Content uploaded by Djavlonbek Kadirov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Djavlonbek Kadirov on May 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name
and slogan extension tendencies in the Turkish, Russian
and Arabic contexts
Djavlonbek Kadirov
1
•Ahmet Bardakcı
2
•Murat Kantar
3
Published online: 21 August 2017
Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017
Abstract The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia
on multinational corporations’ visual identity extension
strategies in multiple sociolinguistically different markets
is investigated. Specifically, this study focuses on a sample
of Fortune Global 500 corporations and explores their
brand name/slogan extension practices in three distinct
linguistic contexts: Turkish, Russian and Arabic. The study
reveals that the different levels of linguistic proximity
systematically influence brand name adaptation including
brand name transliteration, as well as slogan translation and
new slogan creation in English. The study also finds that
these tendencies non-systematically but significantly vary
across the levels of diglossia. Conversely, diglossia sys-
tematically influences slogan standardization and new
slogan creation in a local language, while the effect of
linguistic proximity on these practices is non-systematic.
Keywords Brand Slogan Linguistic proximity
Meta-semantics Diglossia
Introduction
One of the pivotal topics in research on global marketing is
corporate visual identity extension decisions (Schmid and
Kotulla 2011; Walters 1986; Jain 1989; Boddewyn and
Grosse 1995; Terpstra and Sarathy 2000; Hollensen 2004;
Fastoso and Whitelock 2007). The most visible elements of
corporate identity from the perspective of consumers are
brand name and slogan (Jun and Lee 2007; Erdogmus et al.
2010). These elements are seen as the building blocks of
business communication (Quelch 1999; Alashban et al.
2002). The American Marketing Association defines brand
name as ‘‘the part of a brand that can be spoken which
includes letters, numbers, or words’’ (the AMA 2017). This
part of a brand is predominantly represented in writing
(Zhang and Schmitt 2001). Slogan, which is also referred
to as a tagline, represents ‘‘the verbal or written portion of
an advertising message [or a brand] that summarizes the
main idea in a few memorable words’’ (the AMA 2017).
This study explores the effect on brand/slogan extension of
linguistic phenomena such as linguistic proximity and
diglossia. Linguistic proximity refers to the extent to which
the phonetic features of a local language in a country under
focus is close to those of the base linguistic system, which
is English in this study. Diglossia refers to the practices of
using two different languages in the same country or
community (Ferguson 1959; Hudson 2002), while percep-
tually treating one of the languages as more prestigious
than the other.
Brand name serves as a robust signal of quality across
different cultures, much more so than other product ele-
ments such as price or other physical attributes (Dawar and
Parker 1994). Successful brand names build strong brand
equity through enhancing memorability, favorability and
preference for products (Aaker 1996). Selecting a proper
&Djavlonbek Kadirov
djavlonbek.kadirov@vuw.ac.nz
Ahmet Bardakcı
abardakci@pau.edu.tr
Murat Kantar
mkantar@pau.edu.tr
1
Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington,
Rutherford House, 1109, 23 Lambton Quay, Pipitea Campus,
Wellington 6140, New Zealand
2
Pamukkale U
¨niversitesi I
˙ktisadi ve I
˙dari Bilimler Faku
¨ltesi,
I
˙s¸letme (I
˙ngilizce) Bo
¨lu
¨mu
¨,KınıklıYerles¸kesi,
20070 Denizli, Turkey
3
Pamukkale U
¨niversitesi I
˙ktisadi ve I
˙dari Bilimler Faku
¨ltesi,
UluslararasıTicaret ve Finansman Bo
¨lu
¨mu
¨,Kınıklı
Yerles¸kesi, 20070 Denizli, Turkey
J Brand Manag (2018) 25:147–159
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0064-2
brand name when entering foreign markets is a critical
marketing decision (Zhang and Schmitt 2001). In fact,
research shows that getting brand name/slogan right may
account for more than 40% of the product’s likelihood of
success in global markets (Alashban et al. 2002; Zaltman
and Wallendorf 1979). As MNCs expand into sociolin-
guistically different markets, their brand name/slogan
extension decisions become increasingly complex
(Schuiling and Kapferer 2004). The existing research has
examined such decisions in either of the linguistically
similar contexts, for example, branding decisions within
the European continent (Chan and Huang 1997) or radi-
cally distinct linguistic contexts such as the USA versus
China (Francis et al. 2002; Zhang and Schmitt 2001). Yet,
no research has so far investigated the extent to which less
extreme, but significant differences in linguistic systems
such as their phonetic and meta-semantic features impact
brand name and slogan extension decisions. For instance,
the phonographic system comprises a large number of
different linguistic variants that differ in script, phoneme
recording styles, orthography and syllabic features. In
addition, a linguistic variant is defined by its predominant
meta-semantic structure, i.e., the cultural meaning of lan-
guage use as it relates to both the local and foreign regis-
ters. To the best of our knowledge, there is no research in
the field that considers how aforementioned variations in
different linguistic contexts influence brand/slogan exten-
sion decisions. To address this gap, the current study
investigates how a sample of Fortune 500 Global corpo-
rations extends their brands and brand-associated slogans
into three distinct linguistic contexts: Turkish, Russian and
Arabic.
It is critical for businesses (re)assessing their brand/
slogan extension strategies in emerging markets to under-
stand the impact of linguistic similarities and language use
symbolism, as language is the key medium through which
brand meanings are communicated (Francis et al. 2002;
Lowrey and Shrum 2007). The complexity of such
assessment is exacerbated by the fact that different cultures
may feature different levels of proximity and diglossia,
which may in turn differentially impact on how markets
enable or hinder integration of visual identity elements. For
example, in the Middle East Toyota recently adopted a
unique hybrid strategy whereby the tagline featured the
word ‘‘Akeed’’ written in Arabic letters while the brand
name retained its standardized global form. This approach
contrasts the customary practice of adapting brand names
through transliteration while keeping taglines unchanged.
Hence, in light of the symbolism of language use and its
various phonetic features, it is very important to develop
systematic assessment of the viability of such hybrid, non-
integrated extension strategies. In brief, the current study
reveals that linguistic proximity is negatively associated
with brand name adaptation and brand name transliteration,
as well as the creation of new slogans in English, while
being positively associated with the translation of slogans
into a host language in a systematic fashion (i.e., the high–
medium–low levels of proximity lead to the corresponding
high–medium–low levels of brand identity extension
modes). At the same time, proximity significantly influ-
ences slogan adaptation and the creation of new slogans in
a host language in a non-systematic way (high–medium–
low proximity might, for example, lead to the medium–
high–low slogan creation levels). In contrast, the extent to
which diglossia is prevalent on a national level has a
negative systematic effect on slogan adaptation and new
slogan creation in a local language, whereas featuring a
non-systematic positive effect on brand name adaptation,
brand name transliteration and slogan creation in English.
The contributions of this study are manifold. First, this
study shows that brand name localization is prevalent not
only when there is a radical inter-linguistic systems shift
(e.g., from phonographic to logographic) (Francis et al.
2002; Zhang and Schmitt 2001), but also when linguistic
and meta-semantic features gradually change within the
same linguistic system, specifically within the phono-
graphic family of languages. Second, by analyzing the
localization patterns of both brands and slogans, the study
finds a complex set of systematic and non-systematic
effects that are not fully explored in the extant literature.
