Examining the metonymic relation between a brand name and a product: A case study of Moroccan cosmetic brand names


cognitive semantics, metonymy, branding, cosmetics, multimodality

How to Cite

Azzahraa El Yamlahi, F., & Cortés de los Ríos, M. E. (2022). Examining the metonymic relation between a brand name and a product: A case study of Moroccan cosmetic brand names. Ibérica, (44), 391–416. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.391


This paper takes a cognitive perspective on the semantics of Moroccan brand names, an unexplored territory so far, and analyzes the role of the metonymy in a corpus-based analysis in cosmetic brand names. More particularly, we focus on the following:   to shed some light on the metonymic cognitive operations in these names (domain expansion and domain reduction metonymies together with metonymic chains), to determine the occurrence frequency of metonymy in comparison to metaphor, to reveal the modes (visual, verbal) in which the brand names are manifested, and to examine if there is any connection between the type of cosmetics and the metonymic operations cued. In this light, the paper yields some significant findings: the most salient feature in our corpus is the low occurrence frequency of reduction metonymy that is largely outnumbered by its converse operations, expansion metonymy. Metonymic complexes are highly productive mechanisms for cosmetic brand-name creation, especially their significant presence in skincare and makeup brands. In this way, the conscious use of these mechanisms by brand designers can help in boosting brand identity and help in building a favorable brand image in an economical way.



Aaker, A. D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.
Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing: An Introduction. (4th ed) New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (2018). Principles of Marketing. (17th ed.) Pearson education limited: United Kingdom.
Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.). Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 313-352. Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the Properties and Prototype Structure of Metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & J.F. Ruiz de Mendoza, (Eds.). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 7-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bergh, V., Adler, K. & Oliver, L. (1987). Linguistic distinction among top brand names. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 – 44 (Aug/Sept).
Bolognesi, M. (2015). Conceptual Metaphors and Metaphoric Expressions in Images [Conference Paper]. Figurative thought and language FTL2. Cambridge Scholar.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & J. F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 217- 248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Burcea, R. (2016). When Brand Meets Metaphor: Brand Conceptualization in the Marketing Discourse. Petru Maior. University Press, 132-141.
Ching Lim, E. & Hoon, Ang. (2006). The Influence of Metaphors and Product Type on Brand Personality Perceptions and Attitudes, Journal of Advertising, 35(2): 39-53.
Cortés de los Ríos, M. ª E. (2010). Cognitive devices to communicate the economic crisis: An analysis through covers in The Economist. Ibérica, 20, pp. 81-106.
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75-111.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erdman, B. (2008). Is Green Really Your Color? Brandweek, 49 (5):18.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. New York: Routledge.
Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1-14.
Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agenda for research. In G. Kristiansen et al. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, 379–402. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2009a). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & Urios-Aparis (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 19-42. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2009b). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola, & A.J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues, 56–74. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-McMillan.
Forceville, C. (2012). Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors. In R. Jones (Ed.), Discourse and creativity, 113-132. Harlow Person: Longman.
Forceville, C. (2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext, The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook, 241- 260. Berlin: De Gruyter
Forceville, C.& Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal Metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.
Gibbs, R. (1994). Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: CUP.
Gibbs, R. (2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods, In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & J. S. Michael (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 2-18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guillaume, D., Pioch, D. & Charrouf, Z. (2019). Argan [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] Oil. In
M. Ramadan (Ed.), Fruit oils: Chemistry and functionality. Springer: Cham.
Hidalgo, L. & Kraljevic, B. (2011). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez García, M.S. Peña & L. Pérez Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor, 153-178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Thomas Gries (Eds), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, 123-152. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kalisz, R. (2007). Metonymy and Semantic Representations. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy, 31-41. Berlin/New York/Oxford: Peter Lang.
Kashanizadeh, Z. & Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy: A study of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1): 78-110.
Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation. In Panther, K-U. & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koller, V. (2009). Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, 45-71. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A. & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are consumers really
willing to pay more for a favorable country image? A study of country-of-origin effects
on willingness to pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1): 19-41.
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1): 37–77.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McQuarrie, E.F. & Phillips, B.J. (2005). Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7-20.
Mittelberg, I. & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy First, Metaphor Second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in Cospeech Gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, 329-357. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2), 245-272.
Panther, K. & Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and Metaphor in
Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pérez Hernández, L. (2011). Cognitive tools for successful branding. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 369–388.
Pérez Hernández, L. (2013). A pragmatic-cognitive approach to brand names: A case study of Rioja wine brands names. A Journal of Onomastics 61(1), 33–46.
Pérez Hernández, L. (2019). XL burgers, shiny pizzas, and ascending drinks: Primary metaphors and conceptual interaction in fast food printed advertising. Cognitive Linguistics, 30 (3), 531-570.
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2016). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-
based account. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 73-90.
Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A Method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
Radden, G. (2005). The Ubiquity of Metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro, I. Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuno (Eds.), Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy 11-28. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Robertson, K. (1989). Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6 (4): 61-71.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997). Cognitive and Pragmatic Aspects of Metonymy. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa (612):161-178.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2000). The role of mappings and domain in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads, 109–132. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic
perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steen et al. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ungerer, F. (2000). Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In A.
Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads, 321–340. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ülkü, M.A., Hsuan, J. (2017). Towards sustainable consumption and production: competitive pricing of modular products for green consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 (4): 4230-4242.
Velasco-Sacristán, M. (2010). Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors: Evidence from advertising gender metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 42(1): 64-96.
Villacañas, B. & White, M. (2013). Pictorial metonymy as creativity source in Purificación García advertising campaigns. In L. Hidalgo & B. Kraljevic (Eds.), Metaphorical creativity across modes: Special issue of Metaphor and the Social World, (3(2): 220–239.
Zaltman, G. & Zaltman. L. H. (2008). Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal About the Minds of Consumers. Harvard Business Press.
Zeng, W. H. (2019). A Cognitive-pragmatic Approach to Metaphor and Metonymy in Brand Names: A case Study of Film Titles. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 17(1): 1-47.

Copyright (c) 2022 MARIA ENRIQUETA CORTES DE LOS RIOS, Fatima Azzahraa El Yamlahi

Creative Commons License

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


Download data is not yet available.