This study aims to examine the effectiveness of figurative versus literal language in historical storytelling in cultural tourism. It investigates how these language styles interact with presenter type (digital vs human), interpreter expertise (novice vs expert) and historical experience orientation (recreational vs educational) to influence tourist responses.
Three scenario-based experiments were conducted with American and Chinese participants respectively. Study 1 (n = 207) tested the interaction between language style and presenter type in a museum context. Study 2 (n = 220) explored the moderating role of interpreter expertise in a historical exhibit setting. Study 3 (n = 249) examined how historical experience orientation shapes language effectiveness. Mediation analyses assessed the roles of language typicality and authenticity.
Figurative language enhances tourist responses (e.g. visit intentions, attitudes) when used by digital presenters, whereas literal language is more effective with human presenters; contrary to predictions derived from the Language Expectancy Theory (LET), novice interpreters benefit from figurative language, while experts are more effective with literal language; Recreational experiences are more compelling with figurative language, whereas educational experiences favor literal language; language typicality and perceived authenticity serially mediate these effects in Study 1 and 3, but the sequential mediation exists only for novice but not expert presenters as shown in Study 2.
Theoretically, this study extends LET by revealing divergent language expectations for human versus digital communicators; challenges LET’s assumption of preexisting norms by showing that ambiguous norms in reality could cause different responses from those based on a priori norm; and demonstrates that authenticity can be constructed by language typicality. Practically, this research empowers tourism professionals to strategically adapt language styles to context, speaker type and experience orientation.
