## Language and Brand: Problems for Localization

## Abstract

The language used in a product or service has an extraordinary impact on the creation of its brand and on its online success. As localization is a key aspect of a globalized business, attention should be given to the localization of brand language to ensure global consistency. This study explores brand language localization problems in an online help corpus. Specifically, it analyzes the problems posed by the localization of brand names and terms in the pre-translation phase, following Nord's pre-translation text analysis theory (2012). The main objective of the study is to understand the  nature  of  identified  brand  language  problems  (professional  purposes)  and  examine  them  (research  purposes). The  method  implemented  is  a  qualitative,  interpretative  analysis  of  a  monolingual  corpus  in  English  comprising representative extracts from the Dropbox and Google Drive Online Help systems. The study is part of a wider research project exploring the concept of localization problems in online help localization.

## Keywords

localization; language brand; brand names; brand terms; web apps; online help; translation problem

## 1. Introduction

Websites have become an essential component of companies' marketing campaigns thanks to their impact on the online projection of the corporate image (Maroto/De Bortoli 2001: 6). As Constantinides (2002: 65) explains, 'the prime mission of the Web Site is to attract traffic, establish contact with the online target markets and brand the online organisation'. But the website is not the only digital channel of communication to have become an integral part of product marketing. Mobile apps, for example, are also often used to publicize brands and attract new customers (Wang et al. 2016). Apps used for this purpose include what are known as branded apps , defined by Bellman et al. (2011: 191) as 'software downloadable to a mobile device which prominently displays a brand identity, often via the name of the app and the appearance of a brand logo or icon, throughout the user experience'. It therefore appears logical to assume that the language used in this type of apps plays, or has the potential to play, an important role in the product's success, mainly because it is the language itself that forges the brand. For this reason, companies should not under-prioritize decisions regarding the language used in their campaigns and products, but instead consider language as just another marketing tool, both in the original design phase and when translating it or adapting it for other markets.

Since the localization of brand language has a series of major implications for a company's global  image,  a  coherent  strategy  clearly  needs  to  be  followed  at  a  global  level  (either internationalization  or  standardization)  to  minimize  cultural  differences,  create  an  image  that will  be  identifiable  in  different  countries  or  in  each  different  market  (localization),  and  adapt the  marketing  to  the  preferences  of  the  different  markets. The  localization  of  brand  language will, in any case, involve certain translation problems, which may vary depending on text type: traditional advertising copy (advertisements, posters, leaflets, etc.) will pose different challenges than digital channels like those mentioned earlier (websites, mobile apps, web advertising, etc.). This study addresses the problem of brand language translation in online content localization, with particular reference to web applications.

* Elena de la Cova Universidad Pablo de Olavide Dept. Filología y Traducción E-mail: mecovmor@upo.es

63

It is important to clarify that the term localization is used to refer to the process of 'taking a  product and making it linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/ region and language) where it will be used and sold' (LISA 1998: 3). As Jiménez-Crespo (2009b: 187) states: 'Localization represents a specific type of translation in which the intersection of technology and translation normally forces the translator to maintain the fixed super- and macrostructure-the underlying back-end coding structure and its screen presentation-of digital texts'. A localization act in itself can therefore be considered a translation act.

The following section explains the theoretical concepts on which the work is grounded. Section 3  describes  the  methodological bases of the research carried out, and the results of the study are presented in Section 4. Section 5 then discusses the results obtained, and, finally, Section 6 presents some conclusions.

## 2. Theoretical Context

## 2.1 Brand Language

De Mooij (2013: 28) defines brand as follows:

A brand is something made to appear unique. A brand is trust. A brand is not merely a product: It's the feeling a product evokes. A brand is why people will pay more for a product. A brand is the proprietary visual, emotional, rational image that people associate with a company or a product. The fact that you remember the brand name and have positive associations with that brand makes your product selection easier and enhances the value and satisfaction you get from the product.

As the author says, a brand is the feeling, or the image, a consumer remembers when considering buying one product or another. For the company in question, it is therefore extremely important for that impression to be positive. IKEA, which generally arouses a series of positive feelings among potential consumers, has been the object of numerous studies, including those of Edvardsson et al. (2006) and Tarnovskaya/de Chernatony (2011). According to Dahlvig (2011: 49), the former chairman of IKEA, one of the main strengths of this giant of the furniture and home improvement sector is that its products differentiate it from its competitors, above all thanks to their attractive, reasonably priced Scandinavian designs, the inspiration they transmit to their customers, the fact that everything can be found in the same store, and the overall 'day out' shopping experience. In  short,  IKEA  sells  an  image  of  the  home  which  stimulates  consumers  to  travel  to  the  store initially just to buy some inexpensive item of decoration, such as a vase or some candles, but ultimately to spend the day in the shop, having lunch and buying products that might make them feel  excited  about  building  a  home  that  looks  like  the  exhibitions  at  the  store  (SEMrushblog 2018). Its advertising campaigns and the language they use foster the image we ourselves want to convey in the way we decorate our homes. One of the brand's most iconic slogans in Spain, for example, has been 'Welcome to the Independent Republic of Your Home' ( Bienvenido a la República Independiente de tu casa ), again, transmitting the idea that home is something very much of our own which IKEA helps us to create.

In  contrast,  some  marketing  campaigns  are  resounding  failures  for  not  having  taken  into account cultural differences between countries. One example of is that of Nike, which in March 2012 (coinciding with St Patrick's Day) launched a campaign to advertise sports shoes with the slogan 'Nike Black and Tan Quickstrike'. 'Black and Tan' referred to a mix of dark and lager-type beers, but what Nike did not realize was that 'Black and Tans' was also the name given to a British paramilitary force responsible for violent attacks on Irish civilians in the 1920s (Williams 2012). Naturally, Nike was harshly criticized for this lack of sensitivity. According to Williams (2012: 66), marketing disasters like this happen because:

(usually) American companies fail to do thorough market research, engage in focus groups or partner with  a  localization  company  to  carry  out  international  business  awareness  and  brand  testing.  But most of all,  they  fail  to  understand  the  differences  between  cultures  -  including  cultural  history and in particular how closely culture and language are intertwined - before mounting an expensive marketing campaign and product introduction.

As can be seen from the positive or negative impact on a company's success of a given slogan or advertisement, language is undoubtedly a powerful commercial tool. The language used in advertising campaigns shapes a brand's spirit and personality, and if the company in question is a multinational, the image created will spread to different markets. Some companies, like Apple, may prefer to unify their image in all the different markets where they sell their products by using standardized brand and product names: that is to say, using the same language everywhere. Others, however, may prefer to project a localized image in all or some of their target markets. In this case, it is necessary to research the culture of each country or region. The Lay's brand of crisps, for example, is called Walkers in the United Kingdom and Sabritas in Mexico. Regardless of the chosen alternative (global brand or localized brand), the decision should be consistent and well-grounded (Douglas et al. 2001: 97-98) if an effective marketing strategy is to be achieved.

Two elements of brand language are particularly important: the name of the brand and the terminology typically associated with it (De la Cova 2017). The brand name is the name of the product (for example, Amazon, Cabify, Dropbox, etc.). According to Francis et al. (2002: 98): 'A brand name is the foundation of the product, an asset to the company, and an important consumer cue, and it is critical to the success of a new product'. A brand name is designed to generate positive connotations, and its translation should likewise produce the same effect when the product enters new markets (Francis et al. 2002: 99). The other element of brand language addressed in this  study  is  that  of brand terms .  These  include  terms  which  are  typically  associated  with  a product or which relate either to the product itself or to any of its functions (references, frequently used expressions or constructions, common usage of verbs and nouns, etc.) (De la Cova 2017: 291). Examples include 'story' (in Instagram) and 'to pin' in Pinterest. This terminology also affects the design of the brand and the recognition of the product by its user base, because it is all these linguistic elements that forge the spirit - i.e., the brand - of a given product. For translators to be able to create an appropriate image of a product and its features when they receive a project, it is crucial to be aware of the commercial importance of such brand names and terms.

## 2.2 Brand Language in Localization

Localization,  which  has  its  roots  in  the  technological  boom  of  the  1980s  and  '90s  (Esselink 2003), mainly refers to the translation and adaptation of technological products like software, mobile apps or videogames. Although several definitions exist of this concept and of the different localization modalities (videogame localization, web localization, etc.), for the purposes of this study, and based on the content being analyzed (online help), the one proposed by Dunne (2006: 4) seems perfectly appropriate:

The processes by which digital content and products developed in one locale (defined in terms of geographical area, language and culture) are adapted for sale and use in another locale. Localization involves: (a) translation of textual content into the language and textual conventions of the target locale; and (b) adaptation of nontextual content (from colors, icons and bitmaps, to packaging, form factors,  etc.)  as  well  as  input,  output  and  delivery  mechanisms  to  take  into  account  the  cultural, technical and regulatory requirements of that locale.

Dunne's definition (2006:4) emphasises the commercial objective of localization: 'for sale and use in another locale'. The localization industry is therefore based on the cultural adaptation of products and services to successfully access target markets (DePalma 2006; Schäler 2007).

In localization projects, the translation of product terminology (including both brand names and other lexical elements associated with products) take on great importance. This is reflected in company translation style guides, which usually include guidelines and specifications regarding how such elements are to be dealt with. For example, the Firefox translation style guide says: 'Brand names, as well as copyright and trademarks should never be translated, nor transliterated into a non-Latin-based script' (Mozilla 2019). Similarly, Microsoft stresses in its Go Global guide that 'Product names and brand names are normally not translated', but that 'Feature names can usually be translated' (Microsoft, 2018). Facebook, however, prescribes the following in its style guide:  'Names  of  products  and  functions  should  be  translated  coherently.  Some  product  and function names are translated and others are used in English, depending on strategic decisions' (Facebook 2019).

Regarding translation strategies for brand name translation, for Baruch (2012), there seem to be three main approaches: use the English name (or the name as it appears in its original language), transliterate the name using the local alphabet, or transcreate it. The transcreation option, which, according to Morón/Calvo (2018), first emerged as a popular subject of research in Translation Studies in 2014, is especially interesting. Pedersen (2015: ii) describes this new activity in the following terms:

Transcreation can involve the creation of new text as well as the translation or adaptation of existing source text elements. Particularly the creation of new content can be argued to elicit the discussion of whether the scope of translation is wide enough to encompass the concept of transcreation.

Transcreation appears to go beyond the original text, taking the creative brief as a basis from which to design a new, localized image for different markets:

A creative brief is a planning tool which includes an overview of the most important specifications by the client to be considered in the development of marketing and copywriting content. The creative brief explicitly describes what the client wants to achieve with the new copy (Morón/Calvo 2018: 130)

Other  authors  suggest  different  strategies  for  translating  brand  names  and  terms,  which  vary depending on the working languages. Wang (2012), for example, in relation to the translation of brand names from English into Chinese, suggests three strategies: transliteration, meaning-based translation (used when brand names include common words) and a combination of transliteration and free translation (1947-1948). And Kassawat (2020), regarding the localization of product names and industry terms from English into Arabic, identified hybrid approaches such as naming by translation and transliteration or naming by translation with explicitation.

To  decide  which  strategy  to  adopt,  it  will  in  any  case  be  necessary  to  research  the  target markets and consult specialists in the target culture. This process, known as brand validation, involves carrying out market analyses and evaluating the positive and/or negative consequences of adopting the different options (Baruch 2012: 42). In a similar vein, O'Hagan/Ashworth (2002: 73) also argue in favour of an in-depth study into the target market in question: 'This type of work therefore requires expertise in the commercial field, such as international market research and multicultural advertising that can provide advice on wider issues than immediate translation problems'. For translators to provide a well-translated brand name, they need to consider 'such factors as language, local culture, history and consumer attitude and beliefs' (Dong/Helms 2001: 114).

