A piece of Thailand recontextualized in Hong Kong: a linguistic and semiotic landscape account of “Little Thailand” in Kowloon city

1 Introduction

Linguistic and semiotic landscape research (Backhaus 2006; Blackwood 2018; Jaworski and Thurlow 2010) presents a unique perspective to help us understand not just the linguistic but also the sociocultural, economic, sexual, religious, and ethnic dimensions of our increasingly complex and diverse societies (Ben-Rafael et al. 2006; Cenoz and Gorter 2006; Krase and Shortell 2011; Motschenbacher 2020). An analysis of a place’s linguistic and semiotic landscape promises to shed useful light on a place’s sociolinguistic realities and ethnolinguistic make-up in the changing context of our contemporary social life (Gu 2026). It makes it possible to understand how various linguistic and semiotic resources might combine to give a place its image and identity.

In our highly globalized, interconnected, and increasingly mobile world (Cresswell 2006; Vertovec 2007), people from one ethnolinguistic and sociocultural background might increasingly choose to temporarily or permanently live, work, and do business in another part of the world. As a result of this movement of people for historical, sociopolitical, and economic reasons, various ethnic enclaves or ethnic communities have come into being across the globe. Examples of such ethnic enclaves include Chinatowns (Amos 2016; Ding 2023; Lou 2016; Pan 2024; Song 2024; Wu et al. 2020) in the UK (e.g. London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Newcastle), North America (e.g. New York and San Francisco), Australia (e.g. Melbourne), and Southeast Asia (e.g. Thailand and Malaysia). Other examples of ethnic enclaves are “Little India” in Singapore (Xuan and Norhaida 2025), the South Asian communities in Nishi Kasai in Tokyo, and “Little Bangladesh,” “Little Burma,” “Little Nepal,” and “Little Pakistan” in Kuala Lumpur (e.g. Muniandy 2015). Similarly, across the globe, there are also a few “Little Arabias.” These include Edgware Road in London, the Bukit Bintang area (Gu and Coluzzi 2025) in Kuala Lumpur, Soi Arab in Bangkok (Gu and Bhatt 2024), and Little Africa and Little Arabia (Gu 2025a) in parts of Guangzhou (Chao and Wang 2023; Mathews 2015). Some other examples of ethnic enclaves are “Little Bangladesh” in Brick Lane and other parts of East London, “Little Italy” in New York, and Chinese communities in Jyatha in Nepal’s capital Kathmandu (Gu 2024; Linder 2019).

Deviating from what is considered “mainstream,” such ethnic enclaves often exhibit certain ethnolinguistic features and cultural and religious practices that are distinct from the broader sociolinguistic and cultural environment in the host society. Within ethnic enclaves, ethnic economies (Muniandy 2015) are often in place that cater to the dietary, social, cultural, and religious needs of the community (Gu 2025a, 2024). The existence of such enclaves in turn also attracts newcomers from the same ethnolinguistic and cultural background to the area. Ethnic enclaves clearly give rise to new multilingual and multicultural dynamics, engender new sociolinguistic realities (Wei 2016), and forge increasingly hybridized and complex identities in our globalized and superdiverse world (Vertovec 2007). The existence of various ethnic enclaves and the presence of various ethnolinguistic, religious, and cultural elements lead to layeredness in the urban space’s landscape. Over time, this results in a “palimpsest” (Gu 2025b; Starks and Phan 2019) in the built environment, visually, theoretically, and conceptually. That is, because of the “Sequent Occupance” (Cavallaro et al. 2019; Hanks 2011) of various ethnolinguistic groups across time, one space might be seen as a text produced by multiple authors. This gives rise to a “palimpsest” that might simultaneously bear traces of linguistic and semiotic elements related to different groups from different historical periods (Gu 2025b).

Hong Kong, despite being a global city (Sassen 1991) and an international financial center, is often portrayed as a relatively more homogeneous society with a Cantonese-speaking Chinese majority. To date, (socio)linguistic literature on Hong Kong (e.g. Song 2020) has mostly focused on Chinese and English, two of the most important languages in the Chinese territory. In comparison, other languages have received scant attention. Focusing on multilingual communication during the COVID-19 period, the study by Gu (2023) is one of the few that have explored Hong Kong’s multilingual linguistic landscape. In many ways, Hong Kong is increasingly becoming an ethnically and culturally diverse city in East Asia (Gu 2026). That is, for historical and economic reasons, South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalese, and Bangladeshis) and Southeast Asians (Thais, Indonesians, and Filipinos) can be found in various pockets (Gu 2026) of the city (see next section for more discussions on Hong Kong as an increasingly multilingual urban space). In view of the evident research gap regarding the limited scholarly attention given to Hong Kong’s multilingual dimensions, this empirical study investigates an ethnic enclave known as “Little Thailand” in Kowloon city through a linguistic and semiotic landscape lens. Drawing on authentic data taken from the area, this study takes a bottom-up approach with the aim of shedding light on how various linguistic and semiotic elements and resources (e.g. the material emplacement of signs and the portrayal of culture-specific symbols) may interact and combine to give the area its image, identity, and sense of place.

Traditionally, the linguistic aspects or the logocentric aspects are prioritized in relevant LL research. However, more recently, increasing attention has been paid to how linguistic elements may interact with various semiotic elements and multimodal resources (Gu 2024) in certain spatial environments (Blackwood 2018; Shohamy 2015). The growing focus on various semiotic elements (e.g. images, sounds, music, movements, and even smells) represents an expanded view and an improvement over the linguistically oriented focus in earlier LL-related research. This more expanded approach is grounded in the view that all linguistic and semiotic elements (Jaworski and Thurlow 2010) are important and can often be dynamically and multimodally combined in meaning-making and discursive communication (Iedema 2003) as part of a semiotic assemblage (Pennycook 2017). As such, a linguistic and semiotic landscape perspective promises to provide a more comprehensive and holistic coverage of the making of an ethnic enclave as far as linguistic and multilingual resources are concerned.

