August 22, 2006
Naming: Universal Grammar Doesn't Mean Universal Brands
A recent Wall Street Journal article discussed Charles Yang’s theory that babies and toddlers don’t speak ungrammatically. Instead, infants come equipped with all possible grammatical rules, from all languages, and have to test them out against what their parents say is correct in order to narrow themselves down to one native language.
Charles Yang, by the way, just wrote the book, The Infinite Gift: How Children Learn and Unlearn the Languages of the World (See left.)
In other words, those aren’t really mistakes in English usage, but rather an attempt to determine which constructions belong in English rather than Russian or Chinese or Malayalam - not, of course, that children are consciously aware this is what they are doing.
It’s a fascinating theory - and plausible, assuming that Yang has a way to determine what are “grammatical errors” and what are errors in pronunciation caused by undeveloped muscles.
It’s also important to remember that the existence of what Noam Chomsky called “universal grammar” does not mean there is a universal language. Attempts at finding words which have the same sound and meaning across languages have all failed so far, as have attempts at creating brand names which are universally pronounceable and comprehensible (think Nintendo Wii.)
By the way, Noam Chomsky happens to be our company mascot, along with Alexander Pushkin (See image to the right.)
The act of naming, therefore, is fundamental to human language development. Before children start speaking in sentences, they use names. Ask any parent whose toddler has demanded something seen on TV just how good the barely-verbal can be at brand recognition. Nor do children need to test out possible variants of names the way they do word order. Learning names is a matter of hear-and-repeat.
So it follows that working at a naming company is much more like learning your first language as an infant. Teams of namers come up with as many different-but-appropriate product names as possible. Suggested name candidates have to pass a thorough trademark analysis, and any names already in use are discarded. A much shorter list gets presented to the client, who then chooses only one final name (grammatical or otherwise) from the multiple final name candidates.
TrackBack URL for this entry: