The Malaysian government has designated 2007 as visit Malaysia year. The country is expected to attract more than 20 million visitors and earn about RM50 billion from

tourism related activities. An important component in the tourism industry is the human resource. The human resource factor plays an eminent role in promoting the image of the

country as a top tourism spot. Tourists do not just come for the facilities and attractions. They want to be treated right and well. A good command of the English language is

always regarded as an asset for personnel in the tourism industry since most visitors do not speak Bahasa Melayu, the national language. However, the preference for those with good English proficiency will burden the recruitment of hotel personnel. This paper will present the findings of a study conducted employing the questionnaire survey and

interview methods to investigate the relative role of English language proficiency in the choice of holiday destination. It was found that the role of English language proficiency in the tourism industry is prominent. It is a factor that could affect choice of hotel and satisfaction of stay. However, the results obtained indicate that the role and importance of the English language in the tourism industry is relative to job function

Abdullah, Syaharom

Rao, Ravantharanathe

English

UUM Repository

 The Role of the English Language in the Tourism Industry Ravantharanathe RaoFaculty of Communication and Modern LanguagesUniversiti Utara MalaysiaKedah, Malaysiarao@uum.edu.mySyaharom AbdullahUniversiti  Malaysia PerlisPerlis, Malaysiadrsyaharom@hotmail.com  1THE ROLE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRYABSTRACT The Malaysian government has designated 2007 as visit Malaysia year. The country isexpected to attract more than 20 million visitors and earn about RM50 billion fromtourism related activities. An important component in the tourism industry is the humanresource. The human resource factor plays an eminent role in promoting the image of thecountry as a top tourism spot. Tourists do not just come for the facilities and attractions.They want to be treated right and well. A good command of the English language isalways regarded as an asset for personnel in the tourism industry since most visitors donot speak Bahasa Melayu, the national language. However, the preference for those withgood English proficiency will burden the recruitment of hotel personnel. This paper willpresent  the  findings  of  a  study  conducted  employing  the  questionnaire  survey  andinterview methods to investigate the relative role of English language proficiency in thechoice of holiday destination. It was found that the role of English language proficiencyin the tourism industry is prominent.  It is a factor that could affect choice of hotel andsatisfaction of stay. However, the results obtained indicate that the role and importance ofthe English language in the tourism industry is relative to job function. INTRODUCTION The tourism industry is fast becoming an important revenue generator for Malaysia. Itwas  another  record  breaking  year  as  Malaysia  registered  17.54  million  visitors(17,546,863) in 2006, slightly surpassing the target of 17.5 million. This is an overallincrease of 6.8% compared to the previous year. The total tourist receipts for 2006 wasRM36.2 billion, an increase of about 13% compared to 2005. This is, however, RM1.4billion less than the targeted figure of RM37.6 billion (Tourism Malaysia, 2007). 2007has been designated by the Malaysian government as Visit Malaysia Year with the theme“Celebrating 50 Years of nationhood”. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, YAB Dato' SeriAbdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi officially launched the Visit Malaysia Year (VMY) 2007at 8pm on 6 January 2007, during a grand ceremony in Taman Tasik Titiwangsa, KualaLumpur. The country is expected to attract more than 20 millions visitors and to earnabout 50 billion Ringgit from tourism related activities (Tourism Malaysia, 2006) thisyear.   