Glacier Journal Of Scientific Research
ISSN:2349-8498
Psycholinguistics aspects of Brand Familiarity and Recognition: A
Study of Indian Brand Names
Ruchika Sharma1,Reena Jain2
Lecturer, Department of Humanities and social Sciences Birla Institute of Technology and
Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India 1
Student, B.E(Chemical Engineering) Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani,
Rajasthan, India 2
Ph: 10596-515858
Mail Id: ruchika@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in
Website: http://www.bits-pilani.ac.in/pilani/ruchika/profile
Psycholinguistics aspects of Brand Familiarity and Recognition: A Study of
Indian Brand Names
Abstract: A brand name has the power to confirm credibility, to connect emotionally,
to motivate the buyer and to build their loyalty. Appropriately, a brand name is an
invaluable foundation piece to communicate with the consumers. This paper aims at
identifying the factors influencing the affect of brand names on the purchasing power
and also to use this identification further for content analysis of one hundred fifty top
Indian brand names. They were then tabulated and differentiated based on the Mark
utilized and the lexicon incorporated (if any). The findings of the content analysis
thoroughly matched with the theoretical insight and it is inferred that companies prefer
selecting a Suggestive, Arbitrary or a Coined mark as a brand name over a Descriptive
Subject:
Linguistics
mark Branding,
as a brandApplied
name. Also
it is preferred by companies to incorporate a lexicon in
their brand names.
Keyword: lexicons, linguistics, brand names etc.
INTRODUCTION
Researchers studying and analyzing effects of
brand names are mostly concerned with how
brand names can be impactful in the
consumer market. These studies mostly
revolve around what makes a brand name
recognizable, appealing, retainable and
memorable by a consumer. Variables that
have been investigated in this regard include:
Different types of memory, Word properties
such as word frequency, phonology,
semantics and orthography etc. Research
suggests that frequency (familiarity) of the
brand name facilitates brand awareness and
elicits long-term memory [1]. It is also found
April2015, Issue
that people make decisions based on previous
exposure to brand names [2]. Most recently
consumer researchers have begun to see the
use of symbolism especially phonetic
symbolism for the naming of brands [3].
Therefore, the aim of this study is to extend
this research by further exploring the
implications of psycholinguistics aspects on
Indian brand names. The study took place in
two phases. Phase one includes extensive
literature review and identification of various
variables responsible for brand names’
recognition and memorability.
SELECTING A BRNAD NAME
Brand name should be memorable and catchy,
elevating the product and differentiating it from
its competitive alternatives. Selecting a
Page 1
Glacier Journal of Scientific Research
“Coined,” “Arbitrary,” or “Suggestive” over a
“Descriptive” Mark is generally preferred. A
descriptive mark describes the product or
service, or some characteristic feature directly
for example Holiday Inn for a provider of
holiday services. Though, descriptive brand
names provide more information about the
product from a trademark point of view, it is
best suited to avoid descriptive terms as brand
names. A “coined” mark is a word which is
non-existent in English language, but was
formed due to its appeal of look, sound and
spellingfor example, EXXON for gas and oil
sector based company, Kodak ,Xerox . An
“arbitrary” mark is a word which exists in
English language but is completely unrelated
to the product or servicefor example GAP and
PUMA as a fashion brand, APPLE for
computers etc. A “suggestive” mark is a word
which does not completely describe the
product or service but provides hints or
suggests about it. Suggestive marks invoke
the consumer’s perceptive imagination for
exampleBlu-ray, a new technology of highcapacity data storage - The name BlurayDisc refers to the blue laser used to read
the disc, which allows information to be stored
at a greater density, Amazon for online retailer
suggests a great river of products. But one
question arises, if arbitrary brand name is
associated with improved recognition and
consumer
response,
could
marketers
capitalize on that by using words that already
exist in the language as brand names? Gontijo
and Zhang [4] explored this possibility in a task
that compared memory recall to recognition of
homophonic
(e.g.,
Puma)
and
nonhomophonic brand names (e.g., Adidas). They
showed that the non-homophonic brand
names were more easily recalled than
homophonic brand names.
