Figuring it out: the origin of language and anthropomorphism

Regier, Alexander

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750434.003

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, Tsoukas (1991) identifies, in ‘lay discourse, metaphors constitute an economical way of relaying primarily experiential information in a vivid manner’ (1991: 567). Although anthropomorphic language is commonplace (Regier, 2006), this is not to suggest that consumers are actually thinking of brands as they do humans, but rather that necessity forces them to utilize language from a familiar domain to better express themselves (Dennett, 2007: 254–5).…”

Section: Philosophical Foundations and Incompatibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Brand relationship and personality theory

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brand personality and brand relationship theory are important concepts within branding theory, with a body of research and theory having been developed in support of the concepts. However, the argument of this paper is that there are mutually incompatible foundations that underpin brand personality and brand relationship theory. One foundation is that consumers actually perceive brands as animate humanlike entities, and the other foundations are rooted in metaphor. The authors identify three key points which they believe are problematic in this regard: there is an absence of scholarly debate on the merits of each foundation; some authors combine the two foundations despite their fundamental incompatibility; and overall, there is a lack of clarity in much of the literature as to which foundation might be used as a basis for theory. The paper uses examples from literature to highlight confusion in the brand personality and brand relationship theory, before offering a framework for resolving the mutually incompatible foundations.

show abstract

Section: Philosophical Foundations and Incompatibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%