by the
theoretical goals of the research and the nature of the
data set. For example, in the analysis of the set of tourist
brochures, the elements might be identified as certain
words or phrases. In addition, in the examination of
brochure pictures, the elements could be particular ob-
jects or actions portrayed.
4.3. Inventory the occurrence of the elements
Once the relevant elements of analysis are identified,
the semiotician carefully records their presence in the
 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
data set. This portion of the analysis documents fre-
quency of usage as well as notes the possible combina-
tions with other elements of analysis. At this stage, the
process is quite quantitative in nature — the researcher
concentrates on counting and recording elements rather
than interpreting meaning. In analyzing documents, such
as tourist brochures, this stage resembles content analysis
(see for example, Moeran, 1983).
4.4. Examine the relationships among the elements through
an analysis of the syntagmatic and paradigmatic structures.
Compare these across cases
The primary objective of semiotic analysis is not an
examination of the parts, but an understanding of the
relationship between the parts and a study of the struc-
ture as a whole. Therefore, while an inventory of elements
is necessary to proceed with a semiotic analysis, it is not
the end goal. Once the elements have been identified and
isolated, the semiotician then proceeds to examine the
structured relationships between them. This examination
usually begins with an understanding of the syntagmatic
and paradigmatic structures.
Syntagmatic structure is concerned with the creation
of meaning through combination. In examining the lan-
guage of tourist brochures, the syntagmatic structure is
the linear combination of units that gives language mean-
ing. For example, in the phrase ‘the long, sandy beach’,
the relationship between the adjectives and the noun is
syntagmatic. On the other hand, the paradigmatic struc-
ture focuses on the creation of meaning through selec-
tion. Paradigmatic structure refers to the choices between
units that may occupy the same position within the same
context (Noth, 1990). In the above example, the choice of
particular adjectives, ‘long’ and ‘sandy’ versus ‘short’ and
‘stony’, is paradigmatic. A semiotic analysis proceeds
along both axes — the syntagmatic (combinations) and
the paradigmatic (selection). While the brochure example
illustrates a linguistical application of semiotic analysis,
the focus on combination and selection of elements can
be applied to other signification systems (cf. Barthes,
1985, analysis of a fashion system).
4.5. Create a comprehensive taxonomy of possible
elements and understand the system of *rules+ by which
they are combined
If the preceding steps have been followed carefully,
a comprehensive inventory of the elements of analysis
has been produced. At this point, the semiotician at-
tempts to create a comprehensive taxonomy of element
combinations within and, more importantly, between
cases. The objective of this process is to expose the
underlying structure and to understand the system of
‘rules’ which govern the system. This process is often
inseparably intertwined with the penetration of surface
51
meanings and the exploration of signification (refer to
following section). It may also be necessary to ‘revisit’
some of the earlier stages to regroup elements and even to
introduce elements that have emerged as significant and
may have been overlooked in earlier stages of the
semiotic process.
In the analysis of the tourist brochures, the researcher
would identify recurring patterns of words, objects, ac-
tions, etc., not only between brochures for the same
destination but also across brochures for different desti-
nations. This process leads naturally into the next stage
of analysis which uncovers common ‘themes’ in the lan-
guage of tourist brochures and questions the significance
of these themes.
4.6. Penetrate surface meanings (or mere descriptive,
denotative meanings) and extract underlying meanings
(or interpretive, connotative meanings)
At this stage, the semiotic analysis focuses more
specifically on the layers of signification as previously
introduced in the brief discussion of Barthes’ de-
notative/connotative sign system. The extraction of sig-
nifying themes and connotative meanings is interpretive
and, therefore, is not an exact science. As Manning (1987,
pp. 45—46) points out
‘the decision to stop after two or three themes, to
establish relative importance of one theme over an-
other, to resolve contradictory or ambiguous sym-
bols or clusters of symbols are aesthetic matters.
A convincing case must be made. This analysis does
not rely on frequency distributions, correlations
among variables, or other forms of statistical infer-
ence’. (italics added).
The connotative meanings uncovered are not distinct,
nor are they absolute. Because of the interpretive nature
of this process, an ideological framework inevitably
guides the researcher. A more convincing case for the
usefulness of the interpretation can be made if this frame-
work is explicitly recognized and explained, and its rel-
evance to the existing data is cogently demonstrated.