This clearly
suggests that creating brand names using an
existing word may not succeed to provide a
memory recall advantage if the brand name
does not have the frequency advantage
arising from repeated exposure.
LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISITCS
Several linguistic features like semantics,
phonology etc. generally are known to
influence brand memory [5] Linguistic
features can compensate for lack of brand
name familiarity and exposure frequency.
However, there is an improvement in recall
for unfamiliar brand names that contained
initial plosives (hard sounding consonants
such as p, t and k). Brand names starting
with ‘K’ were better recalled in memory,
irrespective of their frequency [6]. Also
unusual spellings also had a positive effect
April2015, Issue
ISSN:2349-8498
in name recalling for e.g. Kellogg’s Froot
Loops.However, a decrease in recall was
seen for brand names that were created by
semantic blending for example Nescafe,
which is a combination of Nestle and Cafe
.Researchers have also reported that brand
names that began with a plosive (e.g., letter
K,T,P,D,G,B) were better recognized than
those brand names beginning with a vowel
sound[7]. For example Kit-Kat, Tata Salt,
Pepsi, Dabur ,Glucon-D and Bournvita .
Few brand names beginning with vowel
sounds are Ariel, Iodex, Onida and Ujjala.
A. Lexicons
It is believed by psycholinguists that words
exist as memory representations that are
stored in mental dictionaries which are
known as lexicons [8][9][10][11]. There are
three types of lexicons: Phonological,
Orthographic and Semantic. Phonological
lexicons are related to the hearing property
or sound of language. The representations
of this property are assumed to take on an
abstract coding system for storage in the
lexicon [12].Orthographical Lexicons are
related to the Appearance (or spelling) of
the word [13]. Semantic Lexiconsare
related to themeaning of the word. These
representations hold emotional, physical
and contextual essence of the word [14].
For example: The case ofKentucky Fried
Chicken/KFCs.
These three main types of lexicons contain
information extracted from written or
spoken communication and develop with
experience [15][16][17[18][19].
B. Sound Symbolism & Brand Names
Sound symbolism has been recognized as
an important factor in how individuals infer
specific meaning from unknown brand
names [20][21].It has been theorized that if
a brand name has phonemes that
represent characteristics a consumer
desires, consumers will hold more positive
attitudes and exhibit higher purchase intent
towards that brand. It has been stated by
Argo,Smith and Popa[22] that words when
separated from their literal or apparent
meaning ,have a sound – this according to
them is sound symbolism.It requires
dividing words into their smallest units,
these units are phonemes. Phonemes
serve two main purposes:
 They are the basic building blocks of
language which are combined to form
syllables and to a further extent words.
Page 2
Glacier Journal of Scientific Research
V ANALYSIS
The aim of the analysis
The aim of practical research analysis is to
determine the rate of usage of the variables
and parameters which affect brand familiarity
and memory by taking into account a sample
space consisting of one hundred and fifty top
brand names of India.
Hypotheses and Questions of Analysis
What is the percentage of Brand names which
utilize an arbitrary, coined, descriptive and
suggestive mark?
What is the percentage of Brand names which
have incorporated lexicons in their brand
name?
In case of multiple lexicons used, is there any
particular combination of lexicons which is
preferred?
Methodology
A sample set of One hundred and fifty top
brand names in India was selected for the
analysis based on the above mentioned
parameters that were extracted from literature
review. The sample set was derived from
“Asian Correspondent” and “Maverickmonk
hubpages” in order to maintain consistency
and ensure the inclusion of top brand
names.The data was further tabulated on the
basis of two factors – the Mark utilized and the
Lexicons incorporated. The Mark section
distinguished the data based on the four types
of
marks
useddescriptive,
Coined,
Suggestive and Arbitrary. The Lexicon section
distinguished the data based on the three
types
of
Lexicons
usedSemantic,
Orthographical and Phonological.
