Applied Linguistics 2011: 32/4: 369388 Oxford University Press 2011

doi:10.1093/applin/amr004 Advance Access published on 18 February 2011

Cognitive Tools For Successful Branding

LORENA PEREZ HERNANDEZ

Dpto. Filologas Modernas, Universidad de La Rioja, C/ San Jose de Calasanz, s/n 26004
Logrono (La Rioja), Spain
E-mail: lorena.perez@unirioja.es

This article aims to fill a gap in current studies on the semantics of branding.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

Through the analysis of a number of well-known international brand names,
we provide ample evidence supporting the claim that a finite set of cognitive
operations, such as those of domain reduction and expansion, mitigation, and
strengthening, among others, can account for the drawing of inferences on the
basis of the cue provided by the brand name. Such conceptual mechanisms
are often randomly and unconsciously used in the process of building a new
brand name. Nevertheless, this article argues that their systematic use results
in (i) an increase in the degree of suggestiveness and semantic richness of
the brand name, (ii) a lower risk of generating negative associations and
connotations, and (iii) higher cognitive economy in the interpretation of
brand names on the part of the potential consumer. In doing so, these cognitive
operations arise as powerful tools for the task of creating safe and successful
brand names.

INTRODUCTION
Successful brands are among a companys most priceless assets. They are
essential in identifying the maker or seller of a product or service and they
result in brand equity (i.e. the value a brand name adds to the product), thus
positioning companies at a vantage point against their competitors (Goedertier
and Mast 2003). As pointed out by Kotler and Amstrong (2001), a brand
comprises a range of diverse elements, including a name, term, sign, symbol,
or design, or a combination of them. This article focuses exclusively on brand
names and attempts to shed some light on how they are created and inter-
preted from a cognitive-linguistic perspective.
Research on the creation and effectiveness of brand names has been mostly
carried out by marketing scholars. Thus, authors such as Keller et al. (1998),
and more recently, Stern (2006) have described the desirable properties of
brand names (i.e. distinctive, suggestive, meaningful, easily recalled, easily
pronounced, etc.). Others have looked into the influence of brand names in
determining perceptions of brand quality and attitudes towards the product
(Srinivasan and Till 2002), their effects on advertising recall (Keller et al. 1998),
and the process of name creation itself (Wheeler 2006; Healey 2008).
Nevertheless, despite the inherently verbal nature of brand names, studies
on linguistic aspects of branding are scarce. Vanden Bergh et al. (1987) have
370 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

dealt with the phonetic, orthographic, morphological, and semantic charac-

teristics of brand names; Bao et al. (2008) have focused on the effects of the
relevance, connotation, and pronunciation of brand names on consumers
brand preference; Klink (2003) has investigated the generation of consistent
brand meaning through the integration of brand names and brand
marks; and both Vanden Bergh et al. (1987) and Klink (2000) have analyzed
the role of sound symbolism in the creation of meaningful brand names.1
To the best of our knowledge, however, no research has been done so far
on the specific cognitive mechanisms which guide the inferential processes
triggered by brand names, and which are, to a great extent, responsible

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

for their final interpretation. As has been made apparent in contemporary
pragmatic-cognitive approaches to language interpretation (Panther and
Thornburg 1998; Ruiz de Mendoza and Perez Hernandez 2001; Perez
Hernandez and Ruiz de Mendoza 2002), this type of inferential activity
is largely constrained by cultural models of social interaction, on the one
hand, and by cognitive mechanisms of meaning generation (i.e. conceptual
metaphors, metonymies, and image-schemas), on the other hand. As
a result, the semantic associations and connotations that arise from those
inferential processes turn out to be, counter to what has traditionally been
claimed (cf. Bach and Harnish 1979; Sperber and Wilson 1995) fairly
predictable.
This article aims to fill a gap in current studies on the semantics of branding.
We contend that a finite set of cognitive operations such as domain reduction,
domain expansion, mitigation, and strengthening, among others, can account for
the drawing of inferences on the basis of the cue provided by the brand name.
Such conceptual mechanisms, which might be used unconsciously, lie on the
basis of the process of building a new brand name. Nevertheless, this article
argues that their systematic use results in (i) an increase in the degree of
suggestiveness and semantic richness of the brand name, (ii) a lower risk of
generating negative associations and connotations, and (iii) higher cognitive
economy in the interpretation of brand names on the part of the potential
consumer. In so doing, these cognitive operations arise as powerful tools for
the task of successful brand creation since they are common to the tasks of
language production and understanding and should, therefore, be identified by
consumers as used by brand name designers.
The layout of this article is as follows: First, we introduce a set of cogni-
tive operations against the background of a semantically constrained infer-
ential approach to the production and interpretation of brand names;
Secondly, we illustrate the workings of each of these cognitive operations
in relation to the semantic make-up of a number of well-known interna-
tional brands, thus highlighting the different ways in which the process of
brand creation can benefit from the activity of each of those cognitive
mechanisms. Finally, we conclude by suggesting some potential lines for
further research.
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 371

SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS ON THE INFERENCE-GENERATING

POWER OF BRAND NAMES: COGNITIVE OPERATIONS
In this article, we contend that brand names act as (linguistic) cues, which set
off appropriate inferential processes resulting in the generation of relevant and
desirable conceptual associations. Moreover, as shall be made apparent in
the remainder of this article, such inferential processes of meaning generation
can be guided and constrained to a significant degree by means of a set of
cognitive operations. As a result, brand creators will be capable of leading
customers beyond the literal meaning of the brand name in a fairly controlled