Barthes’ work most clearly illustrates the ideological
embededness of semiotic interpretation. For example, in
Mythologies (1984), Barthes conducts his semiotic inter-
pretations from within a Marxist framework, with the
related goals of critically examining the myth and struc-
ture that support class distinction. Thurot and Thurot’s
(1983) analysis of tourism brochures illustrates a similar
overlay of the Marxist framework. They argue that ‘be-
hind the commercial competition [presented in tourist
brochures] lies a competition of social classes’ (Thurot
& Thurot, 1983, p. 173). They conclude that tourist
brochures present and justify the aristocratic lifestyle,
a lifestyle that the lower classes can emulate for a short
time as a tourist or only just dream to aspire.
52 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
Of course, not all semiotic interpretation is conducted
from a Marxist perspective. However, since semiotics
encourages deeper interpretation, the researcher must
always be cognisant of the influence of particular ideo-
logical and cultural frameworks. The accomplished
semiotician recognizes and addresses the implications of
these frameworks for the interpretation of deep structure.
The semiotic process outlined by the six stages above
provides a basis for examining relationships between the
elements identified in a data set. While not all semiotic
research will replicate exactly the process outlined above,
the emphasis on structure and signification remains
a common hallmark of any semiotic research.
5. Semiotics and Tourism Marketing
With regard to tourism studies, the semiotic approach
has been used from a number of different disciplinary
perspectives including anthropology (Evans-Pritchard,
1989; Sweet, 1989), sociology (Adler, 1989; Brown, 1992;
Jules-Rosette, 1984; MacCannell, 1989), linguistics (Ur-
bain, 1989) and socio-linguistics (Dann, 1996b). Numer-
ous significant contributions are contained in a special
issue on the ‘Semiotics of Tourism’, produced by the
Annals of ¹ourism Research (MacCannell, 1989).
While there is considerable potential to expand the use
of semiotics in all social science disciplines concerned
with tourism studies, this section of the paper focuses
more narrowly on its application to tourism marketing.
The reasons for this focus are both practically and theor-
etically driven. Firstly, for practical reasons, there simply
is not enough space to conduct a complete review of the
use of semiotics in tourism research in the short space of
this paper. Secondly, and more importantly, there has, up
to this point, been limited application of semiotics to
tourism marketing. Therefore, the following sections
provide a brief review of the existing research in this
area and then present a framework to encourage future
research.
5.1. A brief overview of existing research
The application of semiotics to tourism studies is rela-
tively recent. In the case of tourism marketing, Uzzell
(1984) uses a semiotic/structuralist perspective to exam-
ine the photographs in a sample of brochures produced
by six ‘sun holiday’ companies. He argues that certain
types and patterns of objects, poses and photographic
effects (e.g. superimposition and collage) are used to
structure the tourism experience. Uzzell employs
semiotics to go beyond the obvious contents of the
photos and to explore the fantasies and myths structured
at a more symbolic level. For example, he points out that
a bottle of wine represents the fantasy of the ‘good life’
and symbolizes the loss of inhibitions. Other patterns of
objects and people are used to symbolize authenticity,
power and aestheticism. He concludes that brochure
photographs provide ‘a range of 2 tools with which
fantasy, meaning and identity can be created and con-
structed’ and that tourism advertising is ‘replete with
messages and myth’ (Uzzell, 1984, p. 97).
Cohen (1989) examines the hand-written advertise-
ments, maps, photos, and fliers that have been produced
to promote hill tribe trekking in northern Thailand. He
discovers that specific words and formats are used to
convey the image of an ‘authentic’ tribal village experi-
ence. The author illustrates that this often-false image of
authenticity is created through the use of certain sign
structures contained within the tourism advertisements.
In terms of tourism promotion, Brown (1992) discusses
the symbolic nature of the tourism experience. Tourism is
presented as a form of symbolic consumption whereby
tourists display their identity and social roles through the
destinations they choose. Thus, it is argued that tourism
destinations represent specific symbolic experiences. The
goal of tourism promotion becomes the portrayal of these
symbolic experiences using the appropriate sign systems.
Selwyn (1993) examines a larger sample of tourist bro-
chures, analysing both text and photographs. He focuses
on four kinds of representation: sites, beaches, local
people and food. A semiotic approach is used to move
beyond the denotative surface layer of the contents and
to interpret patterns of meaning at a deeper symbolic and
connotative level. As a result of this approach, Selwyn
identifies several mythical themes, including mysticism,
wild and exotic nature, socialization, hospitality and
plenitude. Brochures, he concludes, are ‘in the business of
selling [these] myths’ (Selwyn, 1993, p. 127).