2 A brief historical, demographic, and sociolinguistic account of China’s Hong Kong SAR as an increasingly diverse society

Hong Kong was for some time a quiet fishing village in Southern China. However, it was taken over by the British and became a British colony in the 1840s, signaled by the unequal Treaty of Nanking signed between Great Britain and the Qing dynasty of China (Gu 2023). Despite Hong Kong’s humble beginnings, the city gradually became a global financial hub and commercial center under British colonial rule, partly due to its strategic location and proximity to the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong was officially returned to China in 1997 as a special administrative region. Now, despite the recent ups and downs, Hong Kong remains a major international financial center and a global city (Sassen 1991) in Asia.

Hong Kong has an ethnic Chinese majority yet has an increasingly diverse ethnic make-up (Gu 2026). Initially with a relatively small population, the territory witnessed several waves of immigration from the Chinese mainland during the colonial period (e.g. from Guangdong and other parts of Southern China). This explains why the Cantonese variety of Chinese is dominant in Hong Kong. Also, during the British colonial period, South Asians from the Indian subcontinent (current-day India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, which were under significant colonial influence) moved to live and work in Hong Kong, for instance as traders, sailors, police officers, and soldiers. Recently, many South Asians have also moved to the city through various (legal and illegal) channels. South Asians are particularly visible in certain districts and neighborhoods of Hong Kong. These notably include the Yau Tsim Mong district (e.g. Tsim Sha Tsui, Jordan, and Yau Ma Tei) and Sham Shui Po (Gu 2023, 2026). South Asians work in a variety of areas, for instance as delivery people, construction workers, security guards, financial experts, university professors, waiters, and small business owners in the territory. South Asians in Hong Kong are largely from the Northern part of the Indian subcontinent, who mostly speak various Indo-Aryan languages (e.g. Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Nepali, and Bengali).

In addition, Southeast Asians collectively (e.g. from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand) constitute another broader non-Chinese group. Compared with the arrivals of South Asians, the presence of Southeast Asians is a relatively recent phenomenon. These Southeast Asians, many of them females, came to Hong Kong in recent decades as well-trained domestic helpers. They are employed by relatively wealthy local and expatriate families to help with various domestic tasks and duties (Liang 2016). Linguistically, these domestic helpers, for instance from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand, are speakers of Bahasa Indonesia, Tagalog, and Thai, respectively. These domestic helpers from Southeast Asian are in Hong Kong on a temporary basis and often cannot become citizens. Similar to their counterparts in places such as Singapore and Dubai, during the weekends, domestic helpers in Hong Kong often eat, relax, sing, and dance in parks and squares in various districts of the city (e.g. Causeway Bay, Central, Wanchai, Tsim Sha Tsui, and Mongkok). Overall, given the relatively low pay and the nature of their employment, they represent a marginalized and disadvantaged group in the society (Ladegaard 2017). Figure 1 shows a multilingual sign erected by the government that warns ethnic minority groups not to engage in illegal hawking activities.

Figure 1:

Top-down multilingual warning signs in Chinese, English, Tagalog, Thai, Urdu, Indonesian, Hindi, and Nepali.

Post-1997 Hong Kong, as a special administrative region of China, has implemented the official language policy of “biliteracy and trilingualism” (Lai 2012), where English, Mandarin Chinese, and Cantonese have official statuses. This overarching language policy is a reflection of Hong Kong’s complicated (colonial) history, sociolinguistic profile, and current status as a global financial center and a city in China (Gu 2023). Corresponding to Hong Kong’s sociolinguistic situation and official language policy, bilingual top-down signs in Chinese and English (Lai 2012; Song 2020) are widely seen in Hong Kong’s linguistic landscape (e.g. official street signs and public notices). Chinese and/or English signs are also widely used at a bottom-up level by people in the business sector and by the general public. More recently, multilingual signs (e.g. in Hindi, Urdu, Nepali, Punjabi, Thai, Indonesian, and Tagalog), both fixed and on mobile objects, are increasingly seen (Gu 2026) in various spheres as the city becomes more and more diverse in the twenty-first century (see Figures 1–3). These include top-down multilingual signs made by the Hong Kong government and associated departments (see Figure 1). Also, there are signs made by ethnic minority groups from within, aiming to target members within the community. Increasingly, some (small) local businesses run by Chinese Hong Kongers are resorting to ethnic languages to attract customers from other ethnic backgrounds (the blue sign in Figure 2, top right, for example, features Bahasa Indonesia, which is aimed at attracting Indonesian domestic helpers). In parts of Hong Kong, the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity is discursively portrayed as a great strength. This is evidenced in a multilingual sign erected by Yau Tsim Mong district council (see Figure 3).

Figure 2:

Various languages seen in Hong Kong’s linguistic landscape.

Figure 3:

Multilingual sign erected by Yau Tsim Mong district council.