In  localization  project  quality  evaluations,  terminology  also  accounts  for  a  significant  part of  a  translation's  overall  quality.  In  the  Multidimensional  Quality  Metrics  (MQM) model, for example, product terminology (names, associated elements, etc.) appears as one of the eight main dimensions of the quality problems identified by the QT21 1 group. It is defined by Lommel et al. (2015: section 1.1.8) as follows:

Terminology issues relate to the use of domain- or organization-specific terminology (i.e., the use of words to relate to specific concepts not considered part of general language). Adherence to specified terminology is widely considered an issue of central concern in both translation and content authoring.

Generally speaking, a brand (or product) name is easily identifiable in a localization project (e.g., Google or Ikea). As explained earlier, however, there may be a choice of different ways to localize it: should it be adapted, kept in its original language, or transcribed? The decision is dependent on different  factors,  like  company  policy,  the  spirit  of  the  product,  customer  preferences,  etc.  In  contrast, brand terms (product-specific terminology) are not so easily identifiable, especially in the field of the new technologies, because they invariably include lexical elements (nouns, verbs) habitually found in this field. Words like 'app' and 'smartphone', for example, are usually understood by consumers of technology, but may have a series of implications for brand identification in the target language (De la Cova 2015) when they actually form part of the product's brand name. The main difference between these elements and common language lies in the fact that brand terms are subject to the client's preferences, so it is paramount first to identify them as brand elements and then to adhere to the client's requirements and not translate them freely.

1 The QT21 group refers to the different stakeholders in the QT21 project, a 'machine translation project which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme' (QT21 Quality Translation, online).

In the light of all the above, considerations regarding how to address brand language should constitute part of a company's global marketing strategy. As Wang states: '…building up good brand image lies in the qualified translation of brand names. […] Because the translation of brand names is the re-entitlement of the commodity, it is very important for the sales of the goods' (2012: 1945). This is especially true today, when the content which defines a brand is so varied. In the case of digital products, for example, this could, as Baruch points out, include non-written text: 'These considerations affect not only written localized text for web, user interface (UI) and documentation, but also audio recordings in localized multimedia for multicultural offerings' (2012: 40).

## 3. Methodology

The present study follows a qualitative method to carry out a descriptive, interpretative analysis of  data  (source  content).  The  objective  is  to  analyze brand language localization problems during the pre-translation phase, evaluating their nature and potential causes of constraint in the localization process.

The corpus used as source content is a closed, synchronized, specialized monolingual English corpus (Bowker/Pearson, 2002) of 230,000 words previously designed by De la Cova (2017). Denominated the ONHELP corpus, it was compiled manually from the help centres of two cloud storage applications, Google Drive and Dropbox, and then fine-tuned in accordance with content transferability criteria to ensure, for example, that the extracts included from both help centres were similar in terms of content type (basic features, similar features). The corpus is used as source content.

This paper has its origin in a broader previous study exploring the concept of translation problem in the context of localization (De la Cova 2017). That study categorized eleven types of localization problems identified in the ONHELP corpus. Specifically, the categories induced from the corpus were: product features, technical content, user interface elements, help centre structure,  hyperlinks,  images,  technology  terms,  brand  language,  operating  system  elements, international  variables,  and  visual  elements  references  (De  la  Cova  2017).  To  identify  such categories, the ONHELP corpus was analyzed qualitatively in accordance with the principles of Grounded Theory (Glaser/Strauss 1967). With the exception of work like Wehrmeyer (2014) and Hubscher-Davidson (2011), Grounded Theory (GT) has not been widely exploited in Translation Studies, but it has been extensively used in other disciplines such as Sociology, which require the qualitative treatment of corpora. Unlike other qualitative methods of corpus analysis, GT is based on induction. Content analysis and discourse analysis, for example, are deductive processes that use known, operational categories found in a given corpus (text), but what happens when what we are looking at has not yet been studied?  In these cases, GT and inductive processes are useful. GT offers a solid methodological basis for bottom-up studies, especially to avoid biases when the subject and the researcher are the same person (Classical introspection, in the words of Grotjahn 1987: 55 and Rojo 2013: 74). According to Strauss and Corbin (1990: 23): 'A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon'. GT establishes a cyclical process which implies 'a constant comparative analysis, hence this approach is referred to as the constant comparative method ' (Glaser/Strauss 1967: 7).  In Grounded Theory, the process of coding plays an essential role: 'Coding represents the operations by which data are broken down, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways. It is the central process by which theories are built from data' (Strauss/ Corbin 1990: 57). In GT methods, analysis is carried out in three stages: '1. find conceptual categories in the data; 2. find relationships between these categories; 3. conceptualise and account for these relationships through finding core categories' (Robson 2002: 492). This approach is linked,  therefore,  to corpus-driven ,  inductive  studies  such  as  the  present  work.  Inductive  and deductive processes are not incompatible, but complementary. In deductive studies we look for elements/aspects that we know, but, in inductive studies, we analyze something not previously known. Some studies may, however, combine both types of process (Saldanha/O'Brien 2013).