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

manner, minimizing in turn their risk of producing unwanted or inappropriate
associations.
As pointed out by Ruiz de Mendoza and Santibanez (2003), since verbal
messages usually fall short of fully encoding the speakers intentions, inter-
preting a message almost invariably requires making inferences as to what the
speaker really meant. Because the linguistic form of brand names is, in most
cases, necessarily brief, their dependence on inferential processes for final in-
terpretation acquires a special relevance. Thus, the act of coding as much
positive information as possible into a single name becomes an art, the art of
branding. In turn, the consumer will be faced with the complex task of draw-
ing the intended inferences on the basis of a necessarily brief and scarcely
explicit cue (i.e. the brand name).
The inferential nature of brand name interpretation represents both a threat
and an opportunity for branding professionals. On the one hand, once the
brand name is launched to the market, the potential range of inferences that
consumers can draw from it is somehow beyond the brand creators control, as
is the case with human communication in general (cf. Sperber and Wilson
1995). Unexpected and unfortunate associations are among a branding pro-
fessionals worst nightmares. On the other hand, the fact that brand names,
because of their compact nature, usually depend on inferential processes for
their interpretation offers the brand creator an opportunity to communicate
the most diverse key attributes and activate the most varied and rich concep-
tual associations through the use of a single word or compound.
In this connection, our main goal is to provide evidence supporting the fact
that the processes of encoding and decoding brand names do not need to hinge
exclusively on the creativity of branding specialists and the inferential capacity
of potential consumers, respectively. On the contrary, we will show that
both tasks are guided and constrained to a large extent by a limited set of
cognitive operations that apply to the semantic make-up of words and word-
combinations in connection with speakers prior knowledge.2 The use of such
conceptual mechanisms results in the generation of felicitous inferences,
which enhance the semantic and evocative power of brands beyond that of
their literal interpretations. These cognitive operations represent structured
procedures for the coining of new brand names whose potential semantic
associations can thus be largely predicted. Therefore, they have the added
372 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

advantage of decreasing the risk of a brand name generating unwanted impli-

cations, a peril which is naturally present in interpretations based on inferen-
tial activity.
The notion of cognitive operation has been central to cognitive linguistic the-
ories from their inception in proposals by Lakoff (1987) and Lakoff and
Johnson (1999) on conceptual metaphors and metonymies. More recently,
Ruiz de Mendoza and Pena (2005: 58) have offered a broader and more com-
prehensive definition of cognitive operation as:
[. . .] a mental mechanism whose purpose is to derive a semantic

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

representation from a linguistic expression (or from other symbolic
device, such as a drawing) in order to make it meaningful in the
context in which it is to be interpreted.
An exhaustive typology of cognitive operations has been proposed in con-
nection to the Lexical-Constructional Model by Ruiz de Mendoza (2010), based on
previous work by Ruiz de Mendoza and Santibanez (2003), and Ruiz de
Mendoza and Pena (2005).3 These authors distinguish two general categories
of cognitive operations, namely, content and formal operations.
Content operations are lower level conceptual mechanisms used to make in-
ferences on the basis of cues provided by the linguistic expression or the con-
text in which it is produced. They comprise those of domain expansion, domain
reduction, comparison, correlation, mitigation, strengthening, and parametrization. As
contended by Ruiz de Mendoza (2010), content operations are insufficient by
themselves to explain how the meaning derivation process is carried out. A
number of formal higher level mechanisms (i.e. formal cognitive operations) have
been found to act as prerequisites for content operations to be possible at all.
Ruiz de Mendoza and Pena (2005) distinguish four of them, namely, cueing,
abstraction, selection, and integration. As will be shown in detail in the following
section, these formal operations play no direct role in inference making.
Nevertheless, they are essential in making the necessary conceptual material
available for content operations to draw the appropriate inferences from it. The
remainder of this article is devoted to illustrate the workings of these cognitive
operations in relation to popular international brand names. In so doing, we
shall highlight their functionality and their capacity to meet the specific needs
of the brand name creation process.

COGNITIVE OPERATIONS UNDERLYING THE SEMANTIC

MAKE-UP OF BRAND NAMES
The present approach to the semantics of branding takes the formal cognitive
operation of cueing as pivotal to the processes of brand creation and interpret-
ation. Brand names act as cues for the activation of the pertinent lower level
content cognitive operations. In turn, such cognitive mechanisms guide and
constrain a number of inferential processes, which eventually endow the con-
ceptual fabric of the target product with relevant associations and felicitous
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 373

connotations. In their cueing task, brand names are not alone. Other branding
and marketing strategies, including logos, mottos, and the use of color and
typography, among others, may also function as cues that trigger content
operations and that, as a result, endow the target product with further
significance. For the sake of exhaustiveness, however, this article will focus
exclusively on those cues of a verbal nature. When a customer sees or hears a
particular brand name, this linguistic cue may set off one or more of the fol-
lowing cognitive operations.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

Comparison operations
The resemblance that can sometimes be found between two independent con-
ceptual domains licenses the use one of them (source domain) in order to talk
and reason about the other (target domain). Through a previous abstraction
operation,4 speakers derive generic structure common to both domains, thus
licensing further comparisons between them.5 As shall be shown below, this
type of conceptual mapping has the positive side effect of enriching the se-
mantics of the target domain with relevant and compatible conceptual material
originally belonging to the source domain.
Comparison operations are at the basis of many international brands (e.g.
Puma, Jaguar, Camel, Apple, Blackberry, Red Bull, Nivea, Satellite, Sirius, Saturn,
etc.). We can distinguish two broad groups of comparison-based brands de-
pending on whether an entity is compared to other inanimate objects or
whether it is connected with living entities. Let us start with the latter.
Some brands largely exploit the high-level mapping NON-LIVING ENTITIES
ARE LIVING ENTITIES. This conceptual metaphor, which is based on the Great
Chain of Being,6 helps us to deal with inanimate entities as if they were animate
beings. By virtue of this mapping, physical objects are endowed with the same
attributes and structural configuration that living beings possess. This generic
high-level mapping materializes itself in three more specific low-level meta-
phors: (i) ENTITIES ARE ANIMALS, (ii) ENTITIES ARE PLANTS, and (iii)
ENTITIES ARE PEOPLE.
The first of these metaphors (i.e. ENTITIES ARE ANIMALS) can be illu-
strated by a brand like Puma (sporting goods), where all the relevant attributes
of the animal (e.g. speed, power, wildness, energy) are passed on to the
domain of sporting material. Similar examples are those of Camel (cigarettes),
Jaguar (cars), or Gorilla and Kangaroos (shoes).
The low-level metaphor ENTITIES ARE PLANTS underlies the understand-
ing of brands like Fleur (perfume) or Lotus (watches). Thus, Fleur functions as a
cue for consumers to make a comparison between the central attributes of
flowers and some compatible and/or equivalent traits of perfumes (fresh,
pleasant smell, etc). Likewise, Lotus watches draw special connotations from
their comparison with the corresponding flower, which has spiritual, sacred,
and mysterious implications in many Asian cultures.
374 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

