Email this article Cases of brand name genericization in nautical English
Abstract
Abstract – The widely disseminated use of a brand name is commonly regarded by marketing specialists as an indicator of brand success in a highly competitive marketplace. From a linguistic perspective, it may result in a type of change called genericization, the linguistic process whereby a brand name is gradually turned from a proper noun into a common noun (Kleenex → a kleenex) thus becoming commonly used to identify a whole category of products; in some instances, it may even be converted into a verb (Google → to google, Facebook → to facebook). The analysis of linguistic aspects involved in genericization are also relevant to legal disputes for trademark protection, in which forensic linguists may be consulted to examine the linguistic status of brand names and their usage amongst speakers. Indeed, in legal terms, inappropriate, genericized use of brand names may result, especially in some countries, in trademark dilution, or genericide. Although the literature on genericization in the English language is quite abundant, previous studies have mainly been concentrated on brand names designating mass-marketed products or services, that is names largely used in everyday general language. This paper is, therefore, aimed at investigating the process of genericization of brand names found in the niche market of marine equipment for anchoring and mooring operations in recreational boating, thus falling within the broader research area of the specialised domain of Nautical English.
References
Botton M., Cegarra J.J, and Ferrari B. 2002, Il nome della Marca, Guerini e Associati, Milano.
Butters R.R 2010, Trademarks: Language that One Owns, in Coulthard M. and Johnson A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 351-364.
Butters R.R and Westerhaus J. 2004, Linguistic Changes in Words One Owns: How Trademarks Become Generic, in Curzon A. and Emmons K. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language II, Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 111-123.
Butters R.R. 2008a, A Linguistic Look at Trademark Dilution, in “Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal”, 24 [3], pp. 507-519.
Butters R.R. 2008b, Trademarks and Other Proprietary Terms, in Gibbons J. and Turell M.T. (eds.), Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 231-247.
Butters R.R. 2012, Imaginative Leaps in Trademark Law, in Tomblin S. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of The International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth Biennial Conference, Centre for Forensic Linguistics Anston University, Anston, pp. 283-289.
Clankie S. 2013, An Overview of Genericization in Linguistics, in Felecan O. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Onomastics ‘Name and Naming’: Onomastics in Contemporary Public Space, Editura Mega, Editura Argonaut, Cluj-Napoca, pp.28-34.
Clankie S. 1999, On Brand Name Change: A Theory of Genericization, Ph.D. diss., University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Clankie S. 2000, Genericization: A Theory of Semantic Broadening in the Marketplace, in “Northern Review”. https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED442282#page/n1/mode/2up (4.1.2017).
Clankie S. 2002, A Theory of Genericization on Brand Name Change, Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston.
Cova B. 2014, Rebranding Brand Genericide, in “Business Horizons”, 57 [3], Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 359-369.
Cowan B. 2005, The Language of Corporate Names. Historical, Social and Linguistic Factors in the Evolution of Technology Corporation Naming Practices, Ph.D. diss., University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Dogana F. 1967, Psycholinguistic Contributions to the Problem of Brand Names, in “Marketing Research Review” 2 [1], pp. 50-58.
Formisano, V. 2017, ‘Ship Ahoy!’: Mastering Yachting Terminology, in Antinucci R. and Petrillo M.G (eds.), Navigating Maritime Languages and Narratives, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 41-57.
Hotta S. 2006, Function of Language in Trademarks, in “Ritsumeikan Law Review” 23, pp. 1-19.
Kohli C. and La Bahn D.W. 1995, Creating Effective Brand Names: A Study of the Naming Process, ISBM REPORT, Fullerton.
Kopp S. and Suter T. 2000, Trademark Strategies Online: Implications for Intellectual Property Protection, in “Journal of Public Policy & Marketing”, 19 [1], pp. 119-131.
Moor L. 2007, The Rise of Brands, Berg, Oxford/New York.
Room A. 1982, Dictionary of Trade Name Origins, Routledge & Kegan Paul Book, Abingdon.
Shafiulla B. 2010, Genericization of Trademarks: Brand Name Becomes Generic Name – A Challenge for Brand Managers, in “Indian Journal of Marketing”, 40, pp. 3-11.
Shuy R. 2002, Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
Shuy R. (ed.) 2008, Fighting over Words: Language and Civil Law Cases, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shuy R. (ed.) 2002, Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes, Palgrave, Houndmills.
Singh Mitta Rani 2014, Genericization: A Demon Attacking the Giants, in Rakholia K. and Vachhani A. (eds.), Conference Proceedings (NCETMSS’14) Shri. Patel Kelvani Mandal College of Technology, Junagadh, pp. 112-122. www.researchmatrix.org (8.1.2017).
Taylor C.R. and Walsh M.G. 2002, Legal strategies for protecting brands from genericide: Recent trends in evidence weighted in court cases in “Journal of Public Policy and Marketing”, 21[1], pp.160-167.
Wherry T.L. 2004, Trademarks in the Digital Age, The Scarecrow Press, Maryland/Toronto/Oxford.
Full Text: pdf
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