Figure 1: brand names with different marks
No. of brands
200
0
Mark
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
sample space have been observed to utilize
an arbitrary mark. Fifteen brands or 10%
brands of the sample space have been
observed to utilize a coined mark. Six brands
or 4% brand names have inclusion of
descriptive mark. Whereas, hundred and ten
brands or 73.33% brand names have
suggestive mark.
Therefore, it can be inferred that maximum
number of brands are named based on a
suggestive mark and minimum number of
brands are named based on descriptive
marks. This proves the theoretical knowledge
that companies prefer selecting a “Coined,”
“Arbitrary” or “Suggestive” mark over a
“Descriptive” Mark. Hence these findings
coincide with the existing literature.
On the basis of figure II, it was observed that
thirty two brands or 21.33% brands have not
incorporated any lexicon in their brand names.
Whereas, hundred and nine or 72.66 %
brands have incorporated single lexicon in
their brand names. Also nine brands or 6%
brands have incorporated two lexicons in their
brand name. Out of thirty two brands which
have not incorporated any lexicon, twenty of
these brands or 62.5% of brands are named
after their founders and hence were unable to
incorporate any lexicons in their brand names.
Another interesting observation was made in
terms of multiple lexicon usage. It was
observed that nine brand names have used
combination of two lexicons. A combination of
Orthographical and Phonological lexicons was
used in three brand names. Whereas, in
another three
names, Semantic and
Phonological lexicons were used. The
remaining three have utilized Orthographical
and Semantic lexicons.
4
2
0
No. of brands
 They can provide meaning themselves
through sound symbolism. These sounds
provide cues about how the brand may
perform on particular attribute dimensions.
ISSN:2349-8498
Type of lexicon combination.
On the basis figure I, it was found that
Nineteen brands or 12.66% brands of the
April2015, Issue
Figure 2: Brand Names with Lexicons
Page 3
Glacier Journal of Scientific Research
From the above observations it can be inferred
that maximum number of brands incorporate
one lexicon in their brand names and minimum
number of brands incorporate multiple lexicons
in their brand names. Also, no particular
combination of two lexicons is preferred or
more easily formed than the other.
On the basis of coined brand names and
lexicons used it was observed that fifteen
brands of our sample space utilize coined
marks. Brand names generally are coined to
provide a psycholinguistic advantage. Four
brands out of these fifteen or 26.66% of coined
brand names have not incorporated a lexicon
in their brand name. Whereas, remaining
eleven brands or 73.33% of coined brands
have incorporated lexicons in their brand
names. By coined marks we mean that words
which do not exist in the English dictionary but
have been coined to appease the consumer’s
senses. From our observations we can infer
that majority of the brand names with coined
marks utilize lexicons like Semantic lexicon,
Phonological lexicon or Orthographical lexicon
due to the psycholinguistic advantage they
offer. This observation strengthens the existing
literature review.
VII.CONCLUSION
Form both literature review and content
analysis it can be concluded that Typical brand
names gather a better response than atypical
brand names, non-homophonic brand names
were more easily recalled than homophonic
brand names. Repeated exposure encourages
memory recall advantage irrespective of
Typical or Atypical brand name. Added to that,
linguistic characteristics (e.g., semantics,
phonology) also might influence brand
memory, as these linguistic features can
compensate for lack of brand name familiarity.
Recall is found to be improved for unfamiliar
brand names that contained initial plosives.
Meanings of brand names also play an
essential part in defining consumer behavior.
