Semantic versus Homophonic Puns: The Match Between Brand Personality and Pun Types in Advertisements

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01604

Abstract

Abstract:

Pun, a common rhetorical device, is widely used in advertising. This paper categorizes pun slogans into semantic puns and homophonic puns and selects two key brand personalities, sophistication, and sincerity, to discuss their matching relationship and effects. Two pilot studies reveal that semantic puns are more difficult to understand compared to homophonic puns; sophisticated (vs. sincere) brands give a more complex (vs. simple) perception. Thus, it is hypothesized that semantic puns match better with sophisticated brands, while homophonic puns match better with sincere brands. This matching relationship can enhance consumers' purchase intention, product attitude, and actual clicks. Six experiments (four laboratory experiments and two field experiments) were conducted to provide evidence for the hypotheses. The conclusions provide practical insights for brands and advertisers.

Key words: pun, semantic pun, homophonic pun, brand personality, purchase intention

HUANG Yunhui, XIAO Youkai, CHU Xing-Yu (Marcos), LU Yue. (2024). Semantic versus Homophonic Puns: The Match Between Brand Personality and Pun Types in Advertisements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(11), 1604-1618.

Figures/Tables 14

References 45

[1]	Aaker D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 102-120.
[2]	Aaker J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
[3]	Abass F. (2007). The use of puns in advertising. Language and Culture, 43(16), 45-62.
[4]	Affonso F. M., & Janiszewski C. (2023). Marketing by design: The influence of perceptual structure on brand performance. Journal of Marketing, 87(5), 736-754.
[5]	Brasel S. A., & Hagtvedt H. (2016). Living brands: Consumer responses to animated brand logos. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 639-653.
[6]	Cai F. Y., Shen H., & Hui M. K. (2012). The effect of location on price estimation: Understanding number-location and number- order associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 718-724.
[7]	Cascio Rizzo G. L., Villarroel Ordenes F., Pozharliev R., De Angelis M., & Costabile M. (2023). How high-arousal language shapes micro-versus macro-influencers’ impact. Journal of Marketing, 88(4), 107-128.
[8]	Chen J. X., & Chen Y. H. (2019). A look into the rendered puns in Hong Lou meng. Shanghai Journal of Translators, (6), 62-68.
[9]	Chen Y. (2007). Analysis of cognitive features of puns (translate). Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences, (12), 135-139.
[10]	Chen Z. X., He Y., Li X., & Wang L. (2022). Can you perceive my efforts? The impact of social status on consumers' preferences for complexity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(9), 1106-1121.
[11]	Divya A., & Ani T. (2021). Identification and evaluation of homographic puns using similarity methods. International Journal of Applied Evolutionary Computation, 12(1), 18-26.
[12]	Djafarova E. (2008). Why do advertisers use puns? A linguistic perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(2), 267-275.
[13]	Favier M., Celhay F., & Pantin-Sohier G. (2019). Is less more or a bore? Package design simplicity and brand perception: An application to champagne. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.013
[14]	Gan X. (2015). A study of the humor aspect of English puns: Views from the relevance theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(6), 1211-1215.
[15]	Garver E. (1994). Aristotle's rhetoric: An art of character. University of Chicago press.
[16]	Giorgadze M. (2014). Linguistic features of pun, its typology and classification. European Scientific Journal, 10(2), 271-275.
[17]	Grant P., & Jonah A. B. (2024). The emergence and evolution of consumer language research. Journal of Consumer Research, 51(1), 42-51.
[18]	Hodges B. T., Estes Z., & Warren C. (2024). Intel inside: The linguistic properties of effective slogans. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(5), 865-886.
[19]	Hughes C., Swaminathan V., & Brooks G. (2019). Driving brand engagement through online social influencers: An empirical investigation of sponsored blogging campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 78-96.
[20]	Johar G. V., Sengupta J., & Aaker J. L. (2005). Two roads to updating brand personality impressions: Trait versus evaluative inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 458-469.
[21]	Jones N., Kidwell B., & Hamby A. (2024). Success is not final; failure is not fatal: How failure versus success messaging leads to preference for masculine brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 61(2), 330-348.
[22]	Kutas M., & Hillyard S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203-205. doi: 10.1126/science.7350657 pmid: 7350657
[23]	Lee A. Y., & Labroo A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165.
[24]	Leung E., Lenoir A. S., Puntoni S., & van Osselaer S. M. (2023). Consumer preference for formal address and informal address from warm brands and competent brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(3), 546-560.
[25]	Li J. L. (2021). Household appliance industry: Understanding the competition landscape of clean appliances from the dimensions of category and brand (translate). Sinolink Securities. https://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H3_AP202110251524837081_1.pdf
[26]	Luffarelli J., Stamatogiannakis A., & Yang H. (2019). The visual asymmetry effect: An interplay of logo design and brand personality on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(1), 89-103. doi: 10.1177/0022243718820548
[27]	Maehle N., Otnes C., & Supphellen M. (2011). Consumers' perceptions of the dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 290-303.
[28]	McQuarrie E. F., & Mick D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424-438.
[29]	Partington A. S. (2008). A linguistic account of wordplay: The lexical grammar of punning. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1794-1809.
[30]	Pogacar R., Shrum L. J., & Lowrey T. M. (2018). The effects of linguistic devices on consumer information processing and persuasion: A language complexity × processing mode framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 689-711.
[31]	Putrevu S., Tan J., & Lord K. R. (2004). Consumer responses to complex advertisements: The moderating role of need for cognition, knowledge, and gender. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(1), 9-24.
[32]	Sundar A., & Noseworthy T. J. (2016). Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: The effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 44-67.
[33]	Sung Y., & Kim J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639-661.
[34]	Tanaka K. (1992). The pun in advertising: A pragmatic approach. Lingua, 87(1-2), 91-102.
[35]	Teeny J. D., Siev J. J., Briñol P., & Petty R. E. (2020). A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 382-414.
[36]	Toncar M., & Munch J. (2001). Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 55-65.
[37]	Torp S. M., & Andersen L. P. (2018). Marketing rhetoric and the rhetoric of marketing: Manipulation or mutuality. In Øyvind Ihlen, & Robert L. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp. 67-80). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[38]	Touré-Tillery M., & Fishbach A. (2017). Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(6), 860-876. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000089 pmid: 28253000
[39]	Wang X., & Yang Z. (2008). Does country-of-origin matter in the relationship between brand personality and purchase intention in emerging economies? Evidence from China's auto industry. International Marketing Review, 25(4), 458-474.
[40]	Wei X., Tu R. T., Jiang M. H., & Li F. (2011). The perception of the authenticity of other consumers’ usages of luxury goods. Journal of Marketing Science, 7(2), 45-66.
[41]	Xie Y., & Peng S. Q. (2012). The effect of brand personality on purchase intention: A comparison across different industries and between local and international brands. Management Review, 24(12), 84-92.
[42]	Xue B., & Li Y. E. (2000). On the pragmatic and aesthetic perspectives of advertising puns. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (6), 35-36.
[43]	Yan A. M., Chen S., & Cheng Y. Y. (2009). The influence of Chinese values on luxury purchasing motivation. Chinese Journal of Management, 6(6), 812-817.
[44]	Yang S. Q., Xu W. Y., Jiang M. H., & Zhang X. C. (2020). The difference of cognitive processing between phonetic puns and semantic puns in Chinese: An ERP evidence. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 34(1), 1-9.
[45]	Zhao Y. (2007). Conceptual blending analysis of advertisement pun. Journal of Hunan University of Science and Engineering, 28(2), 129-132.