A semiotic approach is used by Cooper (1994, p. 144)
to ‘examine the question of tourism imagery, and the
ways in which it is employed to manipulate the touristic
experience’. Focusing on the text and photographs in
a select sample of brochures, he finds that a distinct
‘language’ is utilized to structure mythical and dream-
like tourism experiences. In constructing these experien-
ces, brochures present myths of adventure, wilderness,
authenticity and the exotic but always from the comfort,
convenience and safety of a luxurious tourist ‘bubble
environment’. He concludes that tourist brochures con-
tain narratives that ‘frame the ritual acts that must be
performed 2 and [that] manage contact with the world’
(Cooper, 1994, p. 144).
Dann (1993) argues that in order to be effective, tourist
brochures should not focus on the tangible attributes of
a place but on the selected images that are symbolic of
the destination experience. In a later paper (Dann,
1996a), he conducts a semiotic analysis of tourist bro-
chures and develops a typology of destination experien-
ces based on the types of people portrayed. In this
endeavour, he demonstrates the emphasis on both structure
and interpretation inherent in the semiotic approach.
 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
Recently, Dann (1996b) has produced perhaps the most
definitive work in this area with his book, ¹he ¸anguage
of ¹ourism. He argues that tourism promotion creates its
own language and provides the first detailed semiotic
analysis of this language. In so doing, he effectively sets
the stage for further, more focused research in the
semiotics of tourism marketing.
Several common threads are apparent in the semiotic
studies outlined above. The ‘language’ of tourism mar-
keting (communicated both verbally and visually) is
viewed as a sign system that creates, codifies and com-
municates certain ‘mythical’ tourism experiences. Each
researcher, as a semiotician, has attempted to uncover
the structure of these tourism myths — and the ritualized
behaviours and encounters that they encourage or dis-
courage. Thus, the collective contribution of this semiotic
research is to expose the structure of the tourism experi-
ence as communicated by the language of tourism marketing.
This brief overview of the existing research touches
upon the potential usefulness of the semiotic approach in
understanding the deep structure of meaning in tourism
marketing. However, these studies represent only a be-
ginning — there are many possibilities for further research
using the semiotic paradigm. Accordingly, in the next
sections, a framework to guide future semiotic research
will be introduced, followed by suggestions for such re-
search. While the discussions centre on tourism market-
ing, the framework could be adapted to stimulate semiotic
research in other disciplinary areas of tourism study.
5.2. A framework for future semiotic research: The tourism
semiotic triangle
To better understand the integration of semiotics and
tourism, Peirce’s semiotic triangle can be modified as
illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. The tourism semiotic triangle — a tourism marketing rendition.
53
In this tourism marketing rendition, the designatum or
thing signified is a particular place — the destination.
Certain tourism signs or signifiers (advertisements) are
used to convey the appropriate destination meaning, or
image, to the interpretant (the potential tourist). As such,
three distinct relationships emerge in the tourism mar-
keting semiotic triangle: (1) destination/tourism adver-
tisement (how does the tourism advertiser represent the
destination?); (2) tourism advertisement/potential tourist
(how does the potential tourist interpret the representa-
tions?); and (3) destination/potential tourist (what is sym-
bolic consumption experience offered to the tourist by
the destination?). Eventually, semiotic research in
tourism marketing needs to address all of the relation-
ships represented by the sides of the triangle.
This framework is useful for highlighting gaps in exist-
ing semiotic research and for guiding the direction of
future studies. The review of previous research indicates
that each side of the semiotic triangle has not been
adequately examined to date. Therefore, in the next sec-
tion, several suggestions for future research are presented.
6. Suggestions for future research
Research suggestions are first presented in relation to
individual sides of the tourism semiotic triangle. This
discussion is followed by recommendations for studies
that integrate several sides of the triangle.
6.1. Destination/tourism advertisement semiotic research:
how does the tourism advertiser represent the destination?
The studies by Dann (1993, 1996a,b), Cohen (1989),
Urbain (1989) and Uzzell (1984) are pioneering efforts in
the examination of the semiotics of tourism advertising.