Our observation proves that companies prefer
selecting
a
“Coined,”
“Arbitrary,”
or
“Suggestive” over a “Descriptive” Mark. We
can also infer that maximum number of brands
incorporates one lexicon in their brand names
and minimum number of brands incorporates
multiple lexicons in their brand names. It has
also been investigated that 13% of the brands
have been unable to incorporate lexicons in
their brand names because they were named
after their founders/co-founders. We have
found that no particular combination of two
lexicons is preferred or more easily formed
than the other. Further, we can also infer that
majority of the brand names with coined marks
utilize lexicons. Although, it is very clear that
April2015, Issue
ISSN:2349-8498
brand names are an important factor in
analyzing consumer behavior, a lot of research
is still required to analyze the psycholinguistic
aspect of brand names. Most of the research
is mainly focused on the marketing and
advertising field and there remains a huge
scope to study and understand the
significance and mechanism of storage and
representation
of
these
names
by
humans.This understanding will deeply assist
us in creating impactful brand names that have
the flair to capture and retain consumer’s
attention. As is clear from the study, linguistic
characteristics are an important parameter that
can make brand names easily recallable and
compensate for lack of brand name
acquaintance. Also, exposure frequency and
phonology are other elements that are seen to
be contributory in consumer’s assessment of
products and their primary attributes. Even
though we have covered many factors that
play a role in creating brand image in the
consumer’s mind, there are other factors, like
symbolism, that need to be examined.
References
1. Park, C. W., &Lessig, V. P. (1981).
Familiarity and its impact on consumer
decision biases and heuristics. Journal
of consumer research, 223-231.
2. Coates, S. L., Butler, L. T., & Berry, D.
C. (2004). Implicit memory: A prime
example for brand consideration and
choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
18(9), 1195-1211.
3. Yorkston, E., &Menon, G. (2004). A
sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand
names on consumer judgments.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1),
43-51
4. Gontijo, P. F., & Zhang, S. (2007). The
Mental Representation of Brand
Names: Are Brand Names a Class by
Themselves?.
5. Lowrey, T. M., Shrum, L. J.,
&Dubitsky, T. M. (2003). The relation
between
brand-name
linguistic
characteristics
and
brand-name
memory. Journal of Advertising, 32(3),
7-17.
6. Schloss, I. (1981). Chickens and
pickles.
Journal
of
Advertising
Research.
7. Bergh, B. G. V., Collins, J., Schultz,
M., & Adler, K. (1984). Sound Advice
on Brand Names. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 61(4), 835840.
Page 4
Glacier Journal of Scientific Research
8. Schriefers, H. (1992). Lexical access
in the production of noun phrases.
Cognition, 45(1), 33-54.
9. Sommers, M. S. (1996). The structural
organization of the mental lexicon and
its contribution to age-related declines
in
spoken-word
recognition.
Psychology and aging, 11(2), 333.
10. Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative
view of the mental lexicon. Trends in
cognitive sciences, 8(7), 301-306.
11. Libben, G., &Jarema, G. (2002).
Mental lexicon research in the new
millennium. Brain and language,
81(1), 2-11.
12. Foss, D. J., & Blank, M. A. (1980).
Identifying
the
speech
codes.
Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 1-31.
13. Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency
and neighborhood frequency effects in
lexical decision and naming. Journal
of memory and language, 29(2), 228244.
14. Buchanan, L., McEwen, S., Westbury,
C., &Libben, G. (2003). Semantics
and semantic errors: Implicit access to
semantic information from words and
nonwords in deep dyslexia. Brain and
Language, 84(1), 65-83.
15. Oldfield, R. C. (1966). Things, words
and the brain. The Quarterly journal of
experimental psychology, 18(4), 340353.
ISSN:2349-8498
16. Treisman, A. M. (1960). Contextual
cues in selective listening. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
12(4), 242-248.
17. Halderman, L. K., &Chiarello, C.
(2005). Cerebral asymmetries in early
orthographic and phonological reading
processes: Evidence from backward
masking. Brain and language, 95(2),
342-352.
18. Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological
influences on lexical access: Lexical
or nonlexical effects?.Journal of
Memory and Language, 25(6), 726740
19. Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., &
Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing
semantic space: Neighborhood effects
in word recognition. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 531-544
20. Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand
names with meaning: The use of
sound symbolism. Marketing Letters,
11(1), 5-20.
21. Klink, R. R. (2001). Creating
meaningful new brand names: A study
of semantics and sound symbolism.
Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 27-34.
22. Argo, J. J., Popa, M., & Smith, M. C.
(2010). The sound of brands. Journal
of
Marketi
23. ng, 74(4), 97-109.
April2015, Issue
Page 5