3 “Little Thailand” in Hong Kong: the beating heart of the Thai community in Hong Kong

Having discussed Hong Kong’s ethnic make-up and sociocultural and ethnolinguistic profiles in general, we now focus on Thais in Hong Kong and the Thai ethnic enclave “Little Thailand” in Kowloon city. Compared with the more explored and touristy places like Tsim Sha Tsui, Mongkok, and Causeway Bay in Hong Kong, Kowloon city is less explored by general tourists and is a relatively under-the-radar and low-profile spot. Yet, Kowloon city overall, featuring a grid-like street layout, old tenant buildings, vibrant shop signs, and (once) low-flying airplanes, is unique in nature, exhibiting cyberpunk aesthetics (Song 2025) in an urban context. Notably, parts of Kowloon city also feature the presence of a Thai community, pointing to the existence of a “Little Thailand.” “Little Thailand” is not the official name of the area. However, the area signified by this name has featured in several travel guidebooks and on various websites. Little Thailand in Kowloon city is close to the once iconic and now demolished Kowloon Walled City and is not too far from the AIRSIDE mall, the Inland Revenue Centre, and the old Kai Tak airport (which was closed in 1998). Sung Wong Toi is the nearest MTR station to Little Thailand. South Wall Road is a major road at the heart of the Thai enclave. The rough location of Little Thailand (circled in red) and the area surrounding it are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4:

Rough location of Hong Kong’s “Little Thailand,” scale 100 m (source: Google map data 2025).

The Thai presence in this particular area in Hong Kong has a history of around 60 years or so. The Thai connections of the area are multi-layered and complex as a result of different waves of migration of people from different backgrounds and walks of life. Broadly speaking, the existence of Little Thailand as a dynamic transnational urban space (Wei 2016) in Hong Kong has to do with the strong historical and traditional ties between Thailand and China over many centuries. Indeed, the Thai people are believed to have originally migrated to Thailand from what is current-day Southwest China. Over the course of history, many ethnically Chinese people from Southern China also migrated to Thailand, or Siam, as it was formerly known. As such, Thailand has had profound historical contact with China and there is a rich Thai-Chinese cultural heritage. Many Thai people are of partial or full Chinese ancestry (e.g. royal family, politicians, businessmen, and actors).

In addition to these long-standing historical ties between China and Thailand in general, in Hong Kong, Little Thailand’s origins are notably more immediately intertwined with those of Chiu Chow (or Teochew) background (whose roots can be traced to the Chaoshan region of China’s Guangdong region). In the early twentieth century, many Chiu Chow people migrated to Thailand. These Chiu Chow people originally from China married into local Thai families. This led to a blend of cultures, traditions, religious practices, and food preferences. Then, to seek economic opportunities, many such Thai-Chinese families started to move to Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s. They were concentrated in the Kowloon city area due to relatively cheap rent and also because of the existing presence of a large Chiu Chow community in the nearby Kowloon Walled City (just north of the current-day Little Thailand). As mentioned on the Hong Kong Tourism Board website, “this unique enclave has been around for decades, and its origins are surprising: a little bit Thai and a little bit Chinese” (LUXE City Guides 2025). This line sums up the nature of the enclave, which initially came into existence with the arrival of Thai-Chinese families.

As a result of this history, many Thai and Chiu Chow restaurants, shops, and stores started to appear in this area, and the community gradually grew (see Figure 8 for the presence of Chiu Chow restaurants). Over time, more and more Thai people from different backgrounds were drawn to this burgeoning and dynamic area, including Thai women who came to Hong Kong to marry local men in the city. In addition, in a context of globalization and as part of transnational temporary labor migration regimes (Muniandy 2015), many Thai women came to Hong Kong as domestic helpers (Cheung 2022) relatively recently, along with Indonesians and Filipinos from Southeast Asia. Some of these Thai domestic helpers live and work in or frequently visit the Little Thailand area. As such, in this enclave, the people of Thai background or heritage have heterogeneous origins. Many are Thai-Chinese families (with Chiu Chow/Teochew connections) and others are Thais of other backgrounds with different stories (Cheung 2022; Ng and Cheung 2022).

Additionally, while this area in Kowloon city might be understood as an ethnic enclave, this needs to be understood in a relative sense, rather than in an absolute way. This is because the area is not exclusively inhabited by people of Thai background or heritage. Indeed, local Chinese Hong Kongers and other minority groups (e.g. Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, and Filipinos) also live, work, and/or do business in this area in various ways. However, given the area’s ethnic make-up, the pervasive nature of Thai culture and the visibility of Thai signage, Thai-ness represents a defining feature there. From this perspective, this area can be understood as Hong Kong’s “Little Thailand” and the beating heart of the Thai community in the city.

In recent years, a project initiated by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in Hong Kong has been in place with the aim of giving a much-needed facelift to the old district. In part as a result of this urban redevelopment project, several businesses have been affected, and the area has seen the coming and going of some people and businesses. The fact that the area is in transformation is captured in a few top-down signs in Kowloon city. The left-hand side of Figure 5 shows the information 躍變龍城 ‘Kowloon City in Transformation,’ and the right-hand side of Figure 5 shows a top-down portrayal of Thai-ness in a few large murals in the area. Despite the urban renewal project, many Thai people and Thai eateries, massage parlors, money remittance service providers, shops, and other businesses can still be found in Little Thailand. Songkran celebrations are seen in the area every year, bringing together the Thai community and local Hong Kongers. The co-existence of Chinese and Thai elements in Hong Kong’s Little Thailand is reminiscent of the Chinese enclave “Chinatown” in Bangkok (which similarly features a linguistic and cultural fusion of Chinese and Thai elements).

Figure 5:

Top-down signage featuring “Kowloon city in transformation” (left) and top-down portrayal of Thai-ness in murals (right).

4 Data collection and analysis

Given the nature of the study, an ethnographic approach was taken in this empirical and interdisciplinary study. More specifically, a walking ethnography approach commonly associated with linguistic landscape research was adopted in this study. Over a period of about four years (2021–2025), around 20 trips were made to Little Thailand to collect photographs of signage in the area, which included fixed signs (e.g. shop fronts), temporary signs (e.g. posters about certain events), and signs on mobile objects (e.g. vans and other vehicles). In addition to signs containing linguistic/textual elements, photographs were also taken of various semiotic and multimodal elements in the area (e.g. certain designs, symbols, and depictions of political, cultural, and religious figures). Following the data collection process, a corpus was established consisting of 688 photos in total (573 photos featuring signs containing linguistic/textual elements and 115 photos featuring various semiotic and multimodal elements).