The present study analyzes a translatable text product (the corpus) helping us focus on and study one specific phase of the translation process (in accordance with Nord's notion (2012) that the translation process must be guided by a pre-translation analysis, taking into account both intra and textual factors).

To  place  this  study  in  its  correct  context,  it  is  necessary  to  take  a  closer  look  at  what  we understand by localization problem . De la Cova (2017: 149) defines it as:

(…) any element which, in the specific context of localization, and despite its subjective, interpretable nature,  manifestly  overlaps  with  the  (textual  or  extratextual)  context  and  displays  a  degree  of complexity in its translatability  which  constitutes  or  may  potentially  constitute  an  obstacle  to  the translator,  regardless  of  their  experience  and  ability  to  solve  problems  automatically,  the  types  of resources available, etc.

Whether an element or a group of elements constitute a localization problem is thus determined by  two  interrelated  parameters:  the  complex translatability attribute,  meaning  the  lack  (for whatever  reason)  of  a  clear,  straightforward  translation  of  the  element  in  question;  and  the (textual  and  extratextual) contextualisation attribute,  which  directly  affects  its  translatability. Textual  context  refers  to  a  given  element's  linguistic  context,  meaning  both  the  source  text where the element appears and other related content referring to or linked to the source textfor example software components (graphical interface, online help, marketing material, etc.)where  linguistic  consistency  is  required.  In  Translation  Studies  this  is  usually  referred  to  as intratextuality (See Nord 2010 and Sharifi 2016) and requires textual and extratextual cohesion/ coherence.  In  practice,  extratextual  or  functional  contextualization  is  particularly  relevant  in localization because a project is harnessed to its context, with all the idiosyncrasies of the target cultures, the prototypical localization project requirements, and the translator's own situation: an  overlap  manifest  in  the  importance  of  functionalist  approaches  to  professional  translation and localization practice (Nord 1997; Jiménez-Crespo 2013; Alonso/Calvo 2015). As JiménezCrespo  (2013:  70)  states:  '(…)  it  can  be  argued  that  functionalism  provides  one  of  the  best theoretical frameworks for contextualizing localization: in this interactive environment fulfilling the communicative intention of the sender remains a key factor'. Functionalism, then, focusses on the intention of a text and its translation (Nord 1997/2001: 1). This is central to the subject of this work-brand language localization-where the intentions of a brand's creators (almost always to attract consumers or build brand awareness) must be reflected in the brand's different versions around the world.

In  this  study,  a brand  language  localization  problem is  understood  as  an  obstacle  to localization which occurs when the source text contains references, characteristic expressions or names of a given product brand that are affected by their functional contextualisation (De la Cova 2017: 291). In this type of localization problem, functional contextualisation (purpose) is so important precisely because brand names and their associated vocabulary shape a product's very identity.

## 4. Results and Analysis

As stated in the previous section, the aim of this paper is to explore brand language localization problems within the context of an online help corpus, to evaluate why the identified brand language names and terms constitute a problem, and to determine what factors cause constraints or limit the localization of such elements.