Finally, the study conceptualizes and examines the differ-
ential effects of two specific factors, linguistic proximity
and diglossia, which are understudied in the previous
research.
Theoretical background
The typology of brand/slogan extension practices
Since brand names and slogans are complex combinations
of pictographs, alphabetic elements, signs and iconic con-
tent, they are usually extended to other sociocultural con-
texts along the phonetic and semantic dimensions which
together make up the textual identity of the brand (Usunier
and Shaner 2002). The phonetic dimension refers to sounds
associated with linguistic cues (i.e., pictographs, letters,
signs), whereas the semantic dimension refers to meanings
evoked by people when they see or hear the brand. A
brand/slogan and its adapted extension can be: (a) phonet-
ically and semantically similar; (b) phonetically similar but
semantically different; (c) semantically similar but pho-
netically different; or d) both phonetically and semantically
different. Based on these combinations, four extension
strategies can be identified. These strategies are given in
Table 1.
148 D. Kadirov et al.
The most complex brand extension practice is dual
adaptation that refers to the practice of extending an
original brand to a new sociocultural context where its
localized version becomes both phonetically and semanti-
cally identical (Fetscherin et al. 2012). The strategy is also
called phono-semantic translation (Zhang and Schmitt
2001). Buick, Chrysler, Martell, Adidas, KFC, McDonald’s
and Walmart implemented this strategy to varying degrees
in China (Alon et al. 2009). For these companies, the task
has been simplified by the fact that, in Mandarin, various
combinations of ideograms can be used to imitate similar
sounds as well as meanings (Alon et al. 2009; Fetscherin
et al. 2012; Francis et al. 2002).
The meaning adaptation (i.e., translation) strategy is
based on retaining the meaning of the brand, while its
phonetic component is allowed to differ. This strategy
appears to be common for multinationals operating in
China (Alon et al. 2009; Bruneel 2013; Fan 2002; Fet-
scherin et al. 2012; Francis et al. 2002). The strategy is
based on the suggestiveness principle according to which
the brand name should convey attribute or benefit infor-
mation (Keller 1993; Keller et al. 1998). Alon et al. (2009)
report that GM, Mustang, Triumph, GE, Holiday Inn and
7-Up use meaning adaptation in China. In contrast, sound
adaptation (i.e., transliteration) occurs when the sounds
associated with the brand remain unchanged. Translitera-
tion can be difficult as well, since it is not easy to attain
harmony in pronunciation (Alon et al. 2009). Some
research reveals that meaningless names, albeit phoneti-
cally standardized, face difficulties in foreign markets
(Fetscherin et al. 2012; Francis et al. 2002). The creation
strategy is based on building a new brand name that has no
phonetic or semantic relationship with the original. This
strategy means complete (full) localization. Sheraton, Pizza
Hut, Marlboro and Duracell are examples of brands that
utilize this strategy in China (Alon et al. 2009). A new
brand would enable the firm to adopt a new identity and
avoid problems that are normally linked to linguistics dif-
ferences (Francis et al. 2002). This strategy can also help
avoid possible negative connotations that might arise due
to the use of a standard version (Li and Shooshtari 2003).
Linguistic variation and brand/slogan extension
The linguistic content of brand names/slogans influences
how consumers interpret and understand these symbols
(Usunier and Shaner 2002). Researchers advise that brand
identity extension studies should go beyond studying
brands in similar linguistic contexts (Onkvisit and Shaw
1999), as findings based on comparisons in the context of
very similar languages may not be generalizable into
contexts where significant localization must be accom-
plished (Chan and Huang 1997; Francis et al. 2002). This
line of argument has been advanced by a number of
researchers who focused on major differences between the
phonographic (Western) and logographic (Far East) sys-
tems (Zhang and Schmitt 2001). However, there are less
contrasting differences in alphabetic writing and phono-
semantic dynamics within each group of linguistic systems.
For example, the phonographic writing system includes
Roman, Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets. Although the com-
monly accepted standard for writing brand names is the
Latin alphabet (Usunier and Shaner 2002), the importance
of the Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets must not be underes-
timated as these writing systems are employed by a sig-
nificant proportion of the world population. Moreover,
within each of these groups, there are many variations. For
example, the Turkish or Baltic adaptation of the Latin
Table 1 Brand/slogan
extension strategies Meaning (semantic)
Similar Different
Sound (phonetic)
Similar
Transliteration/translation (Francis et al. 2002) Transliteration (Francis et al. 2002; Fan 2002)
Dual adaptation (Fetscherin et al. 2012) Sound adaptation (Fetscherin et al. 2012)
Dual extension (Alon et al. 2009) Brand feeling extension (Alon et al. 2009)
Literal and phonetic translation (Bruneel 2013) Literal translation (Bruneel 2013)
Mixed translation (Fan 2002)
Different
Translation (Francis et al. 2002) Creation (Francis et al. 2002)
Meaning adaptation (Fetscherin et al. 2012) No dual adaptation (Fetscherin et al. 2012)
Brand meaning extension (Alon et al. 2009) Full (dual) adaptation (Alon et al. 2009)
Phonetic translation (Bruneel 2013)
Free translation (Fan 2002)
Standardization
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name and slogan extension…149
writing system can be compared to the Eastern European,
Caucasian and Central Asian adaptations of Cyrillic, and
also to the Persian, Urdu and North African adaptations of
Arabic.
Assuming that the base language for multinational firms
is English, the task of extension will depend on the extent
to which the writing system in a host country differs from
the English version of the Latin writing system. In general,
the other adaptations of Latin are very close to English,
while phonetic differences become increasingly discernible
as the context shifts to the variants of Cyrillic and then
toward those of Arabic. Differences between the writing
systems also influence phonetic capacity, that is, pronun-
ciation. The difficulty of pronunciation greatly influences
consumer awareness, recall, brand-related consumer inter-
actions and purchase likelihood (Alashban et al. 2002).
Moreover, pronouncing foreign words written in a distinct
script may not only be difficult, but also humiliating
(Usunier and Shaner 2002). As a result, markets create
pressure to implement adaptive extensions of brand/slogans
in countries with less phonetic proximity. Considering all
these factors, it is expected that brand extension decisions
will depend on the extent to which the local variant of the
writing system is different from the base variant. In other
words, the likelihood of adaptation will progressively
increase as firms switch from similar alphabetic writing
systems to increasingly distinct ones.
Hypothesis 1a: The less the proximity between the
phonetic features of alphabetic writing variants, the greater
the likelihood of brand adaptation.
In contrast, slogan extension decisions represent a
qualitatively different context. Research shows that
branding and advertising adaptation decisions are inde-
pendent (Sandler and Shani 1992). Specifically, adapting
ads is considered to be more difficult than adapting brand
names (Fatt 1967; Sandler and Shani 1992; Usunier and
Shaner 2002). Even though slogans are not the same as
advertising, they constitute the key content of most
advertising. Since slogans are idiomatic expressions, the
lack of adaptation would hinder a clear transfer of subtle
meanings imbued in such idioms (Fatt 1967). Moreover,
the suggestiveness principle (Keller et al. 1998) extended
to the slogans context motivates a prediction that full
adaptation will be more preferred because connotative
meanings expressed in one language become incompre-
hensible in a different linguistic context (Usunier and
Shaner 2002). Because slogans represent a complex com-
bination of words that express unique cultural meanings, a
typical expectation would be that, ceteris paribus, firms
would be inclined toward adaptation. However, in reality
slogan-related decisions are not as straightforward as
assumed. Phonetic differences may turn out to be
prohibitive to the extent that slogan adaptation radically
decreases. This view hinges on the equivalence principle of
translation which posits that slogan translation is easier
when the languages are more or less equivalent in terms of
functional, stylistic and semantic features (Nord 1994).
Hypothesis 1b: The greater the proximity between the
phonetic features of alphabetic writing variants, the greater
the likelihood of slogan adaptation.
Conceptually, the social use of languages and their per-
ceived status vis-a
`-vis each other is important (Ferguson
1959). This study borrows several key concepts from soci-
olinguistics to explain brand/slogan extension dynamics.
Meta-semantics refers to the meaning of language use, as
opposed to semantics, which refers to the meanings of words
and phrases. The examination of meta-semantics is desirable
in situations when foreign words are inserted into daily
conversations, specifically market communication. One
such meta-semantic concept is diglossia which refers to the
practice of using two different languages in the same country
or community (Ferguson 1959; Hudson 2002). Diglossia
occurs when one of the languages is seen as more prestigious.
Most often, due to long-term historical dynamics in devel-
oping countries a Western language may become considered
more prestigious than the local register. In such instances, the
foreign language is seen a symbol of modernity (Hornikx
et al. 2010) and social status (Hudson 2002). For instance, in
bilingual cultures (e.g., India, Japan, Korea) people use
English as the second language, where it represents moder-
nity, progress, sophistication and a cosmopolitan lifestyle
(Bhatia 2000; Krishna and Ahluwalia 2008; Piller 2003;
Takashi 1990). In other words, these societies deem a higher
extent of English diglossia as appropriate. As diglossia
becomes prevalent in society, the prestigiousness effect is
created through foreign/local contrasts. Therefore, compa-
nies will increasingly use brand adaptation options based on
mixing foreign and local symbols. For example, in the
Middle Eastern countries’ corporations tend to present glo-
bal brands in combination with local transliteration.
Hypothesis 2a: The greater the extent of perceived
appropriateness of the base language diglossia, the greater
the likelihood of brand adaptation.
However, diglossia might lead to less adaptation when it
comes to slogans. Understanding the meaning of a message
in a foreign language used in slogans is not a prerequisite
of a diglossic effect. Research shows that people could still
recognize the message as the prestigious foreign language
and then activate positive stereotypes about the ‘‘ad-
vanced’’ culture (Hornikx et al. 2010). In developing
countries, famous global brands are seen as symbols of
power, wealth and luxury. A recent study finds that con-
sumers, specifically in the Middle East, tend to not only
150 D. Kadirov et al.
envy but also crave the wealth, power and modernity of the
Western world (Sobh et al. 2014). In such cases, using
original or mixed language ads is found to be the best
strategy (Krishna and Ahluwalia 2008). Also, some
researchers refer to Ibn Khaldun’s theory of sociological
imitation, reflected in the expectation that weak nations
imitate dominant nations, to explain a counterintuitive
tendency of full slogan standardization in the Middle East
(Bardakci and Akinci 2014). Hence,
Hypothesis 2b: The greater the extent of perceived
appropriateness of the base language diglossia, the less the
likelihood of slogan adaptation.
Method
Research context
The current study compares the brands and associated
taglines (i.e., slogans) of Fortune 500 Global corporations
within three different linguistic contexts: Turkish, Arabic
and Russian. In this study, the key assumption is that the
base linguistic context (i.e., the origin) for corporate
identity extension decisions is English, although it must be
recognized that these corporations are in fact based in the
different parts of the globe. Although Turkish, Arabic and
Russian are significantly different than English, they are
still situated within the same overarching group of lan-
guages which is referred to as phonographic. This fact
makes the linguistic context differences under focus less
extreme as well as more nuanced when compared to those
arising from a comparison of phonographic versus logo-
graphic language settings (Zhang and Schmitt 2001).
Measuring proximity and diglossia levels
To assess phonetic proximity and diglossia levels for each
linguistic context, the authors conceptualized and devel-
oped a number of criteria for measurement. These criteria
are given in Tables 2and 3for proximity and diglossia,
respectively.
Notably, the phonetic systems given in Table 2fall
under the ‘‘segmental’’ group of scripts that is different to
the pictographic, ideographic, logographic and syllabaric
groups. In a segmental script, graphemes (i.e., symbols) in
Table 2 Differences between the phonetic systems of the linguistic contexts
Criteria Linguistic contexts
Turkish Russian Arabic
Group of script Segmental
a
Segmental
a
Segmental
a
Script Latin
a
Cyrillic Arabic
System of recording phonemes True
a
True
a
Abjad
Orthography Highly Phonemic Morphophonemic Consonant based
Syllabic feature None
a
Partially syllabic Syllabic
Direction of writing Left to right
a
Left to right
a
Right to left
Predominant writing style Print
a
Print
a
Cursive
Upper versus lower case distinction Yes
a
Yes
a
No
Vowels sounds 8 10 6
Proximity to the base phonetic system (i.e., English) High medium Low
Table 3 Differences between the meta-semantics of the linguistic contexts
Criteria Linguistic contexts
Turkish Russian Arabic
Historical contact Short occupation by allies Independent British protectorates
Political action Partially dependent Independent Highly dependent
Image of English Language of distant allies Language of rivals Language of allies
Bilingual communication involving English Sporadic Rare Very common
Craving Western lifestyle Mixed Weak Strong
Cultural emulation Adaptive Highly adaptive Strong
Appropriateness of English diglossia Medium Low High
a
Same as English
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name and slogan extension…151
their different combinations directly represent phonemes
(i.e., the basic units of sound). The Turkish belongs to the
Altaic language family and its alphabet consists of 29 let-
ters. It includes unique consonants (c¸ and g
˘) and vowels (ı,
u
¨,o
¨) which are not used in English. Also, the English
letters Q, W and X do not exist in the Turkish alphabet.
Although its grammatical structure is significantly different
than English, its phonetic and alphabetic capacity is rela-
tively close. The main similarity is that its script is Latin.
Moreover, its alphabet is considered ‘‘true,’’ that is, that it
contains separate graphemes to represent both consonants
and vowels; it has no syllabic feature which means a single
grapheme representing a specific combination of a conso-
nant and a vowel; the direction of writing is left to right and
the style of writing is predominantly ‘‘print’’ which is non-
joint and non-cursive. The main difference from English is
that its orthography is highly phonemic that is that there is
a high degree of one-to-one correspondence between gra-
phemes and phonemes, while English orthography is non-
phonemic. Russian has relatively moderate proximity to
English (Table 2). The modern Russian alphabet consists
of 33 letters with ten vowels. It has a Cyrillic script system
which is similar to Latin in terms of being a segmental,
true, left to right and predominantly printed writing system.
However, its orthography is morphophonemic, which
means that the different forms of morphemes are spelled
identically in spite of prominent pronunciation differences.
Also, some graphemes in the Russian alphabet are syllabic,
including /(jo), .(ju) and z(ja), which do not exist in
either English or Turkish orthography. In contrast, Arabic
has relatively low proximity to English. The Arabic writing
system has 28 consonants and eight vowels/diphthongs.