Understandably, any enclave inevitably has its inherent complexities, and there are often multiple dimensions and layers to the same area. Given the limited space, we will only focus on the most salient features and main themes that have emerged from our analysis, taking a data-driven approach. In so doing, we draw on our combined linguistic, social, cultural, and religious know-how and expertise. For clearer presentation, the discussion is separated into the linguistic dimensions and other semiotic and multimodal elements. A combination of these linguistic and semiotic and multimodal dimensions (Jaworski and Thurlow 2010; Pennycook 2017) presents a more holistic and comprehensive picture of the area under investigation, making it possible to reveal how various elements and resources may join hands to give the area certain image and identity. Where relevant, the analysis also draws on the concept of “palimpsest” (Gu 2025b; Starks and Phan 2019) to help shed light on this Thai enclave on Chinese soil.

5 Linguistic dimensions of Little Thailand

Top-down signage in the area resembles the rest of Hong Kong, where for example street signs are routinely in Chinese and English, as illustrated in Figure 5. In comparison, in the area’s LL, bottom-up signage shows more diversity. Overall, unsurprisingly, Thai is highly visible in Little Thailand (this is discussed in more detail later on). However, Thai is not the only language visible in the area. Indeed, Chinese, English, and other languages such as Arabic, Vietnamese, and Korean can also be found (see Figures 6 and 7). Yet, Thai, Chinese, and English are the three most visible languages in the area. While Chinese is probably the most commonly seen, the existence of many Thai signs represents a key and prominent feature of the area. The linguistic ecology here is different from the rest of Hong Kong, which is overall dominated by Chinese and English (Lai 2012; Song 2020) as per the territory’s language policy. As a general observation, apart from many Thai restaurants and Thai businesses, there are also a few Chiu Chow restaurants and businesses, as many in the area are Thai-Chinese families with Chiu Chow background or connections. This is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 6:

Presence of Chinese and Korean in the area.

Figure 7:

Presence of Arabic and Vietnamese in the area.

Figure 8:

Chiu Chow related businesses.

5.1 The pervasiveness of the word 泰 and the punny use of language in the LL of Little Thailand

Having provided a general discussion of the area’s LL overall, we focus on a few salient features here. One of the most prominent features of the area is that the Chinese word 泰 (meaning ‘Thai’ or ‘Thailand’) is highly visible in the area’s linguistic landscape. Clearly, for marketing and advertising purposes, the widespread use of the word 泰 conveys an image of Thai-ness. This is evidenced (see Figures 9–12) in many bottom-up signs (e.g. restaurant and other business signs). The word 泰 is often used alongside Chinese words with positive connotations (e.g. royal, golden, friendship, glory, wealth, and honor). These include 天泰 ‘heavenly Thai’ and 泰友營 ‘Thai friends’ base’ in Figure 9, and 金泰皇 ‘gold Thai king,’ 金泰 ‘golden Thai,’ 泰金國 ‘Thai gold kingdom,’ and 榮泰押 ‘glorious Thai pawn shop’ in Figure 10. Overall, to Chinese Hong Kongers, the use of the word 泰 indicates that this is a Thai enclave with a positive, royal, and somewhat exotic image and flavor. This word clearly serves “boundary-marking” purposes (Ben-Rafael et al. 2006; Cenoz and Gorter 2006).

Figure 9:

Signs featuring the word 泰.

Figure 10:

Signs featuring the word 泰.

Figure 11:

Signs featuring the word 泰.

Figure 12:

Signs featuring the word 泰 and the employment of pun.

Notably, one salient feature emerging from the area’s LL is the use of pun. The Chinese word 泰 (meaning ‘Thai’) also sounds like 太 (tài) or ‘very much,’ ‘very,’ ‘too much.’ As such, this gives rise to the use of pun in many signs. For example, at the top of Figure 12, the English name of the spa business is “Good Thai spa.” The Chinese name is 泰好, which literally means ‘Thai good.’ At the same time, in Chinese it also sounds like 太好 (or ‘too good’ or ‘very good’). As such, this strategic and clever use of language conveys the message that this is a Thai-style spa business and the service is very good. In the “Thai Good Food” example, the Chinese name is 泰好味 (literally ‘Thai good taste’). But, again, because 泰 sounds like 太 (‘very’ or ‘very much’) in Chinese, the name implies ‘very good taste’ in Chinese. Other examples (Figure 12) include 泰美味, 泰美, 泰地道, and 泰富貴, which respectively sound like ‘very delicious,’ ‘very beautiful,’ ‘very authentic,’ and ‘very wealthy.’ This clever word play constitutes a salient feature of the area.

5.2 The visibility of Thai signs in the LL of Little Thailand

Signs containing Thai, without doubt, represent another defining character of the area. This is illustrated in many of the signs presented in this article and also in Figures 13–16. Signs containing Thai are found in various businesses, and Thai is written in different fonts and calligraphic styles (e.g. default and standard Thai font and hand-written content). Figure 13 features some typical examples of this. Thai is written on fixed signs (e.g. shop signs), temporary signs (e.g. posters about certain events), and mobile objects (see Figure 14) such as vans and other vehicles. On some signs, monolingual information is available only in Thai. While the use of Thai might sometimes be understood as more symbolic, some cases are significantly information-rich, particularly when important political, sociocultural, religious, or entertainment-related information is shared among the community members. These more informative signs involving Thai concern different services, initiatives, and activities, and important information that needs to be noted by the Thai-speaking community (see Figures 15 and 16). Overall, the presence of Thai in the traditionally Chinese-dominated LL points to the idea of “palimpsest” (Starks and Phan 2019), which gives rise to layered cultural and sociolinguistic meanings (Gu 2025b) and a fascinating linguistic ecology on top of the existing ecology.