54 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
However, there remains ample opportunity to conduct
further semiotic inquiry in this area. Some specific sug-
gestions for future research examining the use of sign
systems in tourism advertising are provided below:
(1) A semiotic analysis of specific types of destinations
could be conducted in order to uncover the types of signs
used and the frequency of their usage. For example, the
brochures of various ‘sun/sand’ destinations, ‘skiing’ des-
tinations or ‘urban’ destinations could be examined and
analysed to determine their unique sign systems and
structure.
(2) The promotional material, in all its forms, for one
destination could be examined to determine the types
and frequencies of signs used. A primary objective of the
study could be to determine whether there are any incon-
sistencies and conflicts in the image created by the sign
systems presented in the various promotional materials.
A related area of research could focus on whether the
meanings of the materials are the same for their pro-
ducers and consumers.
(3) A temporal (longitudinal) analysis of the use of
signs in tourism advertising could be undertaken. This
type of study could examine how the use of signs in
tourism advertising has changed over time. Similar stud-
ies have been undertaken in other forms of advertising
and have provided interesting reflections of the changing
motivations and needs of consumers or producers (Leiss
et al., 1990; Wernick, 1991). This research would involve
a departure from the more traditional synchronic ap-
proach advocated by Saussure.
(4) Much of the semiotic research to date has been
conducted on brochures. While Cohen’s (1989) study is
a notable exception, further semiotic studies need to be
undertaken for alternate forms of promotional media,
such as print advertisements, television advertisements,
billboards, on-sight promotional displays, videos and the
Internet. Dann (1996b) cites examples of work in some of
these areas. However, additional studies are needed, es-
pecially research addressing if and how all of these types
of promotional tourism sign systems are interrelated.
6.2. Tourism advertisement/potential tourist semiotic
research: How does the potential tourist interpret the
representations?
This type of research is concerned with understanding
the interpretation of the signs used in destination market-
ing. While there has been considerable research concern-
ing destination image (Crompton, 1977; Echtner, 1991;
Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Gartner, 1989; Hunt, 1975;
Kale & Weir, 1986; Pearce, 1982; Reilly, 1990), these
studies do not specifically address the use of sign systems
(semiotics) in advertising to convey image to potential
tourists.
In this branch of semiotic research, destination adver-
tisements (brochures, print, television advertisements,
etc.) could be presented to potential tourists. Questions
might concern both the ‘gestalt’ impression communic-
ated by the advertisement and the meanings conveyed by
specific signs (icons, indices, symbols). The primary goals
of such studies would be to understand the semiotic
relationship between tourism representations, in this case
advertisements, and interpretants. Again Dann (1996b)
provides some examples of work in this area, but it is
evident that there is much scope for future research.
6.3. Destination/potential tourist semiotic research:
what is symbolic consumption experience offered by the
destination?
This is an important area of study because it provides
information concerning the symbolic nature of the
tourism destination experience. Semiotic research could
provide an understanding of how various types of vaca-
tion experiences and destinations are used to symboli-
cally express self-concept, personal ambitions, status and
social roles.
While Brown (1992) provides an interesting discussion
paper on the subject of symbolic consumption, there has
been no empirical research in the tourism marketing
literature to date. Related areas of marketing research
include studies of travel motivation (Crompton, 1979;
Dann, 1981; Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983) and studies
examining satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the vacation
experience (Chon & Olsen, 1991; Maddox, 1985; Pizam
et al., 1978; Van Raaij & Francken, 1984). However,
while these studies provide insights into certain aspects of
tourism behaviour (motivations, expectations, satisfac-
tion), they do not directly examine symbolic consumption.
The examination of symbolic consumption from
a marketing perspective presents interesting challenges
for tourism researchers. It draws upon concepts and
methods from several social sciences, most notably psy-
chology, sociology and anthropology. Several sugges-
tions to accomplish such studies are outlined below:
1. The symbolic experience of travel to specific destina-
tions or destination types (e.g. sun destinations, urban
destinations, nature destinations) could be studied on
location by using ethnographic methods. In an ethno-
graphic study, the researcher could observe how tour-
ists enact actual or aspired social roles and status
through vacation behaviour. Observation (or partici-
pant observation) could be supplemented by in-depth
interviewing.