The number of vowel sounds in Arabic is about one-third
of English. Still being a segmental script, Arabic follows an
abjad system which contains graphemes for consonants
only, while vowels are only rarely indicated via diacritics.
Hence, its orthography is based on spelling out consonants,
whereas short vowels do not appear in most texts. Its
alphabet is highly syllabic. Texts are read from right to left
and written in cursive script. Another difference from the
other three variants is that no distinction is made between
upper and lower case, and the rules of punctuation are
much looser than in English.
The authors involved four experienced academics from
the linguistics department of a university located in Turkey
to serve as the raters of phonetic proximity. These raters in
principle endorsed our conceptualization of the proximity
criteria, while helping us to make slight improvements. The
inter-rater agreement rate was 92.5%. In addition to their
assessment, the experts noted that although both Turkish
and English scripts are Latin, pronunciation of phonemes is
mostly different. Thus, it should be noted that Turkish
people who are not familiar with English tend to pronounce
English phonemes as Turkish. To sum it up, the raters
assessed Turkish as a high proximity, Russian as a medium
proximity and Arabic as a low proximity linguistic system.
The linguistic contexts under focus were also assessed
based on the sociolinguistics of languages. Table 3pre-
sents the criteria and assessment of meta-semantic differ-
ences between the linguistic contexts. This assessment
enabled us to derive the extent to which the diglossia
concerning English is appropriate within the particular
linguistic milieu.
Whether English is considered a relatively more pres-
tigious register than the local language depends on many
factors. Historically, the Middle Eastern countries were
subjected to the colonial influence of British Imperialism
and thus remained politically dependent on English-
speaking alliance partners. Bilingual communication
involving English is very common in these countries, while
cultural emulation of the West in consumption is very
strong (Sobh et al. 2014). In contrast, English diglossia in
Russia tends to be low. Russia as the direct successor of the
Soviet Union, and before that the Russian Empire, was
barely influenced by the English-based imperial rule as it
always remained a strong partner or rival. Russia bears the
heritage of the lengthy ‘‘cold war’’ between the West and
the Soviet Union. It is also influenced by a newly emerging
Russian nationalism, in some cases extreme chauvinism,
and appears to be a politically independent player on the
global scene. In consumption, the population’s emulation
of the West tends to be highly adaptive. Turkey is posi-
tioned at the middle of the diglossia continuum.
The authors hired four experienced academics from the
political and historical studies disciplines of a university
located in Turkey to serve as the raters of diglossia. These
raters in general endorsed our conceptualization of the
diglossia criteria. The inter-rater agreement rate was
88.8%. In addition to their assessment, the experts noted
that the short occupation by the allies did not create sig-
nificant diglossia effects between Turkey and the occupy-
ing forces as the occupation took place only in Istanbul.
Another expert noted that in the context of political action
the NATO membership of Turkey warrants the assessment
of ‘‘partially dependent.’’ An experienced expert indicated
that English may not be seen as the language of distant
allies by ordinary people in Turkey as it is considered as a
‘‘lingua franca,’’ while those who are familiar with the
political context take English as the language of USA
which is a strategic ally of Turkey. Some experts felt that
the criteria of ‘‘craving Western lifestyle’’ and ‘‘cultural
emulation’’ are closely related. To sum it up, the raters
assessed Arabic as a high diglossia context, Turkish as
medium diglossia, while Russian as low diglossia.
152 D. Kadirov et al.
Data collection and coding procedure
The study focuses on Fortune 500 Global corporations and
their brands/slogans for this investigation. The authors
obtained the list of global companies from www.fortune.
com. Then, for each company included in this list, they
examined whether these companies operate in the following
countries: USA or UK (the base linguistic system), Turkey,
Russia and the Middle East (e.g., Qatar, UAE or Saudi
Arabia). They identified the brand names of these companies
from their relevant web pages and social media (Facebook,
YouTube, Twitter and LinkedIn were included). The final
sample included 149 brands which were present in all
markets under focus. Three bilingual raters competent in
Turkish–English, Arabic–English and Russian–English
were trained to classify the brands and associated slogans
according to the provided schedule. The raters had access to
the list of the brands and slogans in English. They initially
assessed whether a brand and its associated slogan were
standardized or adapted in a particular context. For the
adapted brands/slogans, these raters identified the type of an
adaptation strategy. Thus, the brands/slogans were classified
into one of the following groups: dual adaptation, translit-
eration, translation or creation which represents full adap-
tation in either the local language or English.
Findings
Table 4summarizes brand extension tendencies in the
three linguistic contexts. The dual adaptation strategy is
prominently absent in all cases. The Chi-square goodness-
of-fit test statistics for these three groups are significant.
Hence, the null hypothesis that the proportion of cases in
each group is equal and concludes that there are statisti-
cally significant differences in the observed proportions is
rejected.
Table 4shows that the brand adaptation incidence varies
in accord with the distance of the host country’s alphabetic
writing system from English. Evidently, 5.4% of the brands
are adapted in Turkey (high proximity), whereas it is
14.8% in Russia (medium proximity) and 62.4% in the
Middle East (low proximity). To test Hypothesis 1a, three
dummy variables for brand adaptation in Turkey, Russia
and the Middle East were created which were labeled as
TRba, RUba and MEba, respectively, and then a series of
nonparametric tests were performed. The related-sample
Cochran’s Q test attests that the adaptation rates change
significantly as the linguistic context shifts from high to
low proximity (v
2
C(2) =124.62, p\0.01). The exami-
nation of each pairwise comparison shows that the differ-
ence between the adaptation rates in Turkey (TRba) and the
Middle East (MEba) is the greatest (Z=10.41, p\0.01),
followed by the difference between RUba and MEba
(Z=8.70, p\0.01), and then by that of TRba versus
RUba (Z=1.72, p\0.10). As these scores are standard-
ized and thus comparable, it is concluded that the incidence
of brand adaptation increases as one moves from the high
proximity linguistic context to that of medium proximity
and then to that of low proximity. The related-sample
McNemar tests support this conclusion. The study finds
that there is a statistically significant difference in the
proportion of adapted brands in the high (TRba) versus
medium (RUba) proximity contexts (v2
M(1) =7.68,
p\0.01), whereas the effect becomes stronger when the
medium (RUba) and low (MEba) contexts are compared
(v2
M(1) =53.84, p\0.01). Focusing on specific adaptation
strategies, the results suggest that transliteration is the
major means of adaptation which significantly increases as
the linguistic context shifts from high to low proximity
(v2
M(2) =144.26, p\0.01). No evidence of a significant
change is found in brand name creation (v
2
c(2) =3.80,
p=0.15) and brand translation (v
2
c(2) =2.00,
Table 4 Brand name extension in different linguistic contexts
Proximity to the base linguistic system (i.e., English) Turkish
High
Medium
Russian
Medium
Low
Arabic
Low
High
Appropriateness of English diglossia
Brand extension decisions Count % Count % Count %
Original (standardized) 141 94.6 127 85.2 56 37.6
Modified (adapted)
Transliteration 0 0 15 10.1 91 61.1
Translation 1 0.7 2 1.3 0 0
Creation 7 4.7 5 3.4 2 1.3
Total 149 100.0 149 100.0 149 100.0
v
2
goodness-of-fit test v
2
(2) =252.29*** v
2
(3) =290.81*** v
2
(2) =80.95***
*** p\0.01
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name and slogan extension…153
p=0.368) as the context shifts from high to low
proximity.
