Iberica 13 ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 iSSN: 1139-7241 / e-iSSN: 2340-2784 https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.391 Abstract This paper takes a cognitive perspective on the semantics of Moroccan brand names and analyses the role of metonymy in a corpus-based analysis of cosmetic brand names. More particularly, we aim a) to shed light on the metonymic cognitive operations in these names (domain expansion and domain reduction metonymies together with metonymic chains), b) to determine the occurrence frequency of metonymy in comparison to metaphor, c) to reveal the modes (monomodal, multimodal) in which the brand names are manifested, and d) to examine if there is any connection between the type of cosmetics and the metonymic operations cued. The paper yields some significant findings, the most salient feature of which is the low occurrence frequency of reduction metonymy that is largely outnumbered by its converse operation, namely, expansion metonymy. In this way, the conscious use of these mechanisms by brand designers can help to boost brand identity and economically build a favourable brand image. Keywords: cognitive semantics, metonymy, branding, cosmetics, multimodality. Resumen Examinando la relación metonímica entre un nombre de marca y un producto: un estudio de caso de marcas de cosméticos marroquíes Este artículo aborda la semántica de los nombres de marca marroquíes desde una perspectiva cognitiva y analiza el rol de la metonimia en un corpus de nombres Examining the metonymic relation between a brand name and a product: A case study of Moroccan cosmetic brand names Fatima Azzahraa El Yamlahi & María Enriqueta Cortés de los Ríos Universidad de Almería (Spain) mecortes@ual.es & Fe392@inlumine.ual.es 391 Ibérica 44 (2022): 00-00 FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos de marca de cosméticos. Más concretamente, nuestros propósitos son los siguientes: a) arrojar luz sobre las operaciones cognitivas metonímicas en dichos nombres (metonimias de expansión, metonimias de reducción y cadenas metonímicas), b) determinar la frecuencia de ocurrencia de la metonimia en comparación con la metáfora, c) revelar los modos (monomodales y/o multimodales) en los que se manifiestan los nombres de marca, y d) examinar si existe alguna conexión entre el tipo de cosméticos y las operaciones metonímicas anteriormente señaladas. Tras el estudio llevado a cabo se desprenden los siguientes resultados: la característica más destacada es la baja frecuencia de ocurrencia de la metonimia de reducción que es superada en gran medida por su operación inversa, la metonimia de expansión. En consecuencia, podemos decir que el uso consciente de estos mecanismos por parte de los diseñadores de marcas puede ayudar a impulsar la identidad de la marca y a construir una imagen de marca más favorable de manera económica. Palabras clave: semántica cognitiva, metonimia, branding, cosméticos, multimodalidad. 1. Introduction Brands have become part and parcel of every company, as well as one of the most priceless assets of a firm. Whenever a new name, logo or symbol is given to a new product, we can assume that a new brand is created (Keller, 2003). Today’s market insists that brand names be short, distinctive, easy to remember, and suggestive. Choosing the right brand name can enhance brand equity and help in building a favourable brand image for a newly introduced product (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003). Moreover, with the increased number of brand names entering the marketplace, marketers are more interested in linguistics to help them produce desirable brand names. Bergh et al. (1987, p. 42) constructed a four-fold linguistic typology to evaluate brand names, involving phonetic, orthographic, morphological, and semantic categories. For this study, we focus on the analysis of metonymic cognitive operations underlying the semantics of Moroccan cosmetic brand names. Most of the studies related to brand names are done by marketing experts aiming to boost brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Armstrong & Kotler, 1997, 2018; Keller, 2003). In the literature, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have explored the role of metonymy in branding from a cognitive linguistic point of view (Pérez Hernández, 2011, 2013; Zeng, 2019); however, several 392 studies have analysed the role of metaphor in branding (Ang & lim 2006; Zaltman & Zaltman, 2008; Koller, 2009; Burcea, 2016). In advertising, on the other hand, there is a plethora of research dealing with multimodal metaphor and, to a small extent, metonymy (Forceville, 1996, 2006, 2009a, 2009b; Mcquarrie & Phillips, 2005; Forceville & urios-Aparisi, 2009; Velasco sacristán, 2010; Cortés de los ríos, 2010; Hidalgo & Kraljevic, 2011; Villacañas & White, 2013; Bolognesi, 2015; Pérez sobrino, 2016, 2017; Pérez Hernández, 2019; Kashanizadeh & Forceville, 2020). This article presents an analysis of 109 brand names belonging to cosmetics, which have been drawn from the Office Marocain de la Propriété Industrielle et Commerciale (oMPIC). The shortage of studies on this subject has fuelled our desire to explore how metonymy, a content cognitive operation1, is involved in the creation of Moroccan cosmetic brand names. domain expansion and domain reduction together with metonymic chains can account for the drawing of inferences based on the verbal and pictorial cues provided by the brand name. More precisely, the paper addresses the following research questions: rq1. (a) What is the role of conceptual metonymy in shaping the semantics of Moroccan cosmetic brand names? (b) What types of metonymic operations are used to cue the message? rq2. What is the frequency of metonymy in comparison to metaphor? rq3. What are the modes chosen to represent metonymic conceptual operations in brand names? Is the message more likely to be conveyed through words, images, or a combination of both? rq4. Is there any connection between the type of cosmetic products and the metonymic operations cued? section 2 outlines the theoretical background of this study. section 3 deals with the corpus and the methodology employed. section 4 seeks to provide an answer to the research questions through our corpus analysis. The final section presents concluding remarks. 