2Enticing the tourists to visit MalaysiaMany factors are involved in the making of a country a tourist preferred destination. Boththe government and the private sectors must work hand in hand. The people in the frontline, from the immigration officers to the chambermaid are capable of making the visitorsfeel that they have chosen the right vacation destination.The hotel industry is a service based industry, and as such, the human factor is of majorimportance.  Only  with  the  complementary  effort  of  the  hotel  staff  and  physicalinfrastructure  can  hotels  and  resorts  achieve  their  maximum  attraction.  The  need  tosecure good calibre employees coupled with the expansion the tourism industry havecreated a shortage of ‘employable’ employees. In the selection of hotel staff, the languagefactor has a prominent role. In general, only those who have a reasonably good commandof the English language are favoured.The emphasis on language proficiency is understandable. Language not only is a meansfor  establishing  a  communication  but  also  is  a  vehicle  for  fostering  relationship.Language, when use properly can generate a very favourable impression. However, whenit is used ‘wrongly’, it can produce a disastrous response. It is a sword that can cut bothways. Therefore, the personnel in the tourism industry, especially the front liners, mustpossess  the  level  of  language  proficiency  that  will  allow  them  to  use  the  languageeffectively.  It has also been pointed out that the level of language proficiency neededdepends very much on the relative importance of the language factor as perceived by thepeople who matter, the tourists. This study was conducted to examine the perceivedimportance of language proficiency in the tourism industry.Objectives of the study 1. To ascertain the relative importance of the language factor in generating tourist’ssatisfaction.2. To evaluate the relative importance of the language factor in the recruitment theman-power requirement in the tourism industry.METHODOLOGY Methods and instrumentThe interview and questionnaire survey methods were used to gather data for the study. Aquestionnaire developed by the researchers was usedSample Fifty one randomly selected English speaking foreign and local tourists staying at fourfive star resorts in Langkawi were used in the survey and interview. However, only 42 ofthe questionnaire completed could be used in the analysis. Foreign tourists have beenfound  to  prefer  resort  island  such  as  Langkawi,  Pulau Tioman,  Pulau Pangkor, etc.However, Langkawi, with its physical beauty and legendary myth, is the favourite among  3them. It is reflected by the number of luxurious resort hotels found on the island anddirect international flights to the island. This is the main criterion for using it in the study.Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were generated using SPSS to examine the relative importance ofthe various factors investigated. The Chi-Square coefficient was used to determine thesignificance. FINDINGS Country of OriginThe forty-two respondents were from, rough categorized, seven regions of the globe. Thedistribution of respondents by country of origin is given in Table 1.Table 1Frequency distribution of respondents by country of originCountry Number % Europe 19 45.2 Australia/New Zealand 5 11.9 Japan/Hong Kong /Taiwan 1 2.4 India/Pakistan 1 2.4 ASEAN 13 31.0 Africa/South Africa 2 4.8 Canada 1 2.4 TOTAL 42 100 Factor Affecting Choice of Resort/HotelThe responses to the questions on the general factors that affect the choice of resort/hotel(see table 2) show that the location of the resort/hotel was the most considered factor(98%) in the choosing process, hotel amenities the second most considered (57%) andquality of service the third most considered (50%).  4Table 2Frequency distribution of selection of factors affecting choice of resort/hotel Factor Number % Hotel amenities 24 57.1 Architectural design 13 31.0 Quality of service 21 50.0 Room rates 18 42.9 Room appointment 17 40.5 Location 41 97.6 Quietness* 1 2.4 Cleanliness* 3 7.1 Privacy* 1 2.4 Word-of-mouth 1 2.4 * Provided by respondents Ranking of the Factors Affecting the Choice of Resort/HotelTo compare the relative influence of the six given factors, the respondents were asked torank them using 1 to 6. The ranking is shown in Table 3 below. The location factor wasranked the most important, the quality of service as the second most, and hotel amenitiesas the third most in terms of the mean ranking received. These were followed by roomappointment,  room  rates,  and  architectural  design  in  that  order.  The  mean  rankingsreceived by the top three factors were very close and with a standard deviation of morethan 1, caution is needed in interpreting the results.Table 3The mean, mode and standard deviation of the ranking of factors affecting choice ofresort/hotel Location Quality of serviceHotelamenitiesRoomappointmentRoom ratesArchitecturaldesignMean 2.02 2.78 2.95 3.81 4.17 4.74 Mode 1 3 2 3 5 6 S.D. 1.55 1.35 1.37 1.40 1.55 1.46 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 Note; 1 – Most important, 6 – least importantThe actual distribution of ranking is as shown in Table 4. All the distributions weresignificant at the p <. 05 levels   5Table 4Frequency distribution of ranking of factors affecting choice of resort/hotel 1 2 3 4 5 6 N _2Location 25 4 7 2 2 1 41 74.66 Quality  of service 9 9 11 6 6 41 2.29 Hotel amenities 4 17 6 10 2 3 42 22.85 Room appointment 9 11 8 7 7 42 1.33 Room rates 3 4 5 8 11 9 40 7.40 Architectural design 1 4 3 4 11 16 39 25.46 Note: 1 – the most important, 6 – the least importantN – total number of respondent_ – Chi-square coefficient2The Ranking of Personal Qualities of the Various Groups of Hotel Staff To gauge the relative importance of the personal qualities of the various group of hotelpersonnel,  the  participants  were  asked  to  rank  four  qualities  which  are  pleasantdisposition, English language proficiency, courtesy, and service oriented from the mostimportant to the least important. The distribution of the ranking is as shown in the Tablesbelow. Table 5A Distribution of the rankingPersonnel: Waiter Pleasant dispositionEnglishlanguageproficiencyCourtesy Serviceoriented* 1 13 (33%) 4 (10.3%) 13 (33.3%) 17 (40.5%) 2 11 (28.2) 8 (20.5%) 14 (35.9%) 12 (28.6%) 3 6 (15.4%) 12 (30.8%) 6 (15.4%) 10 (23.8%) 4 9 (23.1%) 15 (38.5%) 6 (15.4%) 3 (7.1%) N 39 39 39 42 Mean 2.28 2.97 2.12 1.97 Mode 1 4 2 1 SD 1.16 1.01 1.05 0.97 Obtained ranking 3 4 2 1   6Table 5B Distribution of rankingPersonnel: Receptionist Pleasant disposition*EnglishlanguageproficiencyCourtesy Serviceoriented 1 20 (50.0%) 11 (28.2%) 13 (32.5%) 8 (21.1%) 2 7 (17.5%) 11 (28.2%) 13 (32.5%) 9 (23.7%) 3 6 (15.0%) 11 (28.2%) 7 (17.5%) 10 (26.3%) 4 7 (17.5%) 6 (15.4%) 7 (17.5%) 11 (28.9%) N 40 39 40 38 Mean 2.00 2.30 2.20 2.63 Mode 1 1 1 4 SD 1.17 1.05 1.09 1.12 Obtained ranking 1 3 3 4 Table 5C Distribution of rankingPersonnel: Management personnelPleasant dispositionEnglishlanguageproficiencyCourtesy Serviceoriented 1 12 (32.4%0 14 (37.8%) 7 (18.4%) 14 (35.0%) 2 4 (10.8%) 11 (29.7%) 13 (34.2%) 12 (30.0%) 3 7 (18.9%) 7 (18.9%) 13 (34.2%) 7 (17.5%) 4 14 (37.8%) 5 (13.5%) 5 (13.2%) 7 (17.5%) N 37 37 38 40 Mean 2.61 2.08 2.42 2.17 Mode 4 1 2 1 SD 1.29 1.06 0.94 1.1 Obtained ranking 3 1 4 2 Table 5D Distribution of rankingPersonnel: Reservation Pleasant disposition*Englishlanguageproficiency*Courtesy Serviceoriented 1 7 (20.0%) 21 (53.8%) 7 (19.4%) 10 (29.4%) 2 9 (25.7%) 10 (25.6%) 13 (36.1%) 5 (14.7%) 3 2 (5.7%) 6 (15.4%) 12 (33.3%) 11 (32.4%) 4 17 (48.6%) 2 (5.1%) 4 (11.1%) 8 (23.5%) N 35 39 36 34 Mean 2.82 1.71 2.36 2.50 Mode 4 1 2 3 SD 1.24 0.91 0.93 1.16 Obtained ranking 4 1 2 3   7Table 5E Distribution of rankingPersonnel: Activity coordinator Pleasant dispositionEnglishlanguageproficiencyCourtesy Serviceoriented 1 14 (38.9%) 8 (22.9%) 5 (14.7%) 14 (37.8%) 2 8 (22.2%) 15 (42.9%) 10 (29.4%) 8 (21.6%) 3 5 (13.9%) 7 (20.0%) 13 (38.2%) 6 (16.2%) 4 9 (25.0%) 5 (14.3%) 6 (17.6%) 9 (24.3%) N 36 35 34 37 Mean 2.15 2.26 2.58 2.27 Mode 1 2 3 1 SD 1.22 0.98 0.95 1.21 Obtained ranking 1 2 4 3 Table 5F Distribution of rankingPersonnel: Housekeeping staff Pleasant disposition*Englishlanguageproficiency*Courtesy* Serviceoriented* 1 7 (18.9%) 2 (5.6%) 7 (18.4%) 26 (63.4%) 2 9 (24.3%) 2 (5.6%) 19 (50.0%) 10 (24.4%) 3 17 (45.9%) 7 (19.4%) 9 (23.7%) 3 (7.3%0 4 4 (10.8%) 25 (69.4%) 3 (7.9%) 2 (4.9%) N 37 36 38 41 Mean 2.48 3.52 2.21 1.53 Mode 3 4 2 1 SD 0.93 0.85 0.84 0.84 Obtained ranking 3 4 2 1 Note: 1 – the most important, 4 – the least importantN – total number of respondentObtained ranking – based on mean obtained* - significant at the p< .05 levelThe obtained ranking which was based on the mean obtained, fairly clearly showed thathotel guests did have different expectations for different hotel personnel. The mode of thedistribution is, however, a more accurate reflection of the perceived relative importanceof the qualities evaluated. For  a  waiter,  ‘pleasant  disposition’  and  ‘service  oriented’  were  considered  as  mostimportant (ranked as 1), ‘courtesy’ as the second most important, and ‘English languageproficiency’ as the least important (ranked as 4) by the respondents (refer to Table 5A).However, only the ranking for ‘service oriented’ was significant at the p< .05 level.   8For a receptionist, ‘pleasant disposition’, ‘English proficiency’, and ‘courtesy’  wereranked  as  the  most  important.  The  quality  ‘service  oriented’  was  ranked  the  leastimportant  (refer  to  Table  5B).  Only  the  distribution  for  ‘pleasant  disposition’  wassignificant at the p< .05 level. For management personnel, ‘English language proficiency’ and ‘service oriented’ wereranked as the most important. ‘Courtesy’ was ranked 2 and ‘pleasant disposition’ as 4.None of the distribution was significant.For a reservation staff, ‘English language proficiency’, ‘courtesy’, ‘service oriented’ and‘pleasant  disposition’  were  ranked  as  1,2,3,  and  4  respectively.  Only  ‘pleasantdisposition’ and ‘English language proficiency’ were significant at the p< .05 level. For an activity coordinator, ‘pleasant disposition’ and ‘service oriented’ were ranked as 1,‘English language proficiency’ as 2, and ‘courtesy’ as 3. None of the distribution wassignificant. For  a  house  keeping  staff,  ‘courtesy’,  ‘pleasant  disposition’,  ‘service  oriented’,  and‘English  language  proficiency’  were  ranked  as  1,  2,  3,  and  4  respectively.  All  thedistributions were significant at the p < .05 level.Level of English Language Proficiency RequiredTable 6 below shows the distribution of the level of English proficiency that is perceivedto be sufficient for the various hotel personnel.Reasonably good Good Very good N Waiter 24 (58.5%) 16 (39.0%) 1 (2.4%) 41 Receptionist 13 (31.7%) 26 (63.4%) 2 (4.9%) 41 Management personnel13 (31.7%) (22 (53.7%) 6 (14.6%) 42 Reservation staff 15 (36.6%) 20 (48.8%) 6 (14.6%) 42 Activity coordinator 17 (43.6%) 21 (53.8%) 1 (2.6%) 39 Housekeep staff 29 (72.5%) 7 (17.5%) 4 (10.0%) 40 Note: N – total number of respondentsThe  general  trend  observed  from  the  responses  seems  to  point  towards  differentrequirements. For waiters and housekeeping staff, a reasonably good command of theEnglish  language  proficiency  was  thought  sufficient,  whereas  for  the  receptionists,management  personnel,  reservation  staff  and activity  coordinator,  a level of  at least‘good’  was  suggested  by  more  than  half  of  the  respondents.  