Considering the impact of diglossia (Hypothesis 2a), it is
found that brand adaptation does not vary systematically.
Brand adaptation is 62.4% in the context of high diglossia,
whereas it is merely 5.4% in the context of medium
diglossia and 14.8% in the context of low diglossia. In light
of the nonparametric test results (MEba vs. TRba,
v2
M(1) =81.10, p\0.01 and MEba vs. TRba,
v2
M(1) =53.84, p\0.01), it appears that in general highly
diglossic settings lead to greater brand adaptation (the main
mode of adaptation being transliteration), whereas the
medium to low diglossic settings result in limited brand
adaptation.
Table 5presents the slogan extension patterns. The Chi-
square goodness-of-fit test statistics are significant which
mean that there are statistically significant differences in
the observed proportions. It can be seen that out of all the
cases considered 34.2% of the brands do not feature slo-
gans in Turkey, whereas this proportion is 39.6 and 46.3%
in the Middle East and Russia, respectively
(v
2
C(2) =13.94, p\0.01). It is found that slogan
transliteration is absent in all cases.
In contrast to the brand name extension tendencies, the
Middle East features the highest rate of slogan standard-
ization (32.2%), followed by Turkey (22.8%) and Russia
(10.1%). Three dummy variables for slogan standardization
in Turkey, Russia and the Middle East were created and
labeled as TRst, RUst and MEst, respectively. The
Cochran’s Q test shows that differences in slogan stan-
dardization between the linguistic contexts are significant
(v
2
C(2) =41.15, p\0.01). As corporations have a choice
of featuring no slogans, a relative increase in standardiza-
tion may not always mean a relative decrease in adaptation.
The adaptation rate is 28.2% in the Middle East, 43% in
Turkey and 43.6% in Russia. To test Hypotheses 1b and 2b,
the authors created three dummy variables for slogan
adaptation labeled as TRsa, RUsa and MEsa, respectively.
Cochran’s Q test was significant (v
2
C(2) =16.62,
p\0.01) indicating that the effect of proximity on slogan
adaptation is non-systematic (Hypothesis 1b). Focusing on
specific slogan adaptation modes, it is found the effect of
proximity on slogan translation is systematically positive
(v
2
C(2) =5.02, p\0.10), while its effect on new slogan
creation in English is systematically negative
(v
2
C(2) =5.57, p\0.10).
The pairwise comparisons and the McNemar tests show
the greatest distance between MEsa (high diglossia) and
RUsa (low diglossia) (Z=3.61, p\0.01; v2
M(1) =9.87,
p\0.01) and a statistically significant distance between
MEsa (high diglossia) and TRsa (medium diglossia)
(Z=3.45, p\0.01; v2
M(1) =14.70, p\0.01), but a non-
significant difference between TRsa (medium) and RUsa
(low) (Z=0.15, p=0.87; v2
M(1) =0.00, p=1.00).
Hence, the conclusion is that, on average, slogan adaptation
is increasingly implemented as diglossia diminishes. This
finding lends significant support to Hypothesis 2b. More-
over, the study finds that there is a negative systematic
effect of diglossia on new slogan creation in a local lan-
guage (v
2
C(2) =17.73, p\0.01).
The summary of the systematic and non-systematic
effects is given in Tables 6and 7. These tables reveal a
specific relationship between linguistic proximity and
diglossia. The direction of the effects is reversed (i.e.,
positive becomes negative, and vice versa), and the nature
of the effect changes (i.e., systematic becomes non-sys-
tematic, and vice versa) as the context of the effects
changes.
Table 5 Slogan extension in different linguistic contexts
Proximity to the base linguistic system (i.e., English)
Appropriateness of English diglossia
Turkish
High
Medium
Russian
Medium
Low
Arabic
Low
High
Slogan extension decisions Count % Count % Count %
No slogan 51 34.2 69 46.3 59 39.6
Original (standardized) 34 22.8 15 10.1 48 32.2
Modified (adapted)
Translation 34 22.8 28 18.8 22 14.8
Creation in English 3 2.0 5 3.4 10 6.7
Creation in Local language 27 18.1 32 21.5 10 6.7
Total 149 100.0 149 100.0 149 100.0
v
2
goodness-of-fit test v
2
(3) =40.63*** v
2
(3) =79.82*** v
2
(3) =68.08***
*** p\0.01
154 D. Kadirov et al.
Discussion and conclusions
This current study is an attempt to address a concern voiced
by Whitelock and Fastoso (2007) that there is a dearth of
studies focusing on how MNCs deal with brand extension
challenges in countries located in the African, Latin
American, Asia–Pacific and Middle Eastern regions. In
particular, linguistic contexts with slightly varying degrees
of proximity and diglossia are not well studied. Although a
number of researches consider the influence of phonetic
and semantic differences in brand name localization deci-
sions (Fetscherin et al. 2012; Alon et al. 2009), the role of
meta-semantics including diglossia is markedly absent
from the discussion.
The current study uncovers a complex set of effects
related to the impact of phonetic proximity and diglossia on
corporate visual identity extension. The analysis shows that
brand and slogan adaptation practices are in general subject
to two distinct forces: Brand name adaptation is system-
atically influenced by linguistic proximity, whereas slogan
adaptation is systematically dependent on diglossia. Here
the systematic effect means one-to-one correspondence of
the levels: High proximity is associated with high brand
adaptation, medium proximity is associated with a medium
extent of brand adaptation, and so on. In contrast, the effect
of diglossia on brand adaptation or the effect of proximity
on slogan adaptation is non-systematic. This means that
although the effect is significant, there is no one-to-one
match of the levels; for example, high–medium–low
proximity leads to medium–low–high slogan adaptation. In
general, the systematic effects appear to be more robust
and meaningful to interpret. Also, the study finds that the
systematic effect of linguistic proximity on brand name
transliteration and slogan creation in English is negative,
while its effect on slogan translation is positive. In addi-
tion, diglossia negatively impacts slogan creation in a local
language. An interesting insight is that these systematic
effects become non-systematic as diglossia replaces prox-
imity as an impact factor, and vice versa.
The systematic effects of proximity and diglossia can be
interpreted as two structural forces creating a general
momentum and inertia of corporate visual identity exten-
sion in a given linguistic context (Hannan and Freeman;
1984; Kelly and Amburgey 1991; Stieglitz et al. 2016).