Figure 13:

Thai in the area’s LL in various fonts and calligraphy styles.

Figure 14:

Thai on mobile objects.

Figure 15:

Informational Thai signs.

Figure 16:

Informational Thai signs.

5.3 Translation in Little Thailand’s LL

Some discussions are provided here about translation and the translational relationships on signs in the area. In our increasingly dynamic, globalized, and multilingual world, translation plays a pivotal role in our urban spaces and beyond (Cronin and Simon 2014; Koskinen 2014; Song 2020). This too is evident in Little Thailand. In terms of the translation relationships, many different languages are involved (e.g. Thai, Chinese, and English) and a number of different combinations of these languages and scenarios present themselves (see Figures 17 and 18).

Figure 17:

Translational relationships on signs.

Figure 18:

Translational relationships on signs.

For instance, in the first example in Figure 17, the Thai name ครัวไทย ‘Thai Kitchen’ is semantically equivalent to the Chinese version, 泰國餐廳 ‘Thailand restaurant/kitchen.’ The next sign, บ้านช้างไทย ‘Thai Elephant House’ is semantically the same as the Chinese name 泰象馆. Similarly, เรือนไทย ‘Thai house’ semantically corresponds to the Chinese name 泰屋. The fourth sign in Figure 17, ร้านไทยเมย์เมย์ ‘shop/store Thai May May,’ combines the generic name for shop in Thai with “Thai May May.” “Thai May May” is rendered phonetically from the authentic and meaningful Chinese name ‘泰美味,’ which represents the local Cantonese pronunciation of the Chinese name. Similarly, the next sign, 泰皇閣 ‘Thai King Pavilion’ is the Chinese name of a business. The corresponding Thai name is ไทยหว่องกอก, which is not authentic Thai but transliterated from the Chinese name based on Cantonese pronunciation (taai wong gok).

On the next sign in Figure 17, the Thai name ไทยอุดรเทสท์ is a transliteration of the English version “Thai Udon Taste.” On the last sign in Figure 17, the Chinese name 昭拍耶 is a phonetic rendition of the Thai name เจ้าพระยา (Chao Phraya), which is a major river in Thailand. However, the Chinese name involves a combination of uncommon characters in Chinese. As a result, the Chinese name is not readily recognizable in Chinese. Nevertheless, the Thai name and the Chinese name lend an exotic and foreign flavor.

More examples that shed light on translational relationships can be found in Figure 18. The first sign, ชัยรุ่ง (Chai Rung), provides the Thai name, whereas the English and Chinese names are more informative, detailed, and explanatory. The English name is “Chai Rung Thai Food” and the Chinese name 泰式燒烤 means ‘Thai-style BBQ.’ Similarly, on the next sign, อาหารกลางวัน literally means just ‘lunch’ in Thai. However, the Chinese version 午市套餐 ‘lunch time set meals’ and the English version “lunch set” are more detailed and informative. On the next sign, the English version is “Happy Thai X.” The Chinese and Thai versions are more or less phonetic renditions of the English version. Also, on the next sign, the Thai version ไทยฮอท is transliterated from “Thai Hot” in English. In comparison, the Chinese name is semantically separate in meaning, meaning ‘Thai guy delicious food.’ On the “Thai Smile Logistics” sign, the English words “Thai smile” have been transliterated into Thai script as ไทยสมายล์. These examples show how transliteration is often employed in the making of twenty-first-century linguistic landscapes in a globalized and English-dominated world (Phanthaphoommee and Gu 2024).

Turning to the next sign, the term ร้านน้ำหวาน literally means ‘shop for sweet drinks,’ but it may also allude to the nickname “Namwan,” which is common among Thai females. In contrast, the English name is GOLDEN THAIBBQ, and the Chinese name is 金泰烧烤 ‘Golden Thai BBQ,’ which has a totally different meaning from the Thai nickname “Namwan” or the literal translation of ‘shop for sweet drinks.’ On the last sign, สะเต๊ะเมืองทอง is the Thai name, literally meaning ‘Mueang-thong’s satay’ (seasoned, skewered, and grilled meat). Yet, the Chinese name is 小曼谷 ‘Little Bangkok,’ which is seemingly unrelated to the Thai name. Interestingly, the Chinese name 小曼谷 is creatively designed in the shape of an elephant, which is a popular, representative, and symbolic animal in Thailand and Southeast Asia in general. The above examples show the varied translation relationships and translation strategies used in the making of the area’s LL as a commodified urban space (Gu 2024; Papen 2015). A semantic or phonetic transliteration approach may be among those used for meaning-making in such commodified and commercialized spaces. In some examples, the different versions are not necessarily related to each other. These create new images, aesthetics, and identities.

6 Multimodal and semiotic elements in Little Thailand

Having explored the linguistic elements (e.g. Chinese, Thai, and various translation practices), let us now consider the multimodal and semiotic elements in the area. In meaning-making, various linguistic and semiotic elements are often inseparable, which often dynamically combine to give an area its image and identity. A combination of various linguistic and semiotic elements (Jaworski and Thurlow 2010) leads to a semiotic assemblage (Pennycook 2017), materially enriching and symbolically contributing to the increasingly diverse urban palimpsest (Starks and Phan 2019), which features growing layeredness and complexity (Gu 2025b). Some of the main features and themes are presented as follows.