About  15%  of  therespondents thought that reservation staff and management personnel must possess a very  9good level of English language proficiency. All the distributions were significant at the p<.05 level. The Impact of English Language Proficiency of Hotel Staff on Choice of Hotel andSatisfaction of Stay The  respondents  were  asked  whether  their  choice  of  hotel/resort  and  stay  would  beaffected by the use of ‘survival English’ by hotel staff members. Slightly more than halfof the respondents said that they would be affected. The distribution of responses was asshown in Table 7 below. None of the distribution was significant at the .05 level. Table 7Frequency distribution of responses to the questions “Choice of hotel would be affectedby the use of  ‘survival’ English” and “Satisfaction of stay would be affected by the useof  ‘survival’ English” Yes No N Choice of hotel 16 (38.1%) 26 (61.9%) 42 Satisfaction of stay 20 (47%) 22 (56%) 42 About two thirds (76%) of the respondents thought that it was essential for them to beable to do so. However, in the interview with the researchers, many of the respondentsqualified that it was an asset to be able to speak good English. The distribution wasshown in Table 8 below. The distribution was significant at the p < .05 level.Table 8Frequency distribution of responses to the question “good English is essential for hotelstaff” Yes No N Essential to havegood English 32 (76%) 10 (24%) 42 DISCUSSION A tourist’s choice of holiday accommodation appears to be affected by several factors,with ‘location’, ‘hotel amenities’, and ‘quality of service’ as the three most consideredand important factors. As to the importance of the personal qualities such as ‘pleasantdisposition’, ‘courtesy’, ‘English language proficiency’, and ‘service oriented attitude’that form the foundation of the quality of service rendered, they seem to differ accordingto the job function of a hotel staff member.The role of English language proficiency in the tourism industry is prominent.  It isconsidered as a factor that could affect choice of hotel and satisfaction of stay. However,the results obtained indicate that the role and importance of the English language in thetourism industry is relative to job function. It is more important for those who do notoften come into direct face-to-face contact with hotel guests such as the reservation staff  10and hotel management personnel. For hotel staff who often comes into direct contact withhotel guests, qualities such as pleasant disposition, courtesy, and ‘service oriented’ areviewed  as  more  important  by  hotel  guests.  Hotel  guests  expected  different  level  ofEnglish language proficiency from the various groups of hotel personnel. In short, theguest’s expectation of English language proficiency is relative in nature. CONCLUSION The  results,  as  a  whole,  suggest  that  the  role  of  the  English  language  should  beappropriately considered in the recruitment of hotel personnel. The emphasis on Englishlanguage proficiency should be based on the nature of job. For the staff members who arein direct contact with guests most of the time, qualities such as ‘courtesy’ and ‘pleasantdisposition’ should be given higher priority than language proficiency. An equal stresswould only hinder the recruitment process and consequently, affect the quality of serviceprovided by a hotel as it would having difficulty employing sufficient number of staff.The results of this study, however, must be viewed with some reservation. The number ofrespondents in the study was comparatively small and the location was only limited toone resort island. The language used in the questionnaire might have also affected theresponses of the guests from countries where English is not the native language. REFERENCES Tourism Malaysia, (2006), retrieved March 9, 2007 from http://www.tourism.gov.my.

The role of the English language in the tourism industry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UUM Repository