The last of the low-level metaphors under consideration, ENTITIES ARE

PEOPLE, maps human attributes onto those of inanimate entities. In this
way, the latter are presented as bearing the same properties and possessing
abilities typically pertaining to human beings. Consider brands such as Ford
Explorer (jeep), Rover (car) and Pioneer (hi-fi, multimedia), which inherit the
adventurous and innovative traits of the type of people they name.
Brands involving a comparison operation can also make use of inanimate
source domains. Nivea (facial cream), Satellite (computer), Diamond (mobiles/
PDAs), and Saturn (car), to name just a few, fall within this category. By way of
illustration, consider how the brand Nivea, which originates in the Latin word

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

Nivis (meaning snow), may activate, for cultivated language users, a compari-
son operation between the source domain of snow and the target domain of a
facial cream.

Figure 1: Comparison, mitigation, and domain reduction operations under-

lying the interpretation of Nivea

As shown in figure 1, by virtue of this comparison, three relevant attributes

of snow are projected onto the domain of the facial cream known as Nivea,
namely, its characteristic white color, its association with purity, and its dis-
tinctive coldness. The facial cream inherits these traits and further parametrizes
them to fit its own conceptual structure. Thus, the coldness of snow is miti-
gated into the notion of freshness, which is in turn metonymically made to
stand for one of its effects on the skin (i.e. low temperature has the ability to
make the skin terse and smooth). Other similar beauty products exploit the
same cognitive operations while using more explicit brand names, which are
likely to have a higher degree of effectiveness among less-educated customers
(e.g. Snow White Regenerating Age Cream, Snow Mask, Hazeline Snow Moisturizing
Cream, Tibet Snow Cream, etc.).
Comparison operations are a powerful branding tool in terms of the suggest-
iveness and novelty of the inferences they generate. Unlike domain reduction
and expansion operations (see below), which involve one single conceptual
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 375

frame, the source domains involved in comparison operations are independent

ofand external tothe conceptual domains of the target products. Because
of this, they contribute a wealth of new conceptual information, which comes
to enhance the descriptive and connotative potential of the brand.
Comparison-based brand names are also useful in minimizing the risk of gen-
erating unfortunate associations. The branding professional will be able to
control and limit such a risk through a careful choice of the source domains
involved in the mapping. Thus, a simple lexical study and cultural survey on
the associations triggered by a particular source domain in a given target cul-
ture will largely minimize, if not fully rule out, the generation of negative

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

connotations by this type of comparison-based brand names.

Correlation operations
A different type of metaphorical mapping is the one that establishes a connec-
tion between two independent, but co-occurring domains of experience.
The cognitive operation underlying this type of metaphor is one of correlation.
As discussed in Lakoff and Johnson (1999), correlation operations are grounded
in experiential conflation, which consists in the mind envisaging two separate
domains as if they were the same on the basis of continued co-occurrence in
nature. Thus, we often see affection and emotions in terms of bodily tempera-
ture (e.g. She gave me a warm welcome; He was cold to me) probably because body
temperature is felt when people come close to us to show affection. Or we see
quantity in terms of height (e.g. Prices are soaring; World stocks have plummeted
overnight) because levels rise and fall as quantity increases or decreases.
Some brands of beverages, such as Mountain Dew, Highland Spring, Hi-Spot,
Tree Top, Andina, Gold Peak, Lift, and Seven-Up, combine comparison and cor-
relation operations in their semantic configuration. Mountain Dew, for example,
has a complex source domain, which includes the concepts of mountain and
dew. It has already been shown how brands can be based on comparison op-
erations, which map the conceptual fabric of non-living entities (i.e. mountains,
dew) onto the target product (i.e. an energetic drink in the case under consid-
eration), thus enriching the latter with relevant and compatible features of the
former (e.g. freshness, the energizing properties of nature, purity, etc.). As the
Mountain Dew example makes clear, brand names serve as guides for the con-
ceptual activation of relevant pieces of world and cultural knowledge, and this
is inextricably linked to another formal operation known as selection.
Nevertheless, as pointed out by Ruiz de Mendoza (2010), the selection task
is cued, but not fully determined, by the linguistic expression. There are other
contextual factors that play a role, such as speakers beliefs and previous dis-
course tasks. In the example under scrutiny, a successful interpretation of
Mountain Dew requires selecting the relevant information about mountains
and dew that may be applicable in the context of energetic drinks. This selec-
tion process will rule out the possibility of endowing the target product with
those traits of mountains and dew which are not semantically compatible with
376 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

the context under consideration (e.g. mountains as geological features or agri-

cultural settings, dew as an atmospheric phenomenon, etc.).
What is special about Mountain Dew, however, is the combination of this
comparison operation with one of correlation, which establishes a projection
between two different but naturally co-occurring dimensions of experience:
up/down positions (i.e. the verticality image-schema), on the one hand, and
the notions of happiness and health, on the other.
The semantic configuration of the noun mountain comprises the notion of
a verticality image-schema,7 whose upper end naturally correlates with vantage
positions and bigger quantities (i.e. MORE IS UP, as in Prices are soaring). The

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

verticality image-schema also underlies metaphors like BEING HEALTHY IS
BEING UP and HAPPINESS IS UP (e.g. Im in high spirits vs. Im feeling down
today, Im coming down with the flu vs. He was up and running in 3 days).
Correlations of this kind also have an experiential basis on the typical upright
position of healthy and happy people. Thus, if a brand like Mountain Dew is
contrasted with an imaginary brand such as Valley Dew, in which the noun
valley activates the lower end of the verticality image-schema, the axiologi-
cally positive connotations associated with high positions (i.e. bigger quanti-
ties, better qualities, health, and happiness) become all the more evident.
Mountain Dew conveys a sense of quality and excellence that is not present
in its hypothetical counterpart. Likewise, it activates more positive connota-
tions related to energetic and healthy environments. No wonder, therefore,
that so many brands of energetic drinks include nouns whose semantics are
also related to the upper end of the verticality image schema (see words like
tree, top, highland, peak, hi(gh), lift, and up in the aforementioned
brands).
Interestingly enough, the on-going discussion makes evident that cueing also
turns out to be a matter of conceptual consistency. Thus, for a piece of world
knowledge to be activated and thus selected as relevant for a given cognitive
task, it needs to be conceptually compatible with the cueing item (i.e. brand
name). Conceptual consistency is granted by means of yet another higher level
cognitive operation called conceptual integration, which consists in the combin-
ation and/or merging of conceptual structure from any number of cued items.
Lower level cognitive operations often hinge on a previous integration of
diverse conceptual structures. As shown above, the correlation operation
underlying the interpretation of Mountain Dew is made possible thanks to the
combination of the domains of mountain and dew with the verticality
image-schema. Conceptual integration of this kind enhances the semantic
richness of the brand, as can be realized by comparing Mountain Dew with a
hypothetical brand such as UpDew, where the verticality image-schema is pre-
sented in a more literal fashion, and the resulting brand name is consequently
deprived of the wealth of positive connotations brought about by its concep-
tual integration with the domain of mountain.
Together with the verticality-image schema, Johnson (1987) has put for-
ward a typology of over 20 different schemata. Just as the use of words
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 377

whose semantics comprise the verticality image-schema can be used by brand

creators to design positive, energetic, optimistic names, words with other
image-schemas built into their semantics could be used to add a varied
range of connotations to the target product. Thus, the container image-schema,
for instance, readily activates ideas of storage capacity, control, and protection from
outside forces (when an entity is within the borders of the container), or mystery
(since it is not possible to see what is inside it). Brands which may profit from
one or more of these straightforward implications are, among others, Xbox,
Pandora, Box.net, Nissan Cube, Power Macintosh G4 Cube, Aqua Sphere, Sphere
Holding, Intel, Volvo Wagon, and Fiat Qubo. In turn, the path image-schema calls

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

up notions of movement, travel, destination, and origin, as illustrated by brands
like BMW Roadster, Chrysler Horizon, Nissan X-Trail, and Nissan Pathfinder. The
force image-schema, to give just one more example, triggers associations with
concepts like strength, power, and speed. Words whose semantics are intrinsically
linked to the force image-schema are those of force, vector, arrow, lancia (Italian
for lance or spear), and push. Brand names containing these words will auto-
matically inherit the set of associations triggered by the force image-schema
(e.g. Lancia, Vector Graphics, Arrow Energy, Rowenta Air Force, and Push
Industries).
Image-schemas have an experiential basis, which makes them largely per-
vasive across cultures and languages. This special trait turns them into a valu-
able tool for brand creation, since the connotations of brand names based on
image-schematic correlations can be easily grasped by consumers from differ-
ent cultural backgrounds.

Domain expansion and reduction

These two cognitive operations are related to the two possible kinds of meto-
nymic relationship that can be established between a matrix (or main) domain
and the subdomains that it encompasses. Thus, if the source is a subdomain of
the target (matrix domain), we have a source-in-target metonymy; and if the
target is a subdomain of the source (matrix domain), we find a target-in-source
metonymy (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza 2000). This distinction is not inconsequential,
since each of the choices correlates with a different type of cognitive operation
(i.e. domain expansion and domain reduction, respectively) and produces specific
communicative effects. Let us deal with each of them in turn.
Domain expansion operations involve the development of a subdomain
(source) into its matrix domain (target). As shown in Figure 2, this can be
illustrated by a source-in-target metonymy such as the one underlying the
expression The ham sandwich asked for the bill, where the ham sandwich (sub-
domain) stands for the customer who has ordered it (matrix domain).
Domain expansion is an economical inference-generating cognitive oper-
ation which gives rise to an expanded conceptual domain. Its economy derives
from the fact that the speaker needs only provide limited information under
378 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

Figure 2: Domain expansion cognitive operation underlying the interpretation
of the source-in-target metonymy The ham sandwich asked for his bill

the assumption that it will be developed by the hearer into the relevant con-
ceptual representation.
This type of domain expansion operation is often used to highlight one or
more special and/or unique attributes or ingredients of the target product.
Thus the subdomain that is used as the source of the projection, not only
names but also identifies the product uniquely by emphasizing its most rele-
vant and/or representative characteristics. Coca-cola is a successful brand name
based on a cognitive operation of this kind. Its two main ingredients form a
compound, which names the beverage, at the same time that they project the
knowledge and connotations associated with them onto it. Bitter (Kas) would
be a similar example, although in this case the subdomain that is used as the
source of the projection corresponds to that of the taste of the beverage. Other
drinks, such as Boost or Kick, make use of yet a different subdomain, which
consists of the expected effects of the drink. In a similar way, other positive side
effects (e.g. Gaudium, a Latin word which stands for the notions of joy, delight,
and happiness) or consequences (Placet, another Latin term which means ap-
proval, favorable opinion) are made to stand for the wine that originates them,
thus presenting the target product as something desirable.
Very well known brands may even make use of domain expansion oper-
ations based on acronyms, as in ck (Calvin Klein), CH (Carolina Herrera) or HP
(Hewlett Packard). In brands of this kind, the acronyms function as metonymic
access points to the fully fletched brand names, while at the same time adding
a touch of mystery, modernity, and/or technical and professional flavor that
their corresponding full-forms lack.
Domain expansion operations constitute a safe, yet highly productive strat-
egy of brand name creation. Virtually any element of the conceptual fabric that
makes up the target product can be metonymically used to name it. Thus,
since the resulting brand name will always have its origin in a subdomain of
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 379

the target product, the risk of generating unrelated brands or infelicitous con-
notations is largely limited. Yet, a careful lexical choice in the naming of the
relevant subdomain can result in highly persuasive and unique brand names.
Rioja wine brands, for example, often exploit the subdomain of color for
naming purposes, taking advantage of the rich pool of color hyponyms that
exist in Spanish. Such color hyponyms are semantically richer than their
basic-level counterparts, and can therefore contribute extra conceptual mater-
ial to the brand name. As a matter of fact, they do so in spite of referring to
what is essentially a search attribute. Genol (from the Vina Ijalba Winery in the
Rioja D.O.C.), for instance, is a white wine whose name in based on a domain

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

expansion operation from the corresponding color subdomain (Genol-yellow)
to the target product (wine). It should be noted that Genol refers to a special
type of yellow traditionally used in the contexts of art and restoration of an-
tiques. The choice of this hyponym is not arbitrary, since it is semantically
richer than the corresponding basic-level term amarillo (i.e. yellow). All the
relevant semantic content of this hyponym will thus be inherited by the wine
itself, which will benefit from the positive connotations derived from the in-
directly related domains of antiquity, art, and preservation of valuable objects.
Target-in-source metonymic expressions, like Mercedes Benz has decided to cut
down its production of luxury cars, illustrate the functioning of the converse op-
eration, known as domain reduction. In domain reduction the matrix domain
serves as a reference point for one of its subdomains, consequently reducing
the semantic scope of a conceptual representation. Thus, in the example under
consideration, Mercedes Benz does not refer to the whole company, but to the
people in charge of its management, as illustrated in Figure 3.
While domain expansion operations single out and focalize one or two rele-
vant elements of the conceptual fabric of a particular concept, domain reduc-
tion operations highlight the whole matrix domain. This type of operation is

Figure 3: Domain reduction operation underlying the interpretation of the

target-in-source metonymy in Mercedes Benz has decided to cut down its
production of luxury cars
380 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

useful when the target subdomain is too complex or elaborate to be named in

an economical way or when the matrix domain is relevant enough to be cap-
able of adding positive connotations, which would be lost by naming the spe-
cific subdomain alone.
Brands that make use of the name or surname of the founder of the com-
pany generally involve a domain reduction process of the kind described
above. Thus, international brands such as Prada, Kellogs and Ferrari hinge
on this type of mental operation. It is often the case that these brands involve
a double-domain reduction operation, so that the name of the founder stands
for its company, and in turn, the company stands for its products, as shown in

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

Figure 4.

Figure 4: Double-domain reduction metonymy underlying the interpretation

of the brand name Prada

Double-domain reduction processes of this kind lead the customer to under-

stand the target product, not in isolation, but as part of a broader frame. As a
result, the final conceptualization of the product inherits relevant conceptual
material from the more general domains in which it is embedded. In this
fashion, Prada handbags, for example, will inherit notions characterizing
their company such as those of luxury and selectiveness, as well as a sense of
heritage and family tradition from the matrix domain of the founder.
Domain reduction operations are economic for the speaker since it is the
addressees task to determine the relevant subdomain with the help of con-
textual and/or visual clues. Furthermore, such operations can have the added
advantage of offering a unified denomination for the various products of a
company, which may simplify their commercialization and bring down their
marketing costs.

Mitigation, strengthening, and parametrization operations

Utterances making a non-literal use of a scalar notion are likely to require
either a mitigation or a strengthening operation for their interpretation.
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 381

The understanding of hyperbole, for instance, requires the hearer to mitigate

(i.e. bring down to a point which is compatible with his perception of the state
of affairs) the speakers exaggerated formulation of a scalar feature. In this
fashion, a statement such as My suitcase weighs a ton will have to be mitigated
by the hearer to more realistic assertions such as My suitcase weighs too much or
My suitcase is too heavy for me. On the contrary, strengthening operations under-
lie the interpretation of understatements such as Repairing the car will take some
time. Consequently, the hearer needs to move the formulation up the scale to a
point that is compatible with his perception of the state of affairs in order to
make sense of the utterance (i.e. Repairing the car will take quite some time).

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

Brands whose semantic built-up involves either a mitigation or a strengthen-
ing mechanism will necessarily require the customer to carry out the converse
mental operation in order to reach their correct interpretations.
In addition, brands formed through mitigation or strengthening mechanisms
often involve a further operation of parametrization. As defined by Ruiz de
Mendoza and Santibanez (2003: 9), parametrization consists in adapting the
basic conceptual layout provided by the expression to other textual and con-
textual clues. This is one more cognitive operation to add to the list of
implicature-generating devices. If we consider a wine brand such as Imperial,
it is our knowledge that emperors used to live in a world of luxury, which
allows us to think of this wine as a high-quality product in terms of taste
and aroma. If the same brand name were to be used to refer to a horse or a
car instead, the parametrization operation would trigger different interpret-
ations, probably along the lines of a pure breed, i.e. a competitive horse,
and of a luxurious and expensive car, respectively. Thus, the same brand
name (i.e. linguistic cue) will be parametrized differently depending on the
product that it names.
Let us now see each of these two opposed processes of brand creation and
interpretation in turn. Brands based on mitigation mechanisms often make use
of diminutives. Examples abound in present-day markets and include such
well-known products as Smarties, Kindle, Chevrolet, Chevy, Tablet, etc. The mo-
tivations behind the use of diminutives in brand creation are varied. Some of
them obey the straightforward need or desire to highlight the reduced dimen-
sions and portability of a product (i.e. Kindle, Tablet).8 However, diminutives
are also connected with deeply rooted cultural beliefs and social expectations,
which can be fruitfully exploited in branding. As far back as the 1980s,
Sweetser (1984, 1987) already pointed out that not only representational
meaning, but also our pragmatic knowledge about social interaction could
be organized in terms of Propositional Idealized Cognitive Models (henceforth prop-
ositional ICMs).9 This type of knowledge organization structure does not neces-
sarily mirror reality faithfully. On the contrary, propositional ICMs represent the
world from a subjective, idealized perspective. Diminutives are often used to
draw attention to the speakers positive or negative attitudes about the refer-
ent. As argued by Ruiz de Mendoza (19951996: 164), this use of diminutives
can be traced back to our experiential knowledge about how people interact
382 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

differently with objects depending on their size. Ruiz de Mendoza, therefore,

contends that we can ultimately relate the interpretation of diminutives to the
propositional ICM of size, which he formulates as follows:
ICM of size
(1) Entities range in size from very small ones to very large ones.
(2) A small entity is often more manageable than a bigger one.
(3) A small entity is often less harmful than a bigger one.

From (2) and (3) we derive, as corollaries, two opposed emotional reactions

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

in our understanding of small entities:
(4) We feel that small entities are likeable.
(5) We feel that small entities are unimportant.

Because small entities can presumably do us no harm, they can be easily

ignored. Nevertheless, for the same reason, they become attractive to us: as
humans we tend to develop feelings of fondness for other human or material
entities that are under our control and that do not represent a threat to us.
The affective meaning of many brands based on the use of diminutives is thus
derived from corollaries (4) and (5). Smarties, Chevrolet, and Chevy, to name just
a few examples, all partake of the attraction of small things. Smarties cease to be
a threat to cavities or a cause of overweight, because they are small and small
things are not perceived as being harmful. Chevrolet and Chevy benefit from our
appreciation of small things, which appear as lovable, charming, and desirable
in our collective mind, just in the same way as little pets or children can be
fetching and enthralling. Finally, Tablet and Kindle are made to appear as man-
ageable (point 2 of the ICM of size) and seductive (corollary 4).
As already pointed out, most brands based on the use of diminutives will
require the customer to carry out a mental operation of either strengthening
and/or parametrization in order to grasp the intended interpretation. By way
of illustration, let us consider the case of Chevrolet and Chevy, which will not
be literally understood as referring to small cars, although their semantic in-
terpretation will nevertheless benefit from the associations triggered by the
aforementioned ICM of size.
The exploitation of the ICM of size in the creation of brand names can also be
effected through lexical choice. In Pizza Hut, for instance, the word hut,
referring to a small, warm and cosy wooden building, straightforwardly acti-
vates corollary 4 of the ICM of size. Again, Pizza Hut restaurants will not be
understood literally as small eateries, but they will inherit the semantic asso-
ciations of small things. Consequently, they will come through as likeable and
comfy. Since hut already codes the connection between smallness and com-
fort, there is no need for contextual parametrization in this case.
At the other end of the construction of scalar brands we find the workings of
strengthening mechanisms. Brands like Burger King, Best, Diamond, Kings, Nike,
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 383

Zeus, Eros, Optima, Elite Book, among many others, exploit this cognitive oper-
ation in order to make their semantic impact more effective.
The strengthening strategy based on the use of references to either the world
of royalty (e.g. Burger King, Kings) or that of classical divinities (e.g. Nike, Zeus,
Eros) is highly productive. In combination with an underlying comparison
operation, the target domain (i.e. the product) inherits the sense of utter
luxury, quantity, and quality that are traditionally associated with the
source domains of kings and Gods. The semantic output of such conceptual
projections is at a later step conveniently mitigated and parametrized by the
potential buyers as they carry out a contextually and culturally adequate in-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

terpretation of the brand name. Thus, Burger King comes through as the most
tasty burger of its kind. Kings become the cigarettes that even a king would
choose, due to their quality and flavor. And Nike (Greek goddess of victory), to
name just another example, will be expected to lead its customers to optimum
sports performance.
Other lexical means that are instrumental in strengthening operations of this
sort include the use of superlatives (e.g. Best, Optima) and names describing
entities and categories with an intrinsic positive axiology based on their social-
ly valued nature (i.e. Elite Book, Diamond). It should be pointed out once more
that, since these brands make a non-literal use of scalar concepts, their final
interpretation will necessarily involve a mitigation operation. Best and Optima
will be brought down to more realistic assessments like very good quality or a
higher quality than the standard. Likewise, a piece of jewelry called Diamond is
not necessarily made of diamond, but it will be conveniently understood as
referring to the category of exclusive, expensive jewels of which diamonds are
a prototype. In a similar fashion, Elite Book is not a notebook aimed at an elite,
but it will be easily grasped as being a portable computer that has the necessary
features to comply with the requirements of highly demanding users.
In some other cases, strengthening mechanisms involve the use of aug-
mentatives, as illustrated by such brands as Big O Tyres, Max Factor, Big Mac,
MegaUpload, Mega-Vox, and SuperGlu, among others. The interpretation of aug-
mentatives, like that of diminutives, hinges on the ICM of size, whose original
formulation can be extended to account for large entities and the emotional
reactions triggered by them:
ICM of size
(1) Entities range in size from very small ones to very large ones.
[. . .]
(6) A large entity is more visually noticeable.
(7) A large entity looks sturdier and more resistant.
From (6) and (7) we derive, as corollaries, two opposed emotional reactions
in our understanding of large entities:
(8) We feel large entities as being important and offering more quantity.
384 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING

(9) We feel large entities as being more reliable and/or offering a higher
quality.
Thus, the augmentative big in Big O Tyres activates the relevant elements of
the ICM of size so that the tires are perceived as more resistant and reliable.
In turn, Big Mac activates point 6 of the ICM of size, which is conveniently
parametrized in order to produce the semantic output of a larger and higher
quality hamburger than the standard one.
As shown in the discussion above, both diminutives and augmentatives,
therefore, have the ability to create a positive attitude in the minds of potential

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

consumers. However, it should be noted that while diminutives suggest
likeability through minoration, augmentatives do so through impressiveness.
Likewise, mitigation and strengthening operations represent subtle and oppos-
ing ways of exploiting well-entrenched social conventions and conventional
emotional reactions. Mitigation strategies lead the potential customer to con-
sider the product as something desirable because of its harmless and easily
controllable nature. On the contrary, strengthening operations draw attention
to the dimensions and strengths of the product, which also turn it into some-
thing desirable due to its eye-catching and/or reliable nature.
Strengthening and mitigation operations represent two sides of the same
coin. By means of these operations, brand designers present reality in an aug-
mented or a diminished fashion, respectively. In turn, they leave consumers
the task of constructing a valid interpretation in order to make sense of the
mismatch between the real nature of the product and its purposefully distorted
representation provided by the corresponding brand name. The scope of their
interpretation, however, is conveniently constrained by the interaction of
these cognitive operations with the related ICM of size. Such idealized model
of our conventional reactions towards the perception of size automatically
shapes consumers interpretations to a large extent. Thus, when a consumer
finds a brand like Toyota Avalon (constructed through a strengthening oper-
ation), his reading of the brand name will activate those positive traits of large
entities as stated in the ICM of size. A large entity is more noticeable and solid,
and therefore, more visually catching, and reliable. On the contrary, a brand
name built through a mitigation operation (e.g. Chevrolet), activates those cor-
ollaries of the ICM of size, which are related to small objects (i.e. they are
harmless, more manageable, and as a result, they are usually perceived as
endearing and charming). Against this, it could be argued that both large
and small entities could also have obvious intrinsic negative properties depend-
ing on the use to which they are put. Nevertheless, when interpreting a brand
name, consumers work under the general cooperative principle of communi-
cation (Grice 1975), which in the context of branding hinges on the assump-
tion that the brand is aimed at highlighting the positive characteristics of the
product. Brands such as Chevrolet and Toyota Avalon (i.e. car brands) which stem
from opposite mental operations (such as mitigation and strengthening, re-
spectively) both create a positive attitude on the potential consumer thanks
 L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 385

to their interaction with the conventional knowledge about human perception

and emotional reaction to size as captured in the corresponding ICM.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER

RESEARCH
This article makes an initial foray into the unexplored territory of the concep-
tual foundations of brand names design. We have tackled the issue of how
the meaningful associations and connotations arising from a brand name can
be largely guided and constrained by a finite set of cognitive operations. In order

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012

to support this hypothesis, we have offered a wealth of examples that show how
the successful semantics of well-known international brand names is based on
the underlying workings of conceptual mechanisms, such as those of compari-
son, correlation, domain expansion, domain reduction, mitigation, strengthening, and
parametrization. In so doing, we have also highlighted the specific traits of each
of those cognitive operations, as well as the particular benefits each of them
contributes to the process of brand creation. Due to space constraints, we have
limited our analysis to brand names. This type of analysis, however, can be
extended to other branding elements, including brand images, colors, and
sounds, whose semantic interpretation similarly hinges on conceptual mech-
anisms such as those considered in this article. This line of further research can
profit from previous studies on visual metaphor and metonymy (Ungerer 2000;
Forceville 2006), as well as from Klinks (2000) proposals on sound symbolism.
Special attention should be paid to aspects of potential cognitive dissonance in
the final semantic configuration of brands arising from the different elements
that integrate them: linguistic (brand name, motto), visual (logo, color), and
acoustic (sounds, sound patterns), etc. In this connection, the contemporary
literature on conceptual interaction (Goossens 1995; Ruiz de Mendoza and Dez
2002) should also be revisited and elaborated to accommodate those instances
of multi-modal conceptual interplay that often characterize the construction of
powerful brands (e.g. a linguistic metaphor interacting with a visual meton-
ymy, a mitigation operation based on visual input interacting with linguistic
and/or phonetic metaphors or metonymies, etc.).

FUNDING
Financial support for this research has been provided by the DGI, Spanish
Ministry of Education and Science, grant FFI2010-17610(FILO).

NOTES
1 Considerations on sound symbolism
can be traced back to ancient
Greek philosophy (Platos Cratylus)
and relevant 20th century linguists
such as Sapir (1929). It has been
defined as the direct linkage be-
tween sound and meaning (Hinton
et al. 1994).
386 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING
2 It goes without saying that specific
cultural factors also play a role in this
process. However, our general focus in
this article is on the more general fac-
tors, which are common across cultures
due to their grounding in shared cogni-
tive factors.
3 The Lexical Constructional Model (Mairal
and Ruiz de Mendoza 2009) arises
from the concern to account for the re-
lationship between syntax and all facets
of meaning construction, including
traditional implicature, illocutionary
meaning, and discourse phenomena.
The LCM bases its descriptions on the
notions of lexical and constructional
templates, which are the building
blocks of the model. For a more de-
tailed account on this model of lan-
guage representation, visit its webpage
at: <http://www.lexicom.es>
4 As pointed out by Ruiz de Mendoza
(2010), high-level formal abstraction op-
erations are a precondition for correl-
ation and comparison operations to be
possible at all. Through abstracting, we
derive generic structure common to the
source and target domains of a concep-
tual mapping, thus licensing further
comparisons and/or correlations be-
tween them. By way of illustration,
consider the correlation between quan-
tity (the target) and height (the source)
in a metaphorical expression such as
Prices are soaring. This type of correl-
ation between height and quantity is
licensed by the abstraction of common
structure from multiple low-level scen-
arios in which we observe the rise and
fall of levels as more is added or taken
away.
5 Traditionally, metaphoric mappings
have been taken as cognitive oper-
ations (Lakoff 1987). Nevertheless, as
pointed out by Grady (1999), this is
an oversimplification, since metaphor-
ical mappings eventually hinge on a
number of more basic cognitive oper-
ations, such as the comparison and
correlation operations dealt with in
this section.
6 The Great Chain of Being, which was first
put forward by Lakoff and Turner
(1989), is a cultural model which per-
vades our conception of the order of
things in the world and structures our
vision of the existing relations between
human beings and lower forms of ex-
istence. According to the basic Chain of
Being, there is a hierarchy among the
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012
different kinds of being in the world.
Higher level beings possess all the prop-
erties of lower level beings together
with their inherent properties. For ex-
ample, animals show all the defining
features inherited from lower ranks
(e.g. plants), plus an inherent attribute,
namely, instinct. At the highest level
of the scale, we find human beings who
partake of all the properties of lower
levels plus rationality.
7 Image-schemas are one of the corner-
stone notions of the experientialist
paradigm of Cognitive Linguistics
(Johnson 1987). This framework was
founded upon the rejection of the
mindbody dichotomy and stressing
the fundamentally embodied nature of
meaning, imagination, reason, and lan-
guage as a whole. Image-schemas are
conceived of as the pre-linguistic, dy-
namic, and highly schematic gestalts
arising directly from our bodily experi-
ence, motor movement, object ma-
nipulation, and perceptual interaction
with the world that surrounds us.
8 The more sophisticated readers will
straightforwardly recognize the di-
minutive suffixes (i.e. let, -le) in these
brand names. Less learned consumers,
however, will also grasp the implica-
tions by analogy with more common
uses of these diminutives (e.g. piglet,
booklet, hamlet, puddle, noodle). This
type of unconscious linguistic know-
ledge is often successfully exploited by
brand name creators.