2. The above in situ studies are time consuming and
expensive. Another option is the use of in-depth inter-
viewing or projective techniques to probe for the
symbolic meaning of various types of vacation experi-
ences. A specific destination, or destination type, could
be presented to participants (either individuals or
groups). In-depth interviewing, projective techniques,
 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
and/or group discussion could then be used to probe
for the symbolic meanings provided by the particular
destination or destination type.
3. Although studies of the relationship between self-im-
age, destination image and destination choice have
been undertaken by Chon and Olsen (1990) and Smith
(1990), further research in this area is needed. Future
research could address the question of how people
attempt to symbolize themselves in the destinations
they choose. In addition, the influences of personality
type and self-concept in destination choice have not
been fully explored.
6.4. Integrated semiotic research in tourism
The suggestions provided in the previous three sec-
tions are only a few examples of the possible applications
of semiotics to tourism marketing. While there is a dem-
onstrated need for research in each of the three areas,
studies integrating two or more sides of the tourism
semiotic triangle are also required. Indeed, a research
project tracing the entire semiotic process from advert-
ising design to consumer interpretation to symbolic con-
sumption would be a highly worthwhile, albeit time and
cost intensive, endeavour.
It cannot be assumed that the meaning of promotional
signs is the same for the producers (the advertising agen-
cies), the various segments of potential consumers (the
tourists) and the people who live in the destination. This
‘multi-vocality’of the tourism sign system is another in-
teresting area for future integrated semiotic research.
The focus of this discussion has been on semiotic
research involving destinations or destination types.
Clearly, there is also a need for semiotic research on the
marketing activities of individual components of the
tourism system, such as attractions, events, accommoda-
tion facilities, transportation companies, tour companies,
etc. An integration of such microlevel semiotic research
with more macrolevel semiotic research at the destina-
tion level is also desirable.
Finally, as emphasized previously, it is important to
remember that the meanings of sign systems are deter-
mined by social convention. Although a few signs may be
universally recognized and interpreted, this is not usually
the case — sign systems are culturally bound. Since
tourism is a cross-cultural experience and depends heav-
ily on international marketing, semiotic studies need to
be conducted across various cultural settings. Integrated,
multi-cultural studies are necessary to more completely
understand the semiotics of tourism marketing.
7. Limitations of semiotics: a post-script
Like any paradigm, semiotics is subject to limitations.
While a ‘process’ is outlined in this paper, as mentioned
55
previously, the semiotic/structuralist approach allows
considerable analytic freedom and creativity in terms of
methods and procedures. As long as the research
methods are guided by the overarching ontology and
epistemology of semiotics, which have the effect of focus-
ing on structure and signification, then they cannot be
labelled as inappropriate. Thus, in view of the lack of an
acknowledged procedure and objective criteria, ques-
tions often arise on how to validate the outcome of any
given semiotic analysis. This uneasiness tends to be parti-
cularly pronounced with those researchers more com-
fortable with positivist paradigms.
On another end of the spectrum, semioticians have
been criticized for their preoccupation with uncovering
‘fixed’ characteristics and structure. In particular,
semiotics creates uncomfortable boundaries for post-
structuralists and post-modernists. Under these ‘post’-
paradigms, sign systems and meanings become slippery,
with shifting structures and unending meanings within
meanings. As such, the semiotic process, as outlined in
this paper, would be regarded as too formalized and
would be inadequate to deconstruct and unpack signifi-
cation viewed under amorphous ‘post’ conditions.
In addition, semiotics has often been criticized for its
disregard to historical context and power issues. Advo-
cates of more critical paradigms, such as post-colonial-
ism and feminism, often point out that the processes of
signification are power-related. While some tourism
papers have addressed these concerns (Adams, 1984;
Britton, 1979; Cooper, 1994; Marshment, 1997; Thurot
& Thurot, 1983), there is scope for much additional
research in these areas in the future.
8. Concluding thoughts
Innovative ideas and insights often result from em-
ploying alternative approaches. This paper has drawn
its inspiration from the paradigm of semiotics, the
study of the structure of sign systems. This paradigm
provides an ontological and methodological frame-
work for the deeper understanding and interpretation
of the sign systems prevalent in the tourism phenomenon.
But, despite its usefulness, semiotic research in all areas
of tourism remains to be explored. This paper has pro-
vided a framework to encourage future research in the
application of semiotics to in one area of study, namely
tourism marketing. However, similar research frame-
works could be fruitfully developed and pursued in all
social science disciplines studying the tourism phenom-
enon. As such, semiotics is an approach that offers
many future challenges and rewards for tourism re-
searchers. It is hoped that this paper has served to ignite
interest and provide ideas for the future application of
this very significant paradigm.