2. Theoretical background Traditionally, metonymy was considered a figure of speech, in which one word stands for another, and it was regarded as a trope and a purely linguistic ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 393 phenomenon. However, with the arrival of cognitive linguistics, metonymy was recognized as a conceptual process, although initially, it received little attention compared to metaphor. nowadays, a considerable amount of research has been devoted to metonymy, and some scholars even claim that metonymy may be more fundamental than metaphor in conceptual organisation (gibbs, 1994; Barcelona, 2000, 2005, 2011; radden, 2005; Kalisz, 2007; Mittelberg & Waugh, 2009; Pérez sobrino, 2017). In connection to this, Koch (1999, p. 139) expresses this general interest we referred to as follows: I am convinced that metonymy occurs much more frequently than metaphor and tells us a great deal about our cognitive equipment. so it is worthwhile studying its cognitive bases in some details. Cognitive linguists assume that metonymy is a figure of thought based on conceptual contiguity (gibbs, 1994; dirven, 2002). This notion of contiguity is used to express “a close or direct relationship between two entities” (Evans & green, 2006, p. 311). According to this definition, it follows that metonymies have an associative relation. In other words, an entity is usually used to refer to another entity in the same domain (lakoff & Johnson, 1980; ruiz de Mendoza, 2000). Kövecses and radden (1998, p. 39) adopted a different definition of conceptual metonymy, and they considered it a “cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain, or Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM)”. They viewed metonymy in terms of access rather than mappings in the sense that metonymy grants a way of access to a particular target within a single domain. Barcelona’s (2000, p. 4) definition of metonymy as “a special case of activation” coincides with Kövecses and radden’s perspective. He explained this process as follows: “the metonymic mapping causes the mental activation of the target domain” (Barcelona, 2000, p. 4). The crucial difference between metonymy and metaphor, as ruiz de Mendoza (1997) proposed, lies in the nature of the mapping, whether it is external or internal, in other words, if the mapping occurs within the domain matrix or if the mapping is located between two separate domains. ruiz de Mendoza (2000) distinguishes two basic types of metonymies: source-in- target and target-in-source. FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416394 Although both types are the result of domain and subdomain relations, they mirror two different kinds of metonymic relationships. domain expansion encompasses a source-in-target metonymy where the subdomain is developed into the matrix domain, also termed PArT-For-WHolE METonYMY. In other words, as ruiz de Mendoza and galera Masegosa maintain, domain expansion consists of “broadening the amount of conceptual material that we associate with the initial point of access to a concept” (2014, p. 93). domain reduction, on the other hand, usually involves a target-in-source metonymy, in which the whole matrix domain is focalised, and it is the product of “giving conceptual prominence to part of a concept or of conceptual system” (ruiz de Mendoza & galera Masegosa, 2014, p. 93). This is also referred to as WHolE-For-PArT METonYMY. Metonymies can occur in metonymic chains (Barcelona, 2005; Hilpert, 2006; ruiz de Mendoza, 2000; Brdar-szabó & Brdar, 2011; ruiz de Mendoza & galera Masegosa, 2014). Metonymic chains involve the chained combination of two or more metonymies in which the starting point is usually an expanded or a reduced domain that results from a first metonymic operation affording access to another metonymic shift. ruiz de Mendoza (2000) outlined four patterns of interactions: metonymic expansion plus metonymic reduction, metonymic reduction plus metonymic expansion, double metonymic expansion, and double metonymic reduction. several examples of these patterns of interactions are shown in the qualitative part of this paper. If we assume that metonymy only exists in verbal modalities and, hence, consider it a feature of language alone and not cognition, we might be contradicting the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) belief that metonymy is a cognitive system that structures our thoughts and behaviour rather than merely a language phenomenon. nonetheless, CMT researchers limited their investigations to language and paid little attention to non-verbal manifestations of conceptual metonymy, and it took a while before scholars within this approach began to produce publications where they creatively applied theories of metonymy to studies of multimodality in advertising (Forceville, 2009b; Cortés de los ríos, 2010; Pérez sobrino, 2017). of particular relevance in the field of cognitive semantics is the contribution of the study of pictorial metaphor by Forceville (1996, 2002, 2006, 2009a, 2012, 2016). He suggested that many metaphors are not cued in a single mode/modality but draw on two or more modes simultaneously. ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 395 Monomodal metaphors are “metaphors whose target and source are exclusively or pre-dominantly rendered in one mode” (Forceville, 2006, p. 383), while multimodal metaphors are “metaphors whose target and source are each represented exclusively or predominantly in different modes” (Forceville, 2006, p. 384). 3. Corpus and methodology The corpus of this study consists of brand names that were drawn from the Moroccan database, Office Marocain de la Propriété Industrielle et Commerciale (oMPIC), released between 2010 and 2020. We have used this source mainly for two reasons: firstly, it includes all the brand names that are officially registered in Morocco, and secondly, it provides all kinds of information about the brand names. This extra information may be useful for identifying the metonymic domains. The corpus was selected based on the following criteria: 1. The brand names should be either English mixed with one of the varieties spoken in Morocco (standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Tamazight, or French) or entirely English. 