Hannan and Freeman (1984) argued that organizations
develop inertia by aiming to attain functional reliability
through implementing familiar routines of environmental
response. As environmental change becomes more
dynamic, which applies to the contexts in which MNCs
operate, inertia becomes an optimal choice guaranteeing
Table 6 Effect of the linguistic proximity levels on brand/slogan extension
Proximity to the base linguistic system
(i.e., English)
High
Turkish (%)
Medium
Russian (%)
Low
Arabic (%)
Cochran’s QEffect
Brand name adaptation, including 5.4 14.8 62.4 v
2
C(2) =124.62*** Systematic, negative
Brand name transliteration 0 10.1 61.1 v
2
C(2) =144.26*** Systematic, negative
Slogan standardization 22.8 10.1 32.2 v
2
C(2) =41.15*** Non-systematic, negative
Slogan adaptation, including 43 43.6 28.2 v
2
C(2) =16.62*** Non-systematic, positive
Slogan translation 22.8 18.8 14.8 v
2
C(2) =5.02* Systematic, positive
Slogan creation in English 2.0 3.4 6.7 v
2
C(2) =5.57* Systematic, negative
Slogan creation in local language 18.1 21.5 6.7 v
2
C(2) =17.73*** Non-systematic, positive
*** p\0.01; ** p\0.05; * p\0.10
Table 7 Effect of the diglossia levels on brand/slogan extension
Appropriateness of English diglossia High
Arabic (%)
Medium
Turkish (%)
Low
Russian (%)
Cochran’s QEffect
Brand name adaptation, including 62.4 5.4 14.8 v
2
C(2) =124.62*** Non-systematic, positive
Brand name transliteration 61.1 0 10.1 v
2
C(2) =144.26*** Non-systematic, Positive
Slogan standardization 32.2 22.8 10.1 v
2
C(2) =41.15*** Systematic, positive
Slogan adaptation, including 28.2 43 43.6 v
2
C(2) =16.62*** Systematic, negative
Slogan translation 14.8 22.8 18.8 v
2
C(2) =5.02* Non-systematic, negative
Slogan creation in English 6.7 2.0 3.4 v
2
C(2) =5.57* Non-systematic, positive
Slogan creation in Local Language 6.7 18.1 21.5 v
2
C(2) =17.73*** Systematic, negative
*** p\0.01; ** p\0.05; * p\0.10
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name and slogan extension…155
success (Stieglitz et al. 2016). This study indicates that the
differential effect of proximity and diglossia gives rise to
the dominant as well as recurrent patterns of brand name/
slogan extension in different linguistic contexts (Table 8).
As it is given in Table 8, the linguistic contexts with
matching degrees of proximity and diglossia (I and IV)
amplify the likelihood of integrated corporate visual iden-
tity. This localized integration arises when proximity hin-
ders brand adaptation [LP(-) Brand Adaptation], while
diglossia hinders slogan adaptation [D(-) Slogan Adapta-
tion] simultaneously. Similarly, their enabling effect [LP(?)
Brand Adaptation; D(?) Slogan Adaptation] also leads to
brand/slogan extension consistency. The contexts with high
proximity and low diglossia (II), and vice versa (III), exert
such pressure on visual identity extension decisions that the
outcome can be a non-integrated, hybrid response.
Furthermore, this study contributes to the explanation of
brand/slogan extension inertia patterns in different lin-
guistic contexts. Brand name adaptation is highly probable
when the phonetic distance between linguistic systems is
substantial. This result partially conforms to the commonly
accepted expectation that corporate visual identity local-
ization would be prominent in countries with dissimilar
languages (Hornik 1980; Mueller 1992; Onkvisit and Shaw
1987,1999; Papavassiliou and Stathakopoulos 1997; Ryans
and Donnelly 1969; Samiee et al. 2003) and culture (Jun
and Lee 2007; Melewar and Jenkins 2002; Melewar and
Saunders 1998,1999; Wheeler 2003). This research con-
tributes further clarification. Linguistic ‘‘similarity’’ can be
defined in many ways. The findings suggest the phonetic
distance may still lead to greater adaptation incidence even
when the base and host languages are very similar in terms
of language family, grammar and content. Moreover, pre-
vious research finds that firms overwhelmingly localize
their brands in phonetically and semantically different
sociocultural contexts through the concentrated use of
transliteration (Francis et al. 2002). Transliteration is usu-
ally assumed to be a kind of ‘‘sound standardization.’’ Our
results support this point to some extent while adding a
nuanced understanding: Yes, brand adaptation increases as
phonetic differences increase. In such cases, the main mode
of adaptation is transliteration that is more prominent when
linguistic proximity is low. However, the assumption of
transliteration as ‘‘uniform sound’’ does not hold for
countries such as Turkey and Russia, where phonetic
proximity should have encouraged a heavy use of
transliteration. In light of the positive effect of diglossia on
transliteration, the decisions favoring transliteration can be
understood as an attempt to assimilate foreign brand names
into the local culture through the use of the meta-semantic
institution.
From the inertia theory perspective, the study also finds
that the proclivity to localize slogans increases if the extent
of perceived appropriateness of the base language diglossia
is low. The extant research, in general, predicts low pro-
clivity to standardize slogans/advertising in the contexts of
substantial linguistic differences (Usunier and Shaner
2002; Wang 1996). It also known that in highly different
linguistic contexts only the most basic part of the adver-
tising message is likely to be standardized compared to
those elements that are based on creative expression
(Boddewyn et al. 1986; James and Hill 1991; Sorenson and
Wiechmann 1975). Notably, the previous research does not
explain the counterintuitive tendency of the relatively
greater incidence of slogan standardization that is observed
in the substantially dissimilar phonetic and linguistic con-
texts (e.g., English vs. Arabic). Therefore, the impact of
diglossia is a tenable explanation. Although researchers in
general expect high adaptation proclivity in the Middle
East, specifically in UAE and Saudi Arabia due to signif-
icant sociolinguistic, value-based and cultural differences
(Langlois et al. 2012), the evidence, in contrast, shows that
logo/tagline standardization is prevalent in these countries,
especially when brands are considered to be of high pres-
tige, elite and status related (Rehman 2008). It is highly
likely that the use of English in slogans increases the
‘‘prestigiousness’’ perceptions of the brands (Steenkamp
et al. 2003). Nevertheless, the conjecture of brand prestige
alone cannot explain the varying degrees of slogan stan-
dardization versus adaptation proportions in different lin-
guistic contexts (Holt et al. 2004; Steenkamp et al. 2003;
Schuiling and Kapferer 2004), as the same brands with
similar prestige operate in all countries under focus.
Moreover, Batra et al. (2000) see the perceptions of pres-
tige as emerging from the admiration of Western lifestyles
among low income population experiencing supply scar-
city. However, this is not the case in the Middle East (Sobh
et al. 2014). The results suggest that the varying levels of
the appropriateness of English diglossia better explain why
global corporations opt for relatively high slogan stan-
dardization in the Middle East compared to Turkey and
Table 8 Corporate visual identity integration matrix
Diglossia
High Low
Linguistic proximity
High
I. Integration
LP(-) Brand adaptation
D(-) Slogan adaptation
II. Non-integration
LP(-) Brand adaptation
D(?) Slogan adaptation
Low
III. Non-integration
LP(?) Brand adaptation
D(-) Slogan adaptation
IV. Integration
LP(?) Brand adaptation
D(?) Slogan adaptation
156 D. Kadirov et al.
Russia, and conversely, high slogan adaptation in Russia
when compared to Turkey and the Middle East.