First and foremost, Thailand’s tricolor national flag (trirong) represents a pervasive sight in the area (see Figure 19), where the Thai flag is either placed on its own or sometimes placed alongside the Hong Kong SAR flag. This shows Hong Kong–Thailand friendship and also the hybridized nature of Little Thailand as a Thai enclave (re)contextualized on Chinese soil in Hong Kong. As Zhao and Castaneda Abdullah (2024) suggest, color symbols can express ideas and themes and eventually construct characters. From this perspective, these flags and colors serve as a symbolic marker of the area. In addition, various cultural and symbolic elements associated with Thailand are visible (see Figures 20–22). These include silhouettes of traditional Thai architecture (e.g. Thai houses and Buddhist temples), elephants, traditional Thai dancers, statues of Thai females showing the wai gesture (a greeting hand gesture similar to the “namaste” gesture in India), Muay Thai, traditional Thai massage, and displays of Naga (a dragon- or snake-like mythological creature commonly found in Buddhist and Hindu cosmology in Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent). In the area’s semiotic landscape, common Thai beer brands such as Leo, Singha, and Chang are visible (Figure 23). Also, interestingly, a local restaurant’s logo (Figure 23) is designed in a similar way to the iconic BTS SkyTrain logo found in Bangkok, Thailand. There is a process of (re)semiotization here, where new elements (e.g. knives and forks) have been added based on the BTS SkyTrain logo. Clearly, elements from Thailand have been re-designed, resemiotized, and (re)contextualized for a different purpose in a Hong Kong context in the multimodal discursive communication process (Iedema 2003). In the area, Thai shrimp chips, mango sticky rice, and grass jelly drinks are found, which are commonly consumed items in Thailand. Also, walking around the area, one can encounter the smell of kaffir lime and lemongrass, which are some key ingredients in Thai and Southeast Asian cuisine in general. These, while difficult to measure or investigate, contribute to the area’s distinct smellscape (cf. Pennycook 2017). The colorful phuang malai or traditional Thai garlands are also a common sight. Similarly, lottery tickets are sold in the area, as is the case in Thailand (see Figure 24). Thai and its various dialects are also featured prominently in the soundscape. These multimodal, multisemiotic, and multisensory elements, not always easy to capture, present, and describe verbally, give visitors (who have been to Thailand) and Thai-speaking members of the community a sense of familiarity and a Thai experience, reminding them of Thailand in vivid ways.

Figure 19:

Presence of the Thai tricolor flag.

Figure 20:

Portrayals and depictions of various Thai architectural and cultural elements.

Figure 21:

Multimodal representation of various Thai cultural elements.

Figure 22:

Multimodal representation of various Thai cultural elements (Muay Thai).

Figure 23:

Multimodal representation of common brands and familiar logos found in Thailand.

Figure 24:

Lottery tickets sold by Thai-speaking women in the area.

Strikingly, portraits of figures who are prominent in Thailand are displayed in many businesses in the area (Figure 25). These prominent figures include, for example, Thai kings and other royal family members. Figure 25 illustrates, for example, respected kings of Siam (Thailand’s former name) such as King Chulalongkorn (King Rama V) and King Bhumibol (King Rama IX). Such open displays of admiration show the local Thai community’s respect for these royal figures and, to some extent, point toward their social and political identification and affiliation with Thailand, despite their physical presence in Hong Kong on Chinese soil. Similarly, the Pakistani community in Hong Kong also shows a strong sociopolitical, religious, ideological, and cultural allegiance to their home country. For example, many Pakistanis in Hong Kong openly display the Pakistani flag, and some display portrayals of various religious figures and political leaders (e.g. Imran Khan).

Figure 25:

Depictions of prominent Thai figures such as Thai monarchy and royalty.

Furthermore, images, portraits, statues, and depictions of various religious figures (e.g. prominent and respected Buddhist monks, gods, and goddesses) are visible in the area’s semiotic landscape. These are illustrated in Figures 26–30. Some are associated with Buddhism (e.g. the buddha and Buddhism-related figures) as in Figure 26, whereas others are originally deities and figures from Hinduism (but are also respected and worshipped in Thailand). Hindu gods, goddesses, and divine creatures such as Brahma, Shiva, Ganesha, Indra, Lakshmi, Garuda, and Naga are widely worshipped and displayed in the Little Thailand area, similar to the practices in Thailand (cf. Gu 2025c). The fact that Hindu elements are also worshipped by many Thais is related to the relatively compatible nature of Hinduism and Buddhism due to their historical connections (indeed Buddhism itself has been significantly influenced by Hinduism in various ways) (see McDaniel 2013; Reynolds 2015). Figure 28, for instance, shows Shiva and Parvati, and the bottom of Figure 28 shows the image of the Hindu god Brahma or the god of creation, an important god who forms the trimurti alongside Shiva (god of destruction) and Vishnu (god of preservation). Despite being a Hindu god in origin, Brahma (Phra Phrom) is widely worshipped in Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand. The depiction of Brahma is reminiscent of the popular Erawan Shrine in central Bangkok. Figure 29 shows the elephant-looking Hindu God Ganesha, son of Shiva and Parvati. Lord Ganesha, who is believed to be able to bring success and wisdom and remove obstacles, is a popular god worshipped both in Hinduism and to some extent in Buddhism. Figure 29 (middle) shows Kali (an angry and ferocious form of Shiva’s consort) stepping on Lord Shiva. The display of these Buddhist, Hindu, and sometimes folk religious elements declares a kind of religious affiliation, revealing the community’s religious and cultural identification.

Figure 26:

Presence of Buddhism-related elements.

Figure 27:

Elements related to Thai worship (e.g. spirit house).

Figure 28:

Presence of Hinduism-related elements (e.g. Brahma, Shiva, Parvati).