Of  the  2,559  localization  problems  identified  in  the  analyzed  ONHELP  corpus,  486  were identified as potential brand language problems (De la Cova 2017). This was the second most frequent type of problem found in the corpus, with technology terminology being the most frequent (not surprisingly in an online help corpus mainly made up of help articles related to the usage of a web application). Whereas there are studies focused on technology terminology in Translation and Specialized Languages studies (Aguado de Cea 2006, Belda 2003, Jiménez-Crespo 2011, etc.), little attention has so far been paid to brand language in these fields. Hence our decision to look more closely at brand language problems, focusing on the attributes that constitute and help identify a problem, according to the operational notion of localization problem , and explaining how those attributes constrain the localization of the identified elements.

To  illustrate  the  types  of  brand  language  problem  detected,  four  representative  cases  are described below. For some types, their localization into Spanish has been used as a reference to contextualize the translation process and the implication of translation decisions, although, as stated in the previous section, only the source text (monolingual corpus) was analyzed as part of the study (pre-translation phase). Here, the translation phase (analysis of quality, error, etc.) was ignored because, to be able later to study translation quality, strategies, errors, quantitative factors, experiments, etc., we first need to study and understand the source text. In each case, the element deemed to be a localization problem is written in italics.

## Case 1 - Dropbox:

If you've connected your personal and work accounts, unlimited version history will only apply to your Dropbox for Business account.

In this extract, three localization problems were found associated with brand language:

## a) Personal and work accounts:

When this corpus was designed, Dropbox used to have personal accounts, which could be free or premium, and work accounts corresponding to the Dropbox Business plan for companies. Now, however, personal accounts can be free or premium (Plus and Family version) and there are also three kinds of Business plans (Professional, Standard and Advanced). Account types are still, however, categorized as personal or work accounts. In the product content (web, applications) in English, there are therefore references to personal v. work. This structure is always used in the English versions, so the lexical consistency of the brand terminology should also be reflected in Spanish. Otherwise, if a translator were to render that structure using synonyms - translating 'work account' as cuenta laboral or cuenta professional , for example, instead of as cuenta de trabajo , which is the published Spanish translation - they would be committing a brand terminology error.

This is therefore a problem dependent on the translatability of this product-specific terminology, because not all semantically possible equivalences are functionally acceptable. If this terminology were not already translated, the translator would also be facing a problem mainly related to the functional contextualization of the product, because it would be necessary to find out exactly what those different account types involve and how important their different functions are for the product and its brand. (They will undoubtedly be very important, because they determine a major source of income for the company).

## b) Unlimited version history:

This feature  allows  unlimited  file  versioning.  Here  the  translator  has  to  translate  the  name of a brand-specific feature, which should be in the product glossary or in the project translation memory, to which the translator may or may not have access. In the latter case, it would be necessary to consult information in the online content or contact the customer. One obstacle when localizing such terms is that they do not appear to be written consistently in English; sometimes they are capitalized and sometimes they are not. Capitalization of the target translation would therefore need to be confirmed, or a decision taken about it. As it might be written in lower case, the translator may also question whether the term really is a feature name, and this would require certain  translation  decisions  regarding  naming.  If,  however,  the  term  referred  simply  to  some function of the Dropbox account, the translator would have more flexibility. This case would therefore be a problem to do with the textual and functional contextualization of the element in question.

## c) Dropbox for Business:

This is the old name of the service Dropbox offers companies, allowing different departments to  work  using  one  shared  Dropbox  account  with,  among  other  things,  special  administrative features, and more storage space. This product has changed names several times over the last few years and is currently called Dropbox Business. The extracted corpus, however, contains the obsolete name (with the word 'for'). This could represent an additional translatability problem for the translator, who would need to decide whether to adhere to the original text or reflect the updating of the brand. The localization of this product name is in any case very important because Dropbox Business is one of the company's most profitable products. In the past, the company used a localized name, Dropbox para empresas , in the Spanish market, but eventually they opted to use the standardized global form Dropbox Business.

