1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 25, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of hashtags in the building of brand narratives (i.e. the open-ended, unfolding and participative depiction of a company’s core ideology and beliefs). A collection of over 700 hashtags involved in the creation of the advertising narratives of the four leading soft drinks brands in 2017 (i.e. ) has been analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively to unveil their functions and formal characteristics, as well as the cognitive processes that underlie their interpretation and operate on the framing and dissemination of brand narratives. Ultimately, by categorizing and explaining the roles of hashtags in the construction of a brand narrative, as well as the potential correlations between their formal and functional traits and their retweeting rate and digital lifespan, this paper shapes a preliminary description of the characteristics of the subgenre of hashtag-based brand narratives and spells out some of the factors that should be considered in the choice of hashtags for advertising purposes.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18020.per
2020-01-10
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.18020.per
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Armstrong, J. Scott
    2010 Persuasive advertising: Evidence-based principles. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230285804
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285804 [Google Scholar]
  2. Carretero, Marta, Carmen Maíz-Arévalo & M. Ángeles Martínez
    2015 An analysis of expressive speech acts in online task-oriented interaction by university students. Procedia173. 186–190. doi:  10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.051
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.051 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cayla, Julien & Eric J. Arnould
    2008 A cultural approach to branding in the global marketplace. Journal of International Marketing16(4). 86–112. doi:  10.1509/jimk.16.4.86
     https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.4.86 [Google Scholar]
  4. Dalli, Daniele & Simona Romani
    2012 From rural Mediterranean to global markets: Realism and diversity in the Camper experience. InLisa Peñaloza, Nil Toulouse & Luca M. Visconti (eds.), Marketing management: A cultural perspective, 43–60. London, UK: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. eMarketer
    eMarketer 2015 Social network ad spending to hit $23.68 billion worldwide in 2015. Retrieved fromwww.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Network_Ad_Spending_Hit_2368_Billion-Worldwide-2015/1012357; AccessedJune 17th, 2019.
  6. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    1996 Blending as a central process in grammar. InAdele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 113–130. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Fenson, Larry, M. Suzanne Cameron & Mark Kennedy
    1988 Role of perceptual and conceptual similarity in category matching at age two years. Child Development59(4). 897–907. 10.2307/1130257
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1130257 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, Charles
    1977 The case for case reopened. InPeter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations, 59–81. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Freedman, Aviva & Peter Medway
    (eds.) 1994 Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1973 Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hirschman, Elizabeth C.
    2010 Evolutionary branding. Psychology and Marketing27(6). 568–583. doi:  10.1002/mar.20345
     https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20345 [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, Jeff, Katherine Thornton & Efthimis Efthimiadis
    2010 Conversational tagging in Twitter. Paper presented at the21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia. Toronto, Canada. 10.1145/1810617.1810647
     https://doi.org/10.1145/1810617.1810647
  13. Imai, Mutsumi, Dedre Gentner & Nobuko Uchida
    1994 Children’s theories of word meaning: The role of shape similarity in early acquisition. Cognitive Development9. 45–75. 10.1016/0885‑2014(94)90019‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(94)90019-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Indurkhya, Bipin & Amitash Ojha
    2013 An empirical study on the role of perceptual similarity in visual metaphors and creativity. Metaphor and Symbol28(4). 233–253. 10.1080/10926488.2013.826554
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.826554 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kerns, Chris
    2014 Understanding brands on Twitter. InChris Kerns (ed.), Trendology: Building an advantage through data-driven real-time marketing, 39–85. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137479
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137479 [Google Scholar]
  16. Miller, Carolyn
    1984 Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech70(2). 151–167. doi:  10.1080/00335638409383686
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  17. Page, Ruth
    2012 The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse and Communication6(2). 181–201. doi:  10.1177/1750481312437441
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Alicia Galera
    2014 Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Francisco Santibáñez
    2003 Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Rivista di Linguistics15(2). 293–320.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Franziska Günther
    2016 Towards a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology7. 1110. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110 [Google Scholar]
  21. Scott, Kate
    2015 The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics81. 8–20. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015 [Google Scholar]
  22. Seargeant, Philip & Caroline Tagg
    (eds.) 2014 The language of social media: Identity and community on the internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317 [Google Scholar]
  23. Searle, John R.
    1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society5(1). 1–23. doi:  10.1017/S0047404500006837
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  24. Simon, Bryant
    2009 Everything but the coffee: Learning America from Starbucks. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Soboleva, Alena, Suzan Burton & Aila Khan
    2015 Marketing with Twitter: Challenges and opportunities. InJanée Burkhalter & Natalie Wood (eds.), Maximizing commerce and marketing strategies through micro-blogging, 1–39. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑4666‑8408‑9.ch001
     https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8408-9.ch001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Soboleva, Alena, Suzan Burton, Girijasankar Mallik & Aila Khan
    2017 ‘Retweet for a chance to…’: An analysis for what triggers consumers to engage in seeded eWOM on Twitter. Journal of Marketing Management33(13–14). 1120–1148. doi:  10.1080/0267257X.2017.1369142
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1369142 [Google Scholar]
  27. Steen, Gerard
    2011 Genre between the humanities and the sciences. InMarcus Callies, Wolfram Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), BiDirectionality in the cognitive sciences, 24–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.30
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30 [Google Scholar]
  28. Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
    (eds.) 2016 Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110469639
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110469639 [Google Scholar]
  29. van Weelden, Lisanne, Reinier Cozijn, Alfons Maes & Joost Schilperoord
    2010 Perceptual similarity in visual metaphor processing. Cognitive Shape Processing, 50–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Vosniadou, Stella & Andrew Ortony
    1983 The emergence of the literal-metaphorical anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development54(1). 154–161. 10.2307/1129872
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1129872 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wesch, Michael
    2009 Youtube and you: Experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorations in Media Ecology8(2). 19–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Wikström, Peter
    2014 #srynotfunny: Communicative functions of hashtags on Twitter. SKY Journal of Linguistics27. 127–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Woodside, Arch G.
    2010 Brand-consumer storytelling theory and research: Introduction to a Psychology & Marketing special issue. Psychology and Marketing27(6). 531–540. doi:  10.1002/mar.20342
     https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20342 [Google Scholar]
  34. Zappavigna, Michele
    (ed.) 2012 Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the Web. New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2015 Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics25(3). 274–291. doi:  10.1080/10350330.2014.996948
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.996948 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18020.per
Loading
Building brand narratives with hashtags on Twitter
Pragmatics & Cognition 25, 515 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18020.per
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18020.per
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18020.per
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): advertising; brand narratives; conceptual metaphor and metonymy; framing; genre; hashtags; illocutionary constructions

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error