9 Propositional Idealized Cognitive Models
ICMs (Lakoff 1987) are very general,
idealized, culture-specific structures of
knowledge organization. The role of
social propositional ICMs and other
REFERENCES
Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic
Communication and Speech Acts. The MIT Press.
Bao, Y., A. T. Shao, and D. Rivers. 2008.
Creating new brand names: effects of rele-
vance, connotation, and pronunciation,
Journal of Advertising Research 48: 14862.
Fiske, S. T. 1982. Schema-triggered affect: ap-
plications to social perception in M. S. Clark
and S. T. Fiske (eds): Affect and Cognition.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 17190.
Forceville, C. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal
metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas
for research in G. Kristiansen et al. (eds):
Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and
Future Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter,
pp. 379402.
Goedertier, F. and G. Mast. 2003. Brand
equity: state of literature, Vlerick Leuven
Gent Management School. Vlerick Brand man-
agement centre (Report).
Goossens, L. 1995. Metaphtonymy: the inter-
action of metaphor and metonymy in expres-
sions for linguistic action in L. Goossens,
P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. M. Simon-
Vanderbergen, and J. Vanparys (eds): By
Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and
Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. John
Benjamins, pp. 15974.
Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for
conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resem-
blance in G. Steen and R. Gibbs (eds):
Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. John
Benjamins, pp. 79100.
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation
in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds): Syntax and
Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press.
Healey, M. 2008. What is Branding? Rotovision.
Hinton, L., H. Nichols, and J. Ohala. 1994.
Introduction: sound symbolic processes
in L. Hinton, H. Nichols, and J. Ohala (eds):
Sound Symbolism. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago
University Press.
L. PEREZ HERNANDEZ 387
types of structured schemata (e.g.
frames, scenarios, scripts, etc.) in trigger-
ing expected emotional reactions and
inferences finds further support in psy-
chological studies (Fiske 1982).
Keller, K. L., S. E. Heckler, and M.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012
J. Houston. 1998. The effects of brand
name suggestiveness on advertising recall,
Journal of Marketing 62/1: 4857.
Klink, R. R. 2000. Creating brand names
with meaning: the use of sound symbolism,
Marketing Letters 11/1: 520.
Klink, R. R. 2003. Creating meaningful brands:
the relationship between brand name and
brand mark, Marketing Letters 14/3: 14357.
Kotler, P. and G. Amstrong. 2001. Principles of
Marketing. Prentice-Hall International.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind.
UCP.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy In
The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to
Western Thought. Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. and M. Turner. 1989. More Than Cool
Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.
University of Chicago Press.
Mairal, U.R. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibanez. 2009. Levels of description and ex-
planation in meaning construction in C.
S. Butler and J. Martn Arista (eds):
Deconstructing Constructions. John Benjamins,
pp. 15398.
Panther, K.-U. and L. Thornburg. 1998. A
cognitive approach to inferencing in conversa-
tion, Journal of Pragmatics 30: 75569.
Perez, H.L. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2002.
Grounding, semantic motivation, and concep-
tual interaction in indirect directive, Journal of
Pragmatics 34/3: 25984.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2010. Metonymy and
cognitive operations in R. Benczes,
A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza
(eds): What is Metonymy? An Attempt at
Building a Consensus View on the Delimitation of
the Notion of Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics.
John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and O. Dez. 2002.
Patterns of conceptual interaction
388 COGNITIVE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL BRANDING
in R. Dirven and R. Porings (eds): Metaphor
and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast.
Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 489532.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and M. S. Pena
Cervel. 2005. Conceptual interaction, cogni-
tive operations, and projection spaces
in F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza and M. S. Pena
Cervel (eds): Internal Dynamics and
Interdisciplinary Interaction. Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 24983.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and L. Perez
Hernandez. 2001. Metonymy and the
Grammar: Motivation, Constraints, and
Interaction, Language and Communication 21/
4: 32157.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and F. Santibanez.
2003. Content and formal cognitive operations
in construing meaning, Italian Journal of
Linguistics 15/2: 293320.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 19951996.
Some notes on the grammatical status of the
Spanish ito/-illo diminutives and their trans-
lation into English, Pragmalingustica 3/4:
15572.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. 2000. The role
of mappings and domains in understanding
metonymy in A. Barcelona (ed.): Metaphor
and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 10932.
Sapir, E. 1929. A study in phonetic symbol-
ism, Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:
22539.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance,
Communication, and Cognition. Blackwell.
Srinivasan, S. S. and B. D. Till. 2002.
Evaluation of search, experience and credence
attributes: role of brand name and product
trial, Journal of Product and Brand Management
11/7: 41731.
Stern, B. B. 2006. What does brand mean?
Historical-analysis method and construct defin-
ition, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
34/2: 21623.
Sweetser, E. 1984. Semantic structure and
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad de La Rioja on May 10, 2012
semantic change: a cognitive linguistic study
of modality, perception, speech acts and logical
relations, PhD dissertation, University of
California at Berkeley. University Microfilms.
Sweetser, E. 1987. The definition of lie: An
examination of the folk theories underlying
a semantic prototype in D. Holland and
N. Quinn (eds): Cultural Models in Language
and Thought. CUP, pp. 4366.
Ungerer, F. 2000. Muted metaphors and the
activation of metonymies in advertising
in A. Barcelona (ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy
at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Mouton
de Gruyter.
Vanden Bergh, B. G. et al. 1987. Linguistic dis-
tinction among top brand names, Journal of
Advertising Research 27: 3944.
Wheeler, A. 2006. Designing Brand Identity: A
Complete Guide to Creating, Building, and
Maintaining Strong Brands. John Wiley.