56 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the Social Science
and Humanities Research Council of Canada for provid-
ing funding to support this research.
References
Adams, K. (1984). Come to Tana Toraja ‘Land of the Heavenly Kings’:
Travel agents as brokers in ethnicity. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 11,
469—485.
Adler, J. (1989). Origins of sightseeing. Annals of ¹ourism Research,
16(1), 7—29.
Barthes, R. (1984). Mythologies. London: Paladin.
Barthes, R. (1985). ¹he fashion system. London: Cape.
Barthes, R. (1988). ¹he semiotic challenge. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Berger, A. (1984). Signs in contemporary culture. New York: Longman
Inc.
Berger, A. (1986). What’s in a sign? Decoding magazine advertising (A
primer). In L. M. Henny (Ed.), Semiotics of advertisements. Aachen,
The Netherlands: Rader Verlag.
Bertrand, D. (1988). The creation of complicity: A semiotic analysis of
an advertising campaign for black & white whisky. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 4(3), 272—289.
Britton, R. (1979). The image of third world tourism in marketing.
Annals of ¹ourism Research, 6, 318—329.
Brown, G. (1992). Tourism and symbolic consumption. In P. Johnson,
& B. Thomas (Eds.), Choice and demand in tourism. London: Mansell
Publishing.
Chon, K., & Olsen, M. D. (1991). Functional and symbolic congruity
approaches to consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction in tourism. Jour-
nal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research, 3, 2—22.
Cohen, E. (1989). Primitive and remote: Hill tribe trekking in Thailand.
Annals of ¹ourism Research, 16(1), 30—61.
Cooper, D. (1994). Portraits of Paradise: Themes and images of the
tourist industry. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 22,
144—160.
Crompton, J. L. (1977). A systems model of the tourist’s destination
selection decision process with particular reference to the role of image
and perceived constraints. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College
Station, Texas: Texas A & M University.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of
¹ourism Research, 6(4), 408—424.
Dann, G.M.S. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of
¹ourism Research, 8(2), 187—219.
Dann, G. M. S. (1993). Advertising in tourism and travel: Tourism
brochures. In M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), »NRs
encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Dann, G. M. S. (1996a). The people of tourist brochures. In T. Selwyn
(Ed.), ¹he tourist image: Myths and myth making in tourism. London:
Wiley.
Dann, G. M. S. (1996b). ¹he language of tourism. Wallingford, UK:
CAB International.
Deely, J. (1990). Basics of semiotics. Bloomington, USA: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
Durgee, J. F., & Stuart, R. W. (1987). Advertising symbols and brand
names that best represent key product meanings. ¹he Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 4(3), 15—24.
Echtner, C. M., (1991). ¹he measurement of tourism destination image.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destina-
tion image: An empirical assessment. Journal of ¹ravel Research,
31(4), 3—13.
Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, Indiana: University
of Indiana Press.
Evans-Pritchard, D. (1989). How they see us: Native American images
of tourists. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 16(1), 89—105.
Fiol, C. M. (1991). Seeing the empty spaces: Towards a more complex
understanding of the meaning of power in organizations. Organiza-
tion Studies, 12, 547—566.
Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies. London: Rout-
ledge.
Freud, S. (1973). ¹he interpretation of dreams. London: Hogarth
Gartner, W. C. (1989). Tourism image: Attribute measurement of state
tourism products using multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal
of ¹ravel Research, 28(2), 16—20.
Hall, S. (1980). Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson.
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and
signifying practice. London: Sage.
Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. London: Methuen
& Co. Ltd.
Henny, L. M. (Ed.). (1986). Semiotics of advertisements. Aachen, The
Netherlands: Rader Verlag.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1993). ¹he semiotics of consump-
tion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hunt, J. D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of
¹ravel Research, 13(3), 1—7.
Jules-Rosette, B. (1984). ¹he messages of tourist art: An African semiotic
system in comparative perspective. New York: Plenum Press.
Jung, C. (1956). Symbols of transformation. New York: Panthenon.
Kale, S. H., & Weir, K. M. (1986). Marketing third world countries to
the western traveller: The case of India. Journal of ¹ravel Research,
25(2), 2—7.
Kaushik, M., & Sen, A. (1990). Semiotics and qualitative research.