2. The brand names literally indicating the product were disregarded. 3. The brand names should involve at least one cognitive operation. An initial corpus consisting of 154 brand names was selected. After close scrutiny, the total number of brand names triggering cognitive content in the visual and/or verbal mode(s) is 109. The brands are organized into four subgroups within the general group of cosmetics. Table 1 summarises the distribution of our corpus of 109 brands per type of product. Table 1. Distribution of brand names per product category. once all the brands were classified depending on their product type, we carried out a mixed a qualitative and quantitative analysis. In this regard, we FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416396 ! ! Cosmetics Personal care Makeup Perfumes Skincare Total 22 28 20 39 109 used a theoretical approach that applies ruiz de Mendoza and galera Masegosa’s (2014) model, that is, it examines the types of metonymies (expansion metonymy, reduction metonymy, and metonymic chains) that guide and constrain our semantic interpretations. In the context of branding, the product is usually represented by a brand name, a logo or both. ungerer claims that “BrAnd nAME For ProduCT metonymy has developed into a powerful advertising tool which can be put to sophisticated uses, especially in the case of brand names” (2000, p. 335). usually, the brand designer uses the brand as a shortcut to highlight the most desirable attributes or effects of the product. Pérez Hernández (2011) suggested that metonymy is based on the concept of contiguity, so any element of the conceptual fabric that forms the target product can be used to name it. In this regard, studying brand names achieved through metonymic mapping offers a great opportunity for understanding the relationship between the brand and the product. This study develops a method suitable for metaphor and metonymy identification in brand names. The procedure outlined below adapts and combines approaches of metaphor identification in MIP (Metaphor Identification Procedure, Pragglejaz group, 2007), MIPVu (Metaphor Identification Procedure Vrije Universiteit, steen et al. 2010) and Forceville’s suggested method for multimodal metonymy (1996, 2009a, 2009b). Below we provide examples of one metaphorical and one metonymic brand name from our corpus with a detailed identification procedure: (1) Metaphorical brand names with single source domain: Crown perfume a) read the brand name together with its information taken from the oMPIC. b) separate the brand name into two lexical units: crown and perfume. c) Find out whether the contextual meaning of each lexical unit is equal to its basic meaning (basic meaning usually coincides with the first entry in the dictionary). d) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning of Crown differs from its basic meaning (a circular ornamental headdress worn by a monarch), but it can be ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 397 conceptualized by mapping between the two – we can understand the perfume in terms of the luxury and exclusiveness of the crown. e) The source (crown) and the target (perfume) belong to different domains. Metaphorically used? Yes. source domain found: one. What type of metaphor? Comparison metaphor. In this way, we categorized Crown perfume containing a comparison metaphor with a single source domain: THE PErFuME Is A CroWn. (2) Metonymic brand name with two source domains: Pure Argan (skincare) a) read the brand name together with its information taken from the oMPIC. b) separate the brand name into two lexical units: pure and argan. c) Find out if the contextual meaning is the same as its basic meaning. d) Contextual meaning versus basic meaning: the contextual meaning is the same as the basic meaning; the lexical unit Pure highlights the attribute of the product; and the lexical unit Argan highlights the ingredient of the product. e) The source (pure) and the target domain (product) belong to one matrix domain. f) The source (argan) and the target domain (product) belong to one matrix domain. Metonymically used: Yes. source domains found: Two. What type of metonymy? Expansion metonymies. In this way, we categorize Pure Argan as a metonymic brand name with two sources: ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT and IngrEdIEnT For ProduCT metonymies. FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416398 As for multimodal metonymies, our method can be described as follows. We first study all the information available in and about the product, since they tend to coincide with the target domain. subsequently, we focus on the verbal and visual elements for possible source domains that are mapped onto the target domains (or products) identified previously. once the source domain and target domain are singled out, we describe the mode used as monomodal, Pictorial vs. Verbal, or as multimodal, Verbo-pictorial. The final step is to provide a verbalisation of the metaphor or metonymy at work. 4. Results and discussion This section is divided into two parts. Firstly, we present the qualitative results of the corpus under analysis. secondly, we present the quantitative results of the frequency of occurrence of metonymy per type and the frequency of occurrence of metaphor and metonymy, followed by the distribution of the use of modal cues in cosmetic products and, finally, the distribution of conceptual metonymy per category of product. 4.1. Qualitative results 4.1.1. Domain expansion and domain reduction metonymy In this corpus, among the metonymic sources found, the majority are identified as subdomains of the target and are categorised as the source-in- target type. The formal operation, whose role is to provide access to the most relevant aspect of a concept cueing provided by linguistic and pictorial elements, is the precondition for the activation of this operation (ruiz de Mendoza & galera Masegosa, 2014). The product is presented by the brand name, which metonymically stands for the item in question: BrAnd nAME For ProduCT. Thus, this type of metonymy is often used to highlight one important ingredient, effect, or attribute, of the target product; as a result, the subdomain identifies the product by emphasising its most representative characteristic (see Figure 1). ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 399 Figure 1. Schematic representation of brand name for product metonymy. According to Aaker (1996), brand identity consists of twelve dimensions organised around four perspectives: brand as a product (product scope, attributes, quality values, uses, users, country of origin), brand as an organisation (organisational attributes, local vs global), brand as a person (brand personality, brand customer relationships) and brand as a symbol (visual, imagery/metaphors and brand heritage). Most of the brand names in this study belong to the first category, brand as a product. Consequently, the most common metonymies are ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT and EFFECT For ProduCT. It is worth mentioning that the choice of the source domain is closely related to the strategic and tactical management of the brand designers, whether they are focused solely on brand attributes or other dimensions. From a linguistic point of view, the importance of using lexical associates of the products is extremely relevant because it has a distinct recall advantage when used as a brand name. robertson (1989, p. 64) argues that “A natural verbal associate of the product class, when used as a brand name, has the cognitive advantage of already being stored (learned) as a representative member of the activated category”. Thus, the high number of attributes or effects used as source domains in naming the products is relevant. The following figures are examples of the three most dominant source-in-target metonymies: IngrEdIEnT For ProduCT, EFFECT For ProduCT and ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT. An instance of IngrEdIEnT For ProduCT metonymy is provided by BioArgan, a skincare product (see Figure 2). FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416400 ! ! A ! S ! A ! h ! o ! y ! q ! y ! y ! u ! o ! f ! y ! l ! C ! ! ! ! , ! ! ! ! o ! ! ! ! d ! b ! b ! M ! n ! s Figure 2. Schematic representation of ingredient for product metonymy. An instance of EFFECT For ProduCT metonymy is provided by Babyjoy, a personal care product (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Schematic representation of effect for product metonymy. An instance of ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT metonymy is provided by Superior Oud: a perfume (see Figure 4). ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 401 ! ! E ! O ! N ! C ! l ! n ! y ! g ! n ! n ! o ! o ! d ! o ! t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A ! S ! A ! r ! p ! ! ! ! t ! ! ! ! u ! e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! x ! n ! t ! o ! h ! t ! r ! y ! o ! o Figure 4. Schematic representation of attribute for product metonymy. After examining the three dominant types of expansion metonymies corresponding to the corpus selected, it can be observed that these source- in-target metonymies are aimed at highlighting three main aspects of the product: (1) IngrEdIEnT For ProduCT: This type of domain expansion operation is often used to highlight one special ingredient of the product (for example, mint). However, it is worth noticing that this type of source domain is the one least used to name cosmetic products. This could find explication in the fact that most of these products are made of chemical substances; thus, it would be inappropriate to highlight them. Instead, as we have observed in the analysis, brand designers make use of other source domains, such as cleanliness or care as part of their identity to produce positive effects. (2) EFFECT For ProduCT: This type of domain expansion operation concentrates on the positive effects obtained from the consumption of the product, which might be physical or emotional. some products make use of functional effects as a source domain, for example, Energy, Power, Health, Beauty, Glamor, Status, whereas other products, on the other hand, make use of the emotional effect as a source domain, so we have brand names such as Joy, Happiness, Love, Passion, Comfort and Care. (3) ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT: This type of domain expansion FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416402 ! ! A ! S ! A ! r ! p ! ! ! ! t ! ! ! ! u ! e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! x ! n ! t ! o ! h ! t ! r ! y ! o ! o operation aims at emphasising the quality of the product (see Table 2 below). This is evident in the number of lexical items denoting quality, for example, top, super, superior, good and fresh. The following table represents the three dominant types of metonymies together with their source domains in the cosmetic sector: Table 2. Metonymic source domains of cosmetic brand names. Finally, another instance of domain expansion has to do with acronyms and initialisms such as B.B (Birth of Beauty), M.n.S (Moroccan natural Secrets) and M.M (Moroccan Mint). These acronyms are used as logos accompanying the brand name, functioning as metonymic access points to their full brand names. The reason behind this strategy might be to imitate famous brand names such as d&G (dolce and Gabbana), LV (Louis Vuitton), VS (Victoria’s Secret) and CH (Carolina Herrera), which adds a touch of modernity and internationality to the brand. regarding target-in-source metonymy, the matrix domain serves as a reference point for one of its subdomains, thereby reducing the semantic scope of the conceptual representation. nonetheless, in our corpus, a metonymic reduction is usually used as a double-chained metonymy, or in combination with other metonymic interactions resulting in metonymic chains. 