Vol. 61 No. 1 (2013)
Research Article

A Pragmatic-Cognitive Approach to Brand Names: A Case Study of Rioja Wine Brands

PDF
  • Lorena Pérez Hernández
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/0027773812Z.00000000038

Published 2013-03-01

Copyright (c) 2013 American Name Society 2013

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyzes a collection of Rioja wine names, looking into the pragmatic and conceptual mechanisms underlying their semantic configuration. It provides some insights into their linguistic adequacy and effectiveness, and offers a preliminary assessment on the strengths and weaknesses of Rioja wine trademarks. The branding of Rioja wines has traditionally been carried out by wine producers themselves. This trend, however, seems to be changing as wine companies increasingly turn to professional branding services. A systematic application of the pragmatic and conceptual strategies isolated in this study results in a rich pool of lexical extensions. It is argued that a careful choice of the initial inventory of key notions as well as of the source concepts used in metonymic and metaphoric extensions would help to minimize the generation of negative connotations. To the same end, branding experts should also take into consideration a number of pragmatic maxims and cultural models.

PDF

References

  1. Bao Yeqing, Shao AlanT, Rivers Drew. 2008. ‘Creating New Brand Names: Effects of Relevance, Connotation, and Pronunciation.’ Journal of Advertising Research, March Issue: 148–162.
  2. Bergh Bruce, Adler Keith, Oliver Lauren. 1987. ‘Linguistic Distinction Among Top Brand Names.’ Journal of Advertising Research (August/September): 39–44.
  3. Grady Joe. 1999. ‘A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance.’ Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Raymond Gibbs and Gerard J. Steen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79–101.
  4. Klink RichardR. 2001. ‘Creating Meaningful New Brand Names: A Study of Semantics and Sound Symbolism.’ Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 9(2): 27–34.
  5. Kohli Chiranjeev, LaBahn DouglasW. 1997. ‘Creating Effective Brand Names: A Study of the Brand Naming Process.’ Journal of Advertising Research 37: 67–75.
  6. Lakoff George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  7. Lakoff George, Johnson Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. NY: Basic Books.
  8. Leech Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
  9. Mowle James, Bill Merrilees. 2005. ‘A Functional and Symbolic Perspective to Branding Australian SME Wineries.’ Journal of Product and Brand Management 14(4): 220–227.
  10. Pérez Hernández Lorena. 2013, forthcoming. ‘Approaching the Utopia of a Global Brand. The Relevance of Image Schemas as Multimodal Resources for the Branding Industry.’ Accepted for publication in Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics. Special Issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. María José Pinar Sanz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  11. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez Francisco José. 1997. ‘Some Notes on the Translation of Spanish -ito/-illo Diminutives into English.’ Pragmalingüística 3–4: 155–172.
  12. —. 2000. ‘The Role of Mappings and Domains in Understanding Metonymy.’ Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Ed. Antonio Barcelona. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 109–132.
  13. —. 2010. ‘Metonymy and Cognitive Operations.’ What is Metonymy? An Attempt at Building a Consensus View on the Delimitation of the Notion of Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Ed. Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45–76.
  14. Tallarico Gabriela. 2000. ‘La Construcción Comunicativa de las Denominaciones de Origen. Una Aproximación al Análisis del Sector Vitivinícola Español.’ Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 34.