## Case 2 - Google Drive:

'My Drive' is  the  section  of  Google  Drive  that  automatically  syncs  files,  folders, Google  Docs , Sheets , and Slides directly to your Google Drive folder on your Mac/PC.

This extract reveals potential problems regarding the names of certain products which are very popular among Google users. First it refers to Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides. The names for these functions are already localized into Spanish in the published version of the product, so the translator will have to ensure consistency with those terms. In this case, dependence on existing published terminology (textual context) is an observable attribute of the translation problem. This also  reflects  the  importance  of  functional  contextualization  in  any  typical  localization  project where adherence to glossaries and published content is a requirement. Translating these names involves an additional difficulty. The translator may assume that they should remain in English, like  the  product  name  Google  Drive. This  would  be  an  error.  Google  has  no  unified  strategy regarding the localization of its product names. Sometimes they are localized, as in the case of Google Scholar/Google Académico, and sometimes they remain in English, as in the case of Google Ads. And even if the translator knows that these function names are to be translated into Spanish, a decision will have to be taken whether to capitalize them as brand-specific names or lowercase them as common nouns. In this case, the terms actually refer to file types, not product names, so they should be written in the lower case.

## Case 3 - Google Drive:

Sign-in to a Google Account required?

This extract from the corpus contains two elements of brand language which may be problematic for translators. 'Sign in' is a verb habitually used with most cloud-based products and services and in social media. It usually appears as a link on product home pages that lets visitors create an account and enter their ID information (usernames and passwords) to access a given service whenever they want.

A professional translator will usually know that this kind of lexical item is typically translated consistently  in  all  the  product's  different  components  (application  interface,  documentation, advertising, online help, etc.) and that the customers will almost certainly have their own specific term  choice  of  preference  among  the  many  possible  translation  alternatives.  In  this  case,  we see an example of a localization problem where translatability is an observable attribute ('sign in' can be translated in many different ways) dependent on functional contextualization (client requirements).

The text also features the name of a product, Google Account, a name localized into Spanish as Google Cuenta. As in Case 2, since Google has no unified strategy for localizing the names of its products, the translator must check whether the product name has been standardized or localized, and not assume that it is to be left in English as is otherwise common practice in technology companies.

## Case 4 - Dropbox:

Dropbox Pro and Dropbox for Business users: As the owner of the folder, you can decide who in the folder is an editor and who is a viewer .

In this last case, there is a potential problem in the terminology used to talk about Dropbox's folder sharing function. When a folder is set up as being shared, its owner can decide whether the person invited to share can just see the content of the folder or modify it as well. As mentioned in the other cases, the translator faces a problem of translatability due to the textual (and extratextual) contextualization of the language items in question. Firstly, they have to be identified as brandspecific terms (in English, the words used are always 'editor' and 'viewer') and, as explained earlier, common names can be difficult to identify as a brand term because they are subject to the customer's previously expressed preferences and cannot be translated freely. Secondly, the translator  needs  to  know  how those terms are systematically translated in the target language version of the product (for example, editor and lector in Spanish). If the feature in question is a new one, the translator will have to come to an agreement with the customer about whether any type of preference or guidelines need to be taken into account with regard to the feel of the brand (or to any differentiation that may be required to distinguish it from competitors, for example).

## 5. Discussion

As  previously  stated,  the  categories  for  the  different  localisation  problems  have  their  origin in De la Cova (2017), a broader study the main objective of which was to render localization problems  operational.  This  operationalisation  (the  objective  categorisation  of  problems  for study purposes) revolves around two main attributes: the potential translatability of an element (as  already explained); and its textual or extratextual (technological, cultural, functional, etc.) contextualization.  These  attributes  are  sufficiently  observable  factors  independent  of  more subjective  considerations  like  the  difficulty  a  given  element  may  pose  for  a  given  translator (due to their previous level of experience, access to resources, etc.). This focus study had as its objective to analyze four cases of potential localization problems associated with brand language in the specific context of online help localization.