4.1.2. Metonymic chains our corpus analysis reveals that metonymic chains consisting of two or more metonymies are also present. They take as their point of departure either an expansion or a reduction metonymy triggered by verbal or pictorial cues, such as leaves, green colour, a crown and a star. However, most of the time, the last operation is an expansion metonymy, where the target domain is usually the product. The following are examples of metonymic combinations that are common in our corpus: ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 403 ! Metonymy Source domains Ingredient for product Argan, Mint, Moroccan Oil, Oud, Olive oil Effect for product Beauty, Glamor, Ideal-Skin, Love, Fab, Trendy, Glam, Chic, Happy, In-Style, Romantic Attribute for product Natural, Bio, Fresh, Pristine, Pure, Organic, Green, Perfect, Good, New, Luxury, Super, Superior, Top a. Metonymic expansion plus metonymic reduction plus metonymic expansion The verbo-pictorial surroundings are precisely the ultimate cue to elicit the metonymic chain lEAVEs For nATurE For nATurE-FrIEndlY For ProduCT. This metonymic complex involves a first metonymic expansion, from lEAVEs to a more encompassing domain nATurE, and subsequently a metonymic reduction, from nATurE to a more specific domain nATurE- FrIEndlY. Finally, the last mapping involves a consideration of the products as being healthy. This kind of mapping enables the consumer to prompt the connection and feel more engaged with the brand name; hence, instead of directly stating the attributes of the product (natural, healthy or pure), the brand designer uses a leaf, a tree, or adds a touch of green and leaves the task to the consumer to reach the intended conclusion (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Schematic representation of leaves metonymic chain. Furthermore, with the rise of concerns around sustainability, green advertising has reached its peak, and the promotion of sustainable products has become vital (Ülkü & Hsuan, 2017). According to Erdman (2008), eco- consciousness is now an expectation, and numerous brands across categories are in a race to see who can be the “greenest”. However, the above- mentioned metonymy is indeed found in various environmentally friendly FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416404 ! LEAVES FOR NATURE FOR NATURE-FRIENDLY FOR PRODUCT EXPANSION + REDUCTION + EXPANSION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! UR ERUTA NRO FSEVAEL E NOISANXP ! ! UR RO FE ERUTNA - DNEIFR N NOITCUDE R+ APX E+ ! !A YLD TCUDOR PROF NOISNA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! products, but it is also exploited to make synthetic products look more natural. These false or misleading claims are referred to as “greenwashing”. In this sense, brands such as Bio Cosmetics, Green inspiration, Maxibio and Bioargan, which in fact contain several chemical substances, release misleading information as being “Bio” or “green” products through a multimodal metonymic chain. Besides that, through the activation of the well-connoted conceptual domain nATurE through the metonymic association to “green”, brand designers are constructing positive associations, such as environmentally friendly or healthy, for their potentially unhealthy or artificial products. b. double metonymic reduction plus metonymic expansion A special element used frequently as a naming strategy in our corpus of cosmetics is argan, cued verbally and pictorially. Argan oil is a plant oil produced from the kernels of the Argan tree (Argania spinosa L.) which is endemic to Morocco. In Morocco, argan oil is edible, but it is mostly used for cosmetic purposes. It is known for protecting and revitalising the skin through its anti-ageing and anti-acne effects. nowadays, it is a major and internationally well‐established actor in the cosmetic oil market, where it is being used in face creams and as an ingredient in lip gloss, shampoo, moisturisers and soaps (guillaume et al., 2019, p. 317). The fact that this name is used exhaustively in cosmetic brands indicates that the brand designer wants to stress the fact that the product is made from natural ingredients of exclusive and authentic Moroccan origin. In fact, the interpretation of the linguistic cue “argan” or the pictorial cue argan tree needs three subsequent metonymic shifts: ArgAn TrEE For ArgAn KErnEls (reduction), ArgAn KErnEls For ArgAn oIl (reduction) and ArgAn oIl For CosMETIC ProduCTs (expansion). similar considerations are made by ruiz de Mendoza and galera Masegosa (2014) about the word “cotton”, which involves the cooperation of three metonymic operations: CoTTon PlAnT For CoTTon Wool (reduction), CoTTon Wool For CoTTon CloTH (expansion) and CoTTon CloTH For CoTTon CloTHIng (expansion). nonetheless, they suggest that present-day speakers do not activate the whole metonymic process for interpretation. In our example of argan, it is ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 405 ! ARGAN TREE FOR ARGAN KERNELS FOR ARGAN OIL FOR PRODUCT REDUCTION + REDUCTION + EXPANSION only the first and last shift that remains active in most speakers’ minds. nerlich and Clarke (2001, p. 123) label this phenomenon as “opaqueness of metonymic chains” (see Figure 6). Figure 6. Schematic representation of argan metonymic chain. c. Metonymic expansion plus metonymic reduction A significant number of brand names contain mosaic in the design of the logos. The mosaic represents the whole domain of Moroccan artisanship and gives rise to typicality effects (typical examples), or simply put, what we consider good examples of a category. Therefore, the pictorial cue allows us to construct the expansion metonymy MosAIC For MoroCCAn ArTIsAn and, by a metonymic reduction, connect the MoroCCAn ArTIsAn to those particular products (shampoos, makeup, serums, perfumes) because Moroccan artisanship is a broader domain capable of covering different hand-made products. This metonymy is further reinforced by the use of verbal cues, namely tradition, Morocco, Moroccan and so forth (see Figure 7). FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416406 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LOGO (MOSAIC) FOR MOROCCAN ARTISAN FOR PRODUCT EXPANSION + REDUCTION ! ! R OFC) ISAMO (OGLO ! ! NSAARTI AROCCANMO ! ! CTURODR PO FN ! ! ! ! ! ! X PAEX ! ! NOTICU RED +NSIOPAN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Figure 7. Schematic representation of Mosaic metonymic chain. d. double reduction metonymy This metonymic chain involves two consecutive processes of domain highlighting through a double metonymic reduction. our corpus has revealed that there are many cases in which the name of the founder of a given company is used to name the product made by that company (for example, Silia, Sidki, Aya, Asia, Anissa). Hence, the name of the founder stands for the company, and the company stands for its products. Moreover, many international brands use this naming strategy, such as Prada, Louis Vuitton, Yves Saint Laurent, Levi´s, and Christian dior. However, as mentioned previously, consumers are rarely aware of this double reduction metonymy, that is, they do not associate the company with the products. They rather associate it directly with the founder of the company (ruiz de Mendoza & galera Masegosa, 2014). As a result, the product inherits relevant values from the source domain of the founder, such as those of heritage, prestige and family tradition. Another metonymic relation considered to be a double target-in-source metonymy is PlACE For sourCE For ProduCT. In brand management, this strategy is referred to as “Country of origin Branding” (CooB). Brand ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 407 ! ! FOUNDER FOR COMPANY FOR PRODUCT REDUCTION + REDUCTION ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! N ER FDNUOF RED ! ! FOR PRYR COMPANOER F TICU RED +NOCTIURED ! ! CTUDO FOR PR NOTI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! designers use place names to refer to the source of the product. generally, consumers are ready to spend more money for a branded product from a CooB with a more favourable country image (Koschate-Fischer et al., 2012). Hence, naming a product Moroccan Treasures, Moroccan nature or Moroccan Secrets acts as a signal of product quality because that country has a heritage in making the best within that product class, which directly affects the likelihood of purchase. e. double expansion metonymy This type of metonymy consists of two consecutive operations of domain expansion. In this pattern, there are two source-in-target metonymies, in which the target domain of the first metonymy works as the source domain of the second metonymy. In the example at hand, the first expansion metonymy functions at the grammatical level, in which the clipped noun gives a metonymic access point to the full noun, namely, from poly to polyester. A second metonymic expansion is needed, in which the material (polyester) stands for the product. other examples of sAlIEnT PArT oF ConsTruCTIonAl ForM For WHolE ForM metonymy are fLEx For FlExIBlE, BIO For BIologICAl, dIAM For dIAMEnTInE, ECO For ECologICAl, MAxI For MAxIMuM, fAB For FABulous and so forth. 4.2. Quantitative results 4.2.1. Types of metonymic operations and frequency of metaphor and metonymy Among the first research questions guiding this study was quantifying the types of metonymic operations in cosmetic brand names. our quantitative analysis reveals that domain expansion metonymy is the most productive operation in the construction of a brand’s meaning, with 53% being involved in the design of most of the brands under scrutiny. The results reveal that 46% of metonymies are found to work in combination rather than in isolation resulting in metonymic chains. nonetheless, the most salient feature yielded by the corpus is the low frequency of occurrence of reduction FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416408 ! SALIENT PART OF CONSTRUCTIONAL FORM (POLY) FOR WHOLE FORM (POLYESTER/MATERIAL) FOR PRODUCT EXPANSION + EXPANSION metonymy (1%), and it is largely outnumbered by its converse operation, expansion metonymy. The following figure offers the types of metonymies with their frequency of occurrence: Figure 8. Frequency of occurrence of metonymy per type. our second research question sought to compare the frequency of occurrence of metaphor and metonymy. Table 3 shows the frequency and percentages of a total of 261 annotated metaphors and metonymies. Table 3. Frequency of occurrence of metaphor and metonymy. The most remarkable result of our study is that more instances of metonymy (78%) are found than of metaphor (22%); hence, we could argue that the role of metonymy in the construction of brand meaning is conceptually more important than that of metaphor. our view is in accordance with other scholars who claim that the role of metonymy is more fundamental than that of metaphor (Panther & radden, 1999; gibbs, 2007; Panther et al., 2009). 4.2.2. Modal cues our third question is aimed at investigating the preferred modes used by brand designers to cue metonymic operations. In the selected corpus, the ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 409 ! 53 # $ 15 17 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (% ) Expansion Reduction Double Expansion Double Reduction Expansion+ Reduction Reduction+ Expansion ! Cognitive operation Frequency Percentage Metaphor 57 22% Metonymy 204 78% Total 261 100% source domains of the metonymies are represented visually or verbally. However, target domains (product) are not always present, and they have a metonymic relation with the brand: BrAnd nAME For ProduCT. Hence, the type of modality of the target domain (product) depends on the way the brand name is represented. results indicate that two types of modalities were frequently used: monomodal verbal metonymies and multimodal verbo-pictorial metonymies. Forceville (2009a) suggests that discussion on the modes cannot be separated from discussion on the material carrier of the message, that is, the medium. Brands in the selected corpus pertain mainly to two categories: word marks and combination marks. The first category is a font-based logo that focuses on a brand name alone. The second category, on the other hand, comprises a combined word mark and a pictorial mark (for example, a pictorial logo). The picture and text can lie side by side, stacked on top of each other or integrated together. Concerning this, we believe that the type of brand and whether it is an integrated verbal or pictorial brand has a direct effect on the nature of modality in conceptual operations. For instance, if the brand is a word mark and contains an expansion metonymy, by definition, this metonymy would be of a verbal monomodal type, whereas if the brand is a combination of marks, it may result in a multimodal operation. Figure 9 shows the results of the use of modal