Figure 29:

Presence of Hinduism-related elements (e.g. Ganesha and Kali).

Figure 30:

Depictions of Garuda and Ganesha.

In Figure 30, apart from the elephant-like god Ganesha, Garuda is visible in a few places in Little Thailand. The bird-like Garuda is the vahana or mount of the Hindu god Vishnu. Despite being Hindu in origin, Garuda is highly popular and visible in Thailand and other parts of Southeast Asia (e.g. Garuda is also of great importance to Indonesia). Garuda appears as the national and royal symbol of Thailand and is highly visible at the entrances of various buildings (e.g. government buildings and banks) for its believed ability to offer protection and security.

In Little Thailand, the syncretism of seemingly separate and unrelated cultural and religious practices is commonly seen, where Buddhist, Hindu, and Chinese religious practices and various cultural and folk practices are welded into one. This is illustrated in Figure 31. Photos in the figure point to the juxtaposition and co-appearance of Thai religious, cultural, and social elements (e.g. Buddhism-related figures, the beckoning lady Nang Kwak, and the Thai royal family), Hindu elements (e.g. Shiva and Ganesha), and Chinese religious, cultural, and folk elements (e.g. Caishen or the fortune god, the Chinese symbol 福 (fu) for ‘good luck’ or ‘good fortune,’ and the Chinese blessing 生意兴隆 expressing the wish for the business to be successful and booming). Such cultural and religious hybridity found within the Thai community points to mixed identities, arguably showing a flexible, practical, and pragmatist attitude (Gu 2025c) in their religious and cultural practices (which is almost unthinkable in some monotheistic religions). This is in the sense that the business owners simultaneously employ various cultural elements and pray to deities belonging to different religions in order to make their businesses a great success. This presents an interesting feature of the area.

Figure 31:

Juxtaposition of religious and cultural elements of different origins (e.g. Nang Kwak, Chinese Caishen, Chinese symbol fu, Shiva, Ganesha, and Thai royalty).

Given the high concentration of businesses in the area, the beckoning lady Nang Kwak, a female goddess that symbolizes fortune, wealth, and prosperity (who resembles the Thai version of the Hindu goddess Lakshmi), is highly visible. The liberal juxtaposition and simultaneous worship of gods and goddesses and religious and cultural elements from different belief systems and cultures (Gu 2025c) is also documented by scholars in recent years in Thailand in general (Kitiarsa 2008; Skulsuthavong 2025). In many ways, the Thai religious practices involve a syncretic and liberal blend (Kitiarsa 2008) of (Theravada) Buddhism, Hinduism, folk Brahmanism, animism, supernaturalism, and elements from other cultures (e.g. India and China) in a flexible, strategic, and pragmatic way (Gu 2025c). A similar trend is also illustrated in Figure 32, where Big Belly Maitreya Buddha and Guanyin (Bodhisattva of Compassion/Avalokiteśvara) are placed alongside Thai royalty, Ganesha, Lakshmi, and various other religious and cultural elements. Some businesses even display the Monkey King, Sun Wukong.

Figure 32:

Juxtaposition of religious and cultural elements of different origins (e.g. Big Belly Maitreya Buddha, Guanyin, Thai royalty, Ganesha, Lakshmi).

In the area’s semiotic landscape, pha yan or pha yant (Thai-style talisman cloths) are also visible. These sacred cloths often feature Thai cultural, religious, and mythological figures (e.g. Phra Rahu and Nang Kwak) and inscriptions of words and symbols. Thao Wessuwan (Figure 33, left) and Nang Kwak (Figure 33, right) are commonly found in Hong Kong’s Little Thailand. These figures are believed to be able to fend off evil spirits, bring safety and security, attract financial gain, and bring wealth and prosperity. These religious and cultural symbols and multimodal and multisemiotic elements contribute to nuance and complexity, adding to Hong Kong’s overall urban palimpsest (Starks and Phan 2019), which is jointly shaped and authored by various social, ethnolinguistic, and religious groups (Cavallaro et al. 2019; Hanks 2011). They discursively narrate a story about multilingual and multicultural Hong Kong in the twenty-first century.

Figure 33:

Pha yant.

7 Discussion and concluding remarks

Little Thailand, with its unique linguistic, cultural, and religious elements, undoubtedly leaves an indelible mark on Kowloon city’s increasingly diverse and colorful linguistic and semiotic landscape (Gu 2026). It captures how this ethnic enclave constantly recalibrates sociocultural and language identity amid the globalized currents of multilingualism. This interaction between signs and symbols transforms the areas into a dynamic, constantly shifting canvas, allowing individuals to express their identities and show the resilience of their communities.

In terms of the audience orientation, it is clear that one of the primary targets of the signs under investigation is Thai residents in Hong Kong. The linguistic choices are not random. They signify an almost instinctual pragmatism to foster a community sense while preserving home-cultural identity. Thai-only signs (such as those advertising social gatherings) speak candidly to the hearts of Thai immigrants and workers, which addresses their immediate economic and social needs. We see that these signs do more than inform. They conceptually show that they console, connect, and create a sense of home away from home. Zhang’s (2024) concept of selective acculturation resonates here; the use of signs in different circumstances shows how Thai residents manage to anchor themselves in their heritage while navigating the resources and demands of the host society. Similar to Hewison’s (2004) observations, the signs reflect the nuanced contentment of Thais, even as they join in what are often deemed low-status roles in Hong Kong.