The results obtained in the present study show that some of the elements identified may constitute localization problems because the brand does not implement a unified strategy for dealing with the names of products or functions. For example, Google sometimes uses standardized (English) terms  like  Google  Drive  and  sometimes  localizes  them,  as  is  the  case  with  Google Account/ Cuenta Google. This is not necessarily negative for the company's global image: it merely means that the translator must be aware of it when translating such terms.

The study also identified other feature names and examples of product-specific terminology which,  due  to  their  functional  context,  may  give  rise  to  localization  problems.  One  example is 'unlimited version history', which might not be recognized as the name of a function if the translator is not familiar with the product. This term, and others like 'viewer', 'editor', and 'work account', are elements which contribute to the making of the brand and product image. A similar case  is  the  term  'tablet',  the  localization  of  which  has  many  connotations  due  to  the  cultural overtones and contextual considerations (regarding both source and target cultures) governing its translation. In Spanish, the standardized form 'tablet', for example, which is very common on technology websites, may be more appropriate for a young user base or in informal contexts, and the localized Spanish form tableta for a more traditional or business-oriented product ( tableta is the term accepted by the Royal Spanish Academy) (De la Cova 2015: 5).

Even though the clumsy localization of a product name may have a greater effect on brand image than  the  erroneous,  inconsistent  translation  of  brand  terms  like  'editor'  and  'tablet',  it should not be forgotten that these terms too form part of the brand language, and that sufficient attention needs to be paid to this language to ensure that the brand is identifiable by its user base and distinguishable from rival brands, and, above all, that its content is usable.

## 6. Conclusion

The contribution of this study is twofold. On the one hand, it explores brand language, which has to date received relatively little attention in Translation Studies. On the other, by using GT to identify categories, it makes it possible to explore how the translatability and contextualization attributes, as explained in the paper, affect the translation process, thus providing a theoretical base from which to identify the complexity of these elements.

Brand language plays a crucial role in the global image of a product or service. As observed in the introduction to this paper, it therefore seems useful to think about how its different elements (mainly brand names and brand-specific terminology) should be dealt with: is it preferable to adopt a strategy of standardization (a single global image for all markets) or to localize (into the specific culture of each target market). The option chosen will depend on the global marketing strategy implemented by the company in question, which will have various implications in terms of project management.

In  both  cases,  the  localization  or  adaptation  of  brand  names,  key  product  names  and  other terminology or phraseology used to shape a company's image and corporate spirit should follow an exhaustive process of brand validation and consultation with specialists in the cultures of the target markets (either marketing experts or the translators/linguists themselves). This would avoid embarrassing failures resulting from the use of inappropriate product names and slogans, while maximising the success of marketing campaigns.

The analysis of brand language problems carried out in the present work showed that both product names and their associated terminology may represent a problem for localization. This is mainly because they are elements subsidiary to cultural considerations, but more significantly to the functional constraints of this type of project (brand or customer preferences, the connotations of possible translations in the target culture, whether or not those connotations concur with the company's product philosophy, consistency between different content components (intertextuality), etc.). As seen in the study, one potential problem for the localization of brand terms (productspecific terminology) is actually distinguishing them as brand elements, since many of them are common lexical elements, such as 'editor' or 'sign-in'. In order to be able to identify these terms as elements that configure the brand of a product, translators need to be familiar with the product in question, with its terminology and with the jargon of a given field (in this case, web apps). If the brand language is culturally acceptable, attractive, and capable of stirring the emotions of the brand's user base, then it has a very good chance of commercial success while satisfying clients' expectations.

A qualitatively representative corpus analysis based on systematic GT methodology makes operationalisation  of  the  construct localization  problem possible/applicable  for  research.  The resulting  definition  of localisation  problem and  its  different  categories  (e.g.:  Brand  language as problem category) as proposed by De la Cova (2017) are potentially extrapolatable to other contexts and studies, as reported in later studies such as Szymyślik (2019), who used the same methodology  and  operationalisation  of problem to  analyze  and  theorise  about  a  completely different field, i.e., creative literature.

This