cues in branding: 59% of the metonymic source and target domains identified in our corpus were delivered exclusively in text. By contrast, the monomodal pictorial mode was rarely used, which amounts only to 1%. As we can observe in Figure 9, the hybrid verbo-pictorial mode amounts to 40%, and it was more present in metonymic chains. This is most clearly conveyed by the fact that the source domain of multimodal metonymic chains is usually visual, while the target domain (product) is either of a verbal or verbo-pictorial nature. FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416410 Figure 9. Distribution of the use of modal cues in cosmetic products. Broadly speaking, the results indicate that there is a general tendency to favour the verbal mode. A higher percentage of occurrence of verbal mode is observed as compared with the pictorial mode, whose occurrence of frequency is very low. Most of the metonymies in our corpus are creatively exploited for the promotion of product features; thus, the verbal mode is used directly to state those characteristics of the product, like being natural or being the best in the market, or suggest its effects such as power, beauty and happiness. In addition, the verbo-pictorial representativeness is also significant, although to a lower extent than the verbal mode. 4.2.3. Distribution of conceptual metonymy per category of product our fourth question sought to establish whether there is a significant relationship between the metonymic operation underlying a brand and the product category. To date, the only comprehensive work on multimodal metaphor and metonymy across different types of products in advertising, as far as we know, is that by Pérez sobrino (2017). With this work in mind, we tried to explore this relationship and apply it to branding. Figure 10 depicts a graphic overview of the distribution of conceptual metonymies across four cosmetic categories, namely, makeup, skincare, perfumes and personal care. ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 411 ! 59% 1% 40% Choice of mode in cosmetic brands verbal pictorial verbo-pictorial ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! oecioCh ! rbcitemsocniedomfo ! sdna ! ! ! ! labrve aliortcpi obrve - aliortcpi ! ! ! Figure 10. Distribution of conceptual metonymy per category of product. our study of metonymic operations across four types of products indicates that there is a prevalence of expansion metonymy over the remaining metonymic operations. It is worth mentioning that the four product types belong to utilitarian products, which result in the ownership of something tangible; hence, their reliance on the expansion metonymy, especially ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT and EFFECT For ProduCT is reasonable. It is interesting to note that the perfume and personal care categories enjoy much lower frequencies of metonymic chains, as well as the absence of double expansion metonymy, whereas, in makeup and skincare, there is a significant number of metonymic chains. However, results indicate that there is consistency in the employment of expansion metonymies in all categories. nevertheless, reduction metonymy was found to be present in only a very small percentage in the skin care category. 5. Conclusions This paper has attempted to provide an insight into the use of multimodal conceptual metonymy in cosmetic brand names (particularly, expansion metonymy, reduction metonymy, double expansion, double reduction, expansion plus reduction, and reduction plus expansion). The study’s findings show that brand naming is an extraordinary field that provides abundant data for the compilation of content cognitive operations. In brief, six types of metonymic brand names have been discussed. The source domains are semantically encoded by either the most significant and representative FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416412 ! %# && '$ ($ & #% ( #& #' ( & )# )( #) ( ## ## % & 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 M A K E U P S K I N C A R E P E R F U M E S P E R S O N A L C A R E % Expansion Reduction Double expansion Double reduction Expansion+ Reduction Reduction+ Expansion attributes, positive effects, or ingredients. Highlighting the special features of a particular product is the safest branding strategy, and consequently, ATTrIBuTE For ProduCT, EFFECT For ProduCT and IngrEdIEnT For ProduCT are the most recurrent expansion metonymies in our corpus of cosmetics. In order to provide an answer to our initial four research questions, we will now summarise the following main conclusions from our study. our quantitative analysis reveals that domain expansion metonymy is the most frequent conceptual operation in the construction of brand meaning, being involved in the design of the four categories under scrutiny. It is interesting to note that our findings are different from Pérez Hernández’s (2013), according to whom domain reduction was the most productive cognitive operation in wine branding. nonetheless, wine branding, as Pérez Hernández (2013, p. 36) suggests, is “a special subclass of metonymic mapping known as eponymy, in which a proper name stands for a place, a thing, or an institution”. on the other hand, in cosmetics, the brand designer is more oriented towards highlighting the product´s attributes, effects, and ingredients. Hence, we could argue that the choice of source domains has a close relationship with the branding strategy and product type. However, further research is needed to reveal the relation between product category and metonymic operations. Further, the role of metonymy in other product types should be investigated. our results confirm previous findings about metonymy being as important as metaphor in meaning construction in advertising (Pérez sobrino, 2017). However, the results obtained show that metonymy accounts for 78% whereas metaphor only covers 22%; therefore, we could argue that, in branding, metonymy plays a more fundamental role in meaning construction than a metaphor. The most salient feature yielded by our corpus is the low occurrence frequency of reduction metonymy that is largely outnumbered by its converse operations, expansion metonymy. regarding modality, the results