The multilingual and translation-infused signage amplifies the semiotic richness of this enclave. Literal translations, transliterations, and wordplay infuse the landscape with Thailand’s “exotic flavor,” uncommonly mixing Chinese characters with Thai script and English words. These textual palimpsests are not only functional but profoundly performative, thus embodying what Blackwood (2018) and Shohamy (2015) describe as the creative dimensions of global linguistic flows. Theoretically, transliteration in this case is not only a linguistic tool, but a playful linguistic choreography that draws both Thais’ and Hong Kongers’ attention. This interplay mirrors Vertovec’s (2007) superdiversity, in which the semiotic terrain of Little Thailand emerges as a space of layered identities and intricate sociolinguistic realities.

We maintain that the signage in Little Thailand functions as a lingo-cultural mechanism and pragmatism. First, these signs enact markers of commerce, such as massage parlors, money exchanges, and other services that represent the economic backbone of the enclave. Second, they represent social cohesiveness tools, encouraging unity through venues that welcome Thai festivals and gatherings. This fits perfectly with the claims made by Wei (2016), who argues that ethnic enclaves give rise to new multilingual realities in which signs play an essential role in navigating the host community. These signs thus serve a purpose beyond utilitarianism. They fortify the bonds of a community based on global belonging (Papen 2015). From a theoretical perspective, this is also similar to what Shang and Yao (2024) found elsewhere when they pondered how cultural pride is exploited to appeal to people through tradition, exoticism, and nostalgia. Third, the relationship among the Thai, Chinese, and English languages – intertwined with translation and multimodal elements – captures the restless, fluid essence of identities. It embodies Ng and Cheung’s (2022: 71–72) observation that younger Thai migrants in Hong Kong not only connect dual ethnic identities, but vault beyond traditional binaries in order to reshape what it means to belong in the so-called new home.

Lastly, the marked characteristic of Little Thailand perhaps lies in its semiotic richness, that is, the integration of Thai cultural themes and designs, from the curve of temple roofs to miniatured elephants. These elements suffuse the space with a unique sense of Thai-ness, offering Hong Kongers more broadly a glimpse into the essence of Thailand. Beyond their aesthetic appeal, these signs carry layered meanings: portraits of Thai royalty, the tricolor flag, and religious figures – the triad of Nation, Religion, and King (Connors and Pathmanand 2021) – underscore a deeply entrenched nationalist sentiment and allegiance to the homeland through the use of language and symbols (see also Phanthaphoommee 2023). These portrayals of Thai heritage, rather than dissolving into nostalgic reverie, form a lively symbiosis with Hong Kong’s local contours. As Pennycook (2017) notes, these multimodal elements form a “semiotic assemblage,” spinning lingo-cultural threads to create new meanings in a new home. This assemblage is additionally augmented by the hybridized concurrence of religious iconography (be it Hindu deities or Buddhist imagery) that reveals a syncretic ethos among Thai business owners. It also gives an exotic cultural atmosphere similar to what Liao and Chan (2024) found elsewhere in China.

Going beyond linguistic and semiotic aspects, we can find another compelling line of discussion on the underappreciated ethnic, cultural communities of certain districts of Hong Kong themselves. These areas, replete with ethnic businesses and cultural vivacity, remain curiously sidelined in official recognition. For instance, while some locals, and this very paper, might affectionately refer to this particular neighborhood as “Little Thailand,” this designation remains unofficial. From the perspectives of urban planning, tourism, and city branding, it is worth considering whether designating Hong Kong’s various ethnic and multicultural neighborhoods as “Little Thailand,” “Little Indonesia,” “Little India,” “Little Nepal,” or “Little Pakistan” might better reflect and celebrate the city’s urban dynamism in our increasingly diverse, globalized, and mobile world (Cresswell 2006). Viewing ethnic and linguistic diversity as an asset, treasure, and intangible soft power rather than as a problem or hindrance may be necessary. For example, Singapore has done well in this regard. Capitalizing on the city-state’s multiculturalism, linguistic diversity, and colonial heritage, Singapore has strategically branded and promoted parts of its city as “Chinatown,” “Little India,” and Kampong Glam (the Malay and Arab quarter) (see Kumar 2020). Kuala Lumpur has also tapped into its ethnic multicultures in urban planning and city branding. Petaling Street is branded as “Chinatown,” Brickfields is the city’s “Little India,” and parts of Bukit Bintang are “Ain Arabia,” or Arab Street, in Kuala Lumpur (see Gu and Coluzzi 2025; Khan 2015).

Now, the question is whether Hong Kong, with its Cantonese-centric image, can embrace the challenge of presenting itself as a truly cosmopolitan and inclusive global city to reflect its cultural spectrum. To advance the topic further, future research is needed to investigate how multilingual landscapes change under external duress, such as economic crises, pandemics, or even sociopolitical turmoil. Of equal interest would be the exploration of sensory semiotics (e.g. music play, dietary aromas, or tactile sculpture around the study sites) and their subtle roles in upholding sociocultural identities within enclaves. Moreover, an analysis of translation practices, once the immigrants negotiate cultural identity and power dynamics with the host country, could reveal deeper layers of how the “Little” communities resist or reconfigure the forces of globalization.

Theoretically and conceptually, this case study contributes to sociolinguistics, linguistic and semiotic landscape research, urban studies, ethnic studies, and urban geography through highlighting the usefulness of the notion of “palimpsest” (Starks and Phan 2019) in helping to understand ethnic enclaves and ethnic communities in our urban spaces. That is, our urban space is inevitably shaped and authored by different ethnolinguistic, cultural, and religious groups over time. The arrival of each group leaves concrete linguistic and semiotic traces in the area’s broader built environment, which may superimpose or appear alongside traces left by other groups. This gives rise to a different language ecology, in turn giving rise to layeredness and great sociolinguistic diversity and complexity in our urban spaces and built environment. The study paves the way for more focused studies on other ethnic enclaves and multilingual and multicultural areas in other parts of the Chinese-speaking world and beyond.