Journal of the Market Research Society, 32(2), 227—242.
Kehret-Ward, T. (1988). Using a semiotic approach to study the con-
sumption of functionally related products. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 4(3), 187—200.
Kinch, J. W. (1967). A formalized theory of self-concept. In J. G. Manis,
& G. N. Meltzer, (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: A reader in social
psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Langholz Leymore, V. (1975). Hidden myth. London: Heinemann.
Leigh, J. H., & Gabel, T. G. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: Its effects
on consumer behavior and implications for marketing strategy. Jour-
nal of Consumer Marketing, 9(1), 27—38.
Leiss, W., Kiln, S., & Jhally, S. (1990). Social communication in advert-
ising. Scarborough, Canada: Nelson Canada.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. New York: Basic
Books.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37,
117—124.
MacCannell, D. (1989). ¹he tourist: A new theory of the leisure class.
New York: Schocken Books.
MacCannell, D. (Ed.). (1989). Semiotics of tourism. Annals of ¹ourism
Research, 16(1) (special issue).
Maddox, R. N. (1985). Measuring satisfaction with tourism. Journal of
¹ravel Research, 24(3), 2—5.
Manning, P. K. (1987). Semiotics and fieldwork. Newbury Park, Califor-
nia: Sage Publications.
Marshment, M. (1997). Gender takes a holiday: Representation in
holiday brochures. In M.T. Sinclair (Ed.), Gender, work and tourism
(pp. 16—34). New York: Routledge.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the
morphology of signs, symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 196—213.
Mick, D. G., Demoss, M., & Faber, R. J. (1992). A projective study of
motivations and meanings of self-gifts: Implications for retail man-
agement. Journal of Retailing, 68(2), 122—144.
 C.M. Echtner / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 47—57
Moeran, B. (1983). The language of Japanese tourism. Annals of ¹ourism
Research, 10(1), 93—108.
Noth, W. (1990). ¹he handbook of semiotics. Bloomington, USA: In-
diana University Press.
Pearce, P. L., (1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals
of ¹ourism Research, 9, 145—164.
Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation
from travellers’ experiences. Journal of ¹ravel Research, 22(2), 16—20.
Peirce, C.S. (1934). Collected papers, (vol. 5). Cambridge: Harvard
University.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist
satisfaction with a destination area. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 5(3),
314—322.
Reilly, M. D. (1990). Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism
image assessment. Journal of ¹ravel Research, 28(4), 21—26.
Rose, A. M. (Ed.). (1962). Human behavior and social processes: An
interactionist approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Saussure, F. (1916/1966). Cour de ¸inguistic Generale (Course in General
¸inguistics), (W. Baskin, Trans.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Selwyn, T. (1993). Peter Pan in South-East Asia: Views from brochures.
In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. J. G. Parnwell (Eds.), ¹ourism in
South-East Asia. London: Routledge.
Silverman, K. (1983). ¹he subject of semiotics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, S. L. J. (1990). A test of Plog’s allocentric/psychocentric model:
Evidence from seven nations. Journal of ¹ravel Research, 28(4), 40—43.
57
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A sym-
bolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10,
319—329.
Solomon, M. R., & Assael, H. (1987). The forest or the trees?: A Gestalt
approach to symbolic consumption. In J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Mar-
keting and semiotics: New directions in the study of signs for sale.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweet, J. D. (1989). Burlesquing the other in Pueblo performance.
Annals of ¹ourism Research, 16(1), 62—75.
Thurot, J. M., & Thurot, G. (1983). The ideology of class and tourism:
Confronting the discourse of advertising. Annals of ¹ourism Research,
10(1), 173—189.
Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Ed.). (1987). Marketing and semiotics: New direc-
tions in the study of signs for sale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Urbain, J. (1989). The tourist adventure and his images. Annals of
¹ourism Research, 16(1), 106—188.
Uzzell, D. (1984). An alternative structuralist approach to the
psychology of tourism marketing. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 11,
79—99.
Van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation decisions, activ-
ities and satisfaction. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 11, 101—112.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture: Advertising, ideology and sym-
bolic expression. London: Sage Publications.
Zakia, R. D. (1986). Adverteasement. Semiotica, 59, 1—11.
Zakia, R. D., & Nadin, M. (1987). Semiotics, advertising and marketing.
¹he Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(2), 5—12.