indicate a general tendency to favour the verbal mode, especially in expansion metonymies. Metonymic chains, on the other hand, seem to land themselves in the multimodal verbo-pictorial mode. This finding on multimodality raises an important question that should be addressed in future research – whether the specific choice of one modality over another leads to a different amount of metonymic complexity. In terms of figurative meaning, all categories showed the same preference for expansion metonymies and low occurrence of reduction metonymies, ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 413 regardless of the product type. Further, metonymic chains were shown to have reliably significant relevance in the promotion of makeup and skincare products. The overall assessment of the results gives pride of place to the expansion metonymy as a suitable mechanism for the promotion of product features, which connects the product with the brand via this metonymic relationship. Article history: Received 16 February 2022 Received in revised form 08 August 2022 Accepted 26 September 2022 References FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416414 Aaker, A. D. (1996). Building strong brands. Free Press. Ang, S. H., & Lim, E.C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2),39-53. Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing: An introduction. (4th ed.). Prentice Hall International. Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2018). Principles of marketing. (17th ed.). Pearson Education Limited. Barcelona, A. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. 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 (pp. 313-352). 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 (pp. 7-57). John Benjamins. Bergh, V., Adler, K., & Oliver, L. (1987). Linguistic distinction among top brand names. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 39-44. 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 (pp. 217-248). John Benjamins. Burcea, R. (2016). When brand meets metaphor: Brand conceptualization in the marketing discourse. Petru Maior,132-141. Cortés de los Ríos, Mª. E. (2010). Cognitive devices to communicate the economic crisis: An analysis through covers in The Economist. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 20, 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 (pp. 75- 111). Mouton de Gruyter. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Erdman, B. (2008). Is Green Really Your Color? Brandweek, 49(5),18. Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. 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, (pp. 379-402). Mouton de Gruyter. Forceville, C. (2009a). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparis (Eds.), ExAMInIng THE METonYMIC rElATIon BETWEEn A BrAnd nAME And A ProduCT ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416 415 Multimodal metaphor (pp. 19-42). 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 (pp. 56-74). Palgrave- McMillan. Forceville, C. (2012). Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors. In R. Jones (Eds.), Discourse and creativity (pp. 113-132). 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 (pp. 241-260). Mouton De Gruyter. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter. Gibbs, R. (1994). Poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge UP. 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). John Benjamins. Guillaume, D., Pioch, D., & Charrouf, Z. (2019). Argan [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] oil. In M. Ramadan (Ed.), Fruit oils: Chemistry and functionality (pp. 1-10). Springer. 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 (pp. 153-178). 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 (pp. 123-152). Mouton de Gruyter. Kalisz, R. (2007). Metonymy and semantic representations. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 31-41). 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.). 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 (pp. 139-167). John Benjamins. Koller, V. (2009). Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.). Multimodal metaphor (pp. 45-71). 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. 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 (pp. 329- 357). 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. John Benjamins. Panther, K., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.) (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. 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. María Enriqueta Cortés de los Ríos is a lecturer in the department of Philology at the university of Almería (spain). Her main areas of research focus on cognitive semantics, axiological semantics, business English, and didactics applied to professional contexts. she has participated in international and national conferences and published several journal articles and book chapters. Fatima Azzahraa el Yamlahi (Phd) graduated in English philology by the university of Abdelmalik Esaadi Tetuan (Morocco) and has done her postgraduate studies at the university of Almeria as Master in English studies, Professional Application and Intercultural Communication. Her main areas of research include cognitive semantics, axiological semantics, anglicisms, and morphology. noTEs 1 Content cognitive operations are lower-level mechanisms used to make inferences on the basis of cues provided by the context or the linguistic expression (ruiz de Mendoza & galera Masegosa, 2014). FATIMA AZZAHrAA El YAMlAHI & MAríA EnrIquETA CorTés dE los ríos ibérica 44 (2022): 391-416416 Pérez Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. John Benjamins. 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 (pp. 11- 28). 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, 6(2), 161-178. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2000). The role of mappings and domain in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109-132). Mouton de Gruyter. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPvu. John Benjamins. Ungerer, F. (2000). Muted metaphors and the activation of metonymies in advertising. In A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 321-340). 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.