Brand management implications
In the context of brand/slogan extension decisions brand
managers must be conscious of two counter-reacting forces
of linguistic proximity and diglossia. The systematic
effects of these forces create brand/slogan adaptation in-
ertia due to which corporate visual identity is attracted to
the asymptotic position of integration versus non-integra-
tion depending on a linguistic context (Hannan and Free-
man 1984; Stieglitz et al. 2016). Brand managers can use
the proximity/diglossia criteria given in Tables 2and 3and
the corporate visual identity matrix given in Table 8to
diagnose visual identity decision situations pertaining to
the linguistic context under focus. The matrix can be used
as a diagnostic tool to identify the likelihood of broad
inertia-based local integration or non-integration. If the
threat of localized non-integration is identified, then its
likely impact on the consistency of brand meanings should
be evaluated. It is not always that inconsistent, non-inte-
grated visual identity becomes problematic. However, the
maxim of integrated marketing communications presumes
the superiority of integration over non-integration.
The case of Toyota’s unique visual identity strategy
discussed in the introductory section of this article can now
be analyzed via the matrix. As the strategy is implemented
in the Middle East where linguistic proximity is low and
diglossia is high, it can be shown that this linguistic context
pertains to Cell III of the matrix. This means that market
pressure will give rise to inertia that leans toward greater
brand name adaptation due to the proximity effect, while
inhibiting slogan adaptation due to the diglossia effect.
Consequently, Toyota’s approach of a standardized brand
name combined with a localized slogan diverges from
general market inertia. In fact, such ‘‘swimming against the
current’’ can be assessed as an innovative, radical strategy
that affirms the corporation’s powerful identity: Toyota is a
foreign brand that can exquisitely express complex emo-
tion-laden meanings in Arabic.
From the global perspective, consistent visual identity
and integrated communication are often seen as a corpo-
rate prerogative. However, as the matrix in Table 8
shows, only high proximity–high diglossia (Cell I) con-
texts facilitate such ambition, as the market pressure
favors the standardization of both brand names and slo-
gans. The low proximity–low diglossia (Cell IV) contexts
are particularly paradoxical as local consistency can come
at the expense of global integration. Hence, brand man-
agers can use the matrix to diagnose inertia tendencies
within industries/countries and adjust their corporate
visual identity strategy. The main insight this research
contributes to the discussion of reconciling consistent
corporate identity with requisite adaptations in different
context is that some linguistic contexts (e.g., Cell I)
inherently facilitate global consistency, while others (Cells
II, III, IV) may create complications.
Specifically, brand managers can use the criteria given
in Tables 2and 3to analyze subtle differences in phonetic
distance and language use symbolism. The assumption that
languages within the same phonographic family are similar
because of their common linguistic family, grammar, and
content is not feasible. Therefore, differences across cul-
tures stemming from phonetic distance and diglossia-based
symbolism should be taken into account. Also, brand
managers should attend to the subtle meanings of concepts
such as transliteration-as-sound standardization and brand
prestige in countries with higher levels of diglossia. In such
contexts, transliteration may not only have a functional
purpose (e.g., sound standardization) but also operate as a
means of a brand’s cultural assimilation. Similarly, the use
of standardized slogan should not simply be driven by
brand prestigiousness perceptions; rather, brand managers
must examine the cultural appropriateness of the use of a
certain language in a specific linguistic context.
Limitations and future research
The current study is an initial attempt to investigate the
impact of country-level variables on corporate visual
identity extension decisions. It employs expert opinion-
based ratings to measure linguistic proximity and diglossia.
There is a possibility that consumer-based evaluations of
these concepts may provide a different picture of the reality
in different linguistic contexts. Hence, there is a great
scope for future research. One of the possibilities is to
employ a hierarchical linear modeling approach including
various variables at different levels (e.g., brand, industry,
country). Also, the interaction of the main factors with a
number of key control factors such as country-of-origin
perceptions, brand prototypicality or corporate perfor-
mance indicators should be examined. In conclusion, the
authors note that research related to the meta-semantics of
sociolinguistic contexts in different markets is scarce.
Hence, this domain offers a fertile ground for subsequent
research in branding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding
author states that there is no conflict of interest.
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name and slogan extension…157
References
Aaker, D.A. 1996. Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Alashban, A.A., L.A. Hayes, G.M. Zinkhan, and A.L. Balazs. 2002.
International brand-name standardization/adaptation: Antece-
dents and consequences. Journal of International Marketing 10
(3): 22–48.
Alon, I., R.F. Littrell, and A.K.K. Chan. 2009. Branding in China:
Global product strategy alternatives. The Multinational Business
Review 17 (4): 123–142.
Bardakcı, A., and M. Akıncı. 2014. Tu
¨rkiye’de u
¨ru
¨n markalamada
yabancıdil kullanımı: Sebepler ve sonuc¸lar. Tu¨ketici ve Tu¨ketim
Aras¸tırmalarıDergisi 6 (1): 1–26.
Bhatia, T. K. (2000) Advertising in rural India: Language, marketing
communication, and consumerism. Institute for the Study of
Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of
Foreign Studies, pp. 139–172.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E., and
Ramachander, S. 2000. Effects of brand local and nonlocal
origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of
consumer psychology, 9 (2): 83–95.
Boddewyn, J.J., R. Soehl, and J. Picard. 1986. Standardization in
international marketing: is Ted Levitt in fact right? Business
Horizons 29 (6): 69–75.
Boddewyn, J.J., and R. Grosse. 1995. American marketing in the
European Union: Standardization’s uneven progress
(1973–1993). European Journal of Marketing 29 (12): 23–42.
Bruneel, H. (2013). What’s in a name? Chinese brand names of
multinationals. http://blog.hutong-school.com/brand-name-multi
nationals-china/. Date of access: January, 2016.
Chan, A.K.K., and Y.Y. Huang. 1997. Brand naming in China: A
linguistic approach. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 15 (5):
227–234.
Dawar, N., and P. Parker. 1994. Marketing universals: Consumers’
use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer
reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing 58
(2): 81–95.
Erdog
˘mus¸, EI
˙., M. Bodur, and C. Yilmaz. 2010. International
strategies of emerging market firms: Standardization in brand
management revisited. European Journal of Marketing 44 (9/
10): 1410–1436.
Fan, Y. 2002. The national image of global brands. The Journal of
Brand Management 9 (3): 180–192.
Fastoso, F., and J. Whitelock. 2007. International advertising strategy:
The standardisation question in manager studies: Patterns in four
decades of past research and directions for future knowledge
advancement. International Marketing Review 24 (5): 591–605.
Fatt, A.C. 1967. The danger of ‘‘local’’ international advertising.
Journal of Marketing 31 (1): 60–62.
Ferguson, C.A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15 (2): 325–340.
Fetscherin, M., I. Alon, R. Little, and A. Chan. 2012. In China? Pick
your brand name carefully. Harvard Business Review 90: 706.
Francis, J., J. Lam, and J. Walls. 2002. The impact of linguistic
differences on international brand name standardization: A
comparison of English and Chinese brand names of Fortune-500
companies. Journal of International Marketing 10 (1): 98–116.
Hannan, M.T., and J. Freeman. 1984. Structural inertia and organi-
zational change. American Sociological Review 49 (2): 149–164.
Hollensen, S. 2004. Global marketing: A decision-oriented approach,
3rd ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.
Holt, D.B., J.A. Quelch, and E.L. Taylor. 2004. How global brands
compete. Harvard Business Review 82 (9): 68–75.
Hornik, J. 1980. Quantitative analysis of visual perception of printed
advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research 20 (6): 41–48.
Hornikx, J., F. van Meurs, and A. de Boer. 2010. English or a local
language in advertising? The appreciation of easy and difficult
English slogans in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Com-
munication 47 (2): 169–188.
Hudson, A. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (September): 1–48.
Jain, S.C. 1989. Standardization of international marketing strategy:
Some research hypotheses. Journal of Marketing 53 (1): 70–79.
James, W.L., and J.S. Hill. 1991. International advertising messages:
To adapt or not to adapt (that is the question). Journal of
Advertising Research 31 (3): 65–71.
Jun, J.W., and H.S. Lee. 2007. Cultural differences in brand designs
and tagline appeals. International Marketing Review 24 (4):
474–491.
Keller, K.L., S.E. Heckler, and M.J. Houston. 1998. The effects of
brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall. Journal of
Marketing 62 (1): 48–57.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring and managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.
Kelly, D., and T.L. Amburgey. 1991. Organizational inertia and
momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of
Management Journal 34 (3): 591–612.
Krishna, A., and R. Ahluwalia. 2008. Language choice in advertising
to bilinguals: Asymmetric effects for multinationals versus local
firms. Journal of Consumer Research 35 (4): 692–705.
Langlois, E., A. Langlois, and D. Havens. 2012. Marketing a United
States multinational brand in the United Arab Emirates. Journal
of Marketing Development and Competitiveness 6 (5): 115.
Li, F., and N.H. Shooshtari. 2003. Brand naming in China:
Sociolinguistic implications. Multinational Business Review 11
(3): 3–22.
Lowrey, T.M., and L.J. Shrum. 2007. Phonetic symbolism and brand
name preference. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (3):
406–414.
Melewar, T.C., and E. Jenkins. 2002. Defining the corporate identity
construct. Corporate Reputation Review 5 (1): 76–90.
Melewar, T.C., and J. Saunders. 1999. International corporate visual
identity: Standardization or localization? Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies 30 (3): 583–598.
Melewar, T.C., and J. Saunders. 1998. Global corporate visual
identity systems Standardization, control and benefits. Interna-
tional Marketing Review 15 (4): 291–308.
Mueller, B. 1992. Standardization vs. specialization: An examination
of westernization in Japanese advertising. Journal of Advertising
Research 32 (1): 15–24.
Nord, C. 1994. Translation as a process of linguistic and cultural
adaptation. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: 59–67.
Onkvisit, S., and J.J. Shaw. 1999. Standardized international adver-
tising: Some research issues and implications. Journal of
Advertising Research 39 (6): 19–24.
Onkvisit, S., and J. Shaw. 1987. Self-concept and image congruence:
Some research and managerial implications. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing 4 (1): 13–23.
Papavassiliou, N., and V. Stathakopoulos. 1997. Standardization
versus adaptation of international advertising strategies: Towards
a framework. European Journal of Marketing 31 (7): 504–527.
Piller, I. 2003. Advertising as a site of language contact. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 170–183.
Quelch, J. 1999. Global brands: Taking stock. Business Strategy
Review 10 (1): 1–14.
Rehman, A. 2008. Dubai & Co.: Global strategies for doing business
in the Gulf States. New York: McGraw Hill Education.
Ryans Jr., J.K., and J.H. Donnelly Jr. 1969. Standardized global
advertising, a call as yet unanswered. The Journal of Marketing
33 (2): 57–60.
158 D. Kadirov et al.
Samiee, S., I. Jeong, J.H. Pae, and S. Tai. 2003. Advertising
standardization in multinational corporations: The subsidiary
perspective. Journal of Business Research 56 (8): 613–626.
Sandler, D.M., and D. Shani. 1992. Brand globally but advertise
locally? An empirical investigation. International Marketing
Review 9 (4): 18–31.
Schmid, S., and T. Kotulla. 2011. 50 years of research on interna-
tional standardization and adaptation—From a systematic liter-
ature analysis to a theoretical framework. International Business
Review 20 (5): 491–507.
Schuiling, I., and J.N. Kapferer. 2004. Real differences between local
and international brands: Strategic implications for international
marketers. Journal of International Marketing 12 (4): 97–112.
Sobh, R., R. Belk, and J. Gressel. 2014. Mimicry and modernity in the
Middle East: Fashion invisibility and young women of the Arab
Gulf. Consumption Markets and Culture 17 (4): 392–412.
Sorenson, R.Z., and U.E. Wiechmann. 1975. How multinationals
view marketing standardization. Harvard Business Review 53
(3): 38–54.
Steenkamp, J.B.E., R. Batra, and D.L. Alden. 2003. How perceived
brand globalness creates brand value. Journal of International
Business Studies 34 (1): 53–65.
Stieglitz, N., T. Knudsen, and M.C. Becker. 2016. Adaptation and
inertia in dynamic environments. Strategic Management Journal
37 (9): 1854–1864.
Takashi, K. 1990. A sociolinguistic analysis of English borrowings in
Japanese advertising texts. World Englishes 9 (3): 327–341.
Terpstra, V., and R. Sarathy. 2000. International marketing, 8th ed.
Orlando, FL: Dryden Press.
The AMA. (2017). Marketing dictionary: The American Marketing
Association. https://www.ama.org/resources/pages/dictionary.
aspx?dLetter=B.
Usunier, J.C., and J. Shaner. 2002. Using linguistics for creating
better international brand names. Journal of Marketing Commu-
nications 8 (4): 211–228.
Walters, P.G. 1986. International marketing policy: A discussion of
the standardization construct and its relevance for corporate
policy. Journal of International Business Studies 17 (2): 55–69.
Wang, C.L. 1996. The degree of standardization: A contingency
framework for global marketing strategy development. Journal
of Global Marketing 10 (1): 89–107.
Wheeler, A. 2003. Designing brand identity: A complete guide to
creating, building, and maintaining strong brands. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Whitelock, J., and F. Fastoso. 2007. Understanding international
branding: Defining the domain and reviewing the literature.
International Marketing Review 24 (3): 252–270.
Zaltman, G., and M. Wallendorf. 1979. Consumer behavior, basic
findings and management implications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Zhang, S., and B.H. Schmitt. 2001. Creating local brands in
multilingual international markets. Journal of Marketing
Research 38 (3): 313–325.
Dr Djavlonbek Kadirov (PhD, University of Waikato) is a lecturer
in marketing at the School of Marketing and International Business,
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Djavlonbek’s
research interests include marketing systems, sustainable market-
ing/consumption, marketing ethics, and global brands. His research
has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Macromarketing,
Journal of Marketing Management,Journal of Business Research,
and Consumption Markets & Culture.
Dr Ahmet Bardakcıis a Professor of Marketing at the Department of
Business, the University of Pamukkale, Turkey. He serves as the chair
of Production Management and Marketing Department since 2007.
He holds PhD and MSc in Marketing from the University of Salford
(UK) where he was involved in research on mass customization. His
research interests include Marketing Research,International Market-
ing, and Strategic Marketing.
Murat Kantar is a research assistant at the Department of
International Trade and Finance, University of Pamukkale, Turkey.
Murat received his MSc from the University of Pamukkale and
currently conducting his doctorate under the supervision of Dr Ahmet
Bardakcı. His main research interests include International Business,
Internet Marketing, and Consumer Behavior.
The impact of linguistic proximity and diglossia on brand name and slogan extension…159
- A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Journal of Brand Management
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