Studies	Design	Product
Study 1A	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) between-subjects design (N = 200).	Eyeliner.
Study 1B	2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 200).	Ice cream.
Study 2	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 238).	Vacuum Cleaner.
Study 3A	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 145,983).	Beauty Product.
Study 3B	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 78,639).	Pillow.
Study 4	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Altering the link of “Brand Personality-Complexity”: Present vs. Absent) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 400).	Beauty Product.

Studies	Design	Product
Study 1A	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) between-subjects design (N = 200).	Eyeliner.
Study 1B	2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 200).	Ice cream.
Study 2	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 238).	Vacuum Cleaner.
Study 3A	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 145,983).	Beauty Product.
Study 3B	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 78,639).	Pillow.
Study 4	2 (Brand Personality: Sophistication vs. Sincerity) × 2 (Altering the link of “Brand Personality-Complexity”: Present vs. Absent) × 2 (Pun Type: Semantic vs. Homophonic) between-subjects design (N = 400).	Beauty Product.

Study	Pun Type	Processing Complexity		Perceived Effort
Study	Pun Type	M	SD	M	SD
Study 1A	Semantic	3.31	1.60	4.77	1.45
Study 1A	Homophonic	2.40	1.36	4.98	1.32
Study 1B	Semantic	2.33	1.34	4.43	1.47
Study 1B	Homophonic	2.22	1.26	4.84	1.28
Study 2	Semantic	2.50	1.38	4.69	1.25
Study 2	Homophonic	2.16	1.09	5.04	1.10
Studies 3A & 4	Semantic	3.44	1.58	4.63	1.34
Studies 3A & 4	Homophonic	1.81	0.93	4.55	1.44
Study 3B	Semantic	3.28	1.68	4.73	1.35
Study 3B	Homophonic	2.77	1.36	5.13	1.14

Study	Pun Type	Processing Complexity		Perceived Effort
Study	Pun Type	M	SD	M	SD
Study 1A	Semantic	3.31	1.60	4.77	1.45
Study 1A	Homophonic	2.40	1.36	4.98	1.32
Study 1B	Semantic	2.33	1.34	4.43	1.47
Study 1B	Homophonic	2.22	1.26	4.84	1.28
Study 2	Semantic	2.50	1.38	4.69	1.25
Study 2	Homophonic	2.16	1.09	5.04	1.10
Studies 3A & 4	Semantic	3.44	1.58	4.63	1.34
Studies 3A & 4	Homophonic	1.81	0.93	4.55	1.44
Study 3B	Semantic	3.28	1.68	4.73	1.35
Study 3B	Homophonic	2.77	1.36	5.13	1.14

Brand	Semantic pun	Homophonic pun
Sophisticated brand	Title：告别“粉饰”, 祛痘无痕 Body: Exquisite collection, nourishing skincare! Top-selling beauty products at a discount, start your sophisticated moment>>	Title：战“痘”精华, 祛痘无痕 Body: Exquisite collection, nourishing skincare! Top- selling beauty products at a discount, start your sophisticated moment>>
Sincere brand	Title: 告别“粉饰”, 祛痘无痕 Body: Sincere companionship, refreshing hydration! Top-selling beauty products at a discount, start your sincere moment>>	Title: 战“痘”精华, 祛痘无痕 Body: Sincere companionship, refreshing hydration! Top-selling beauty products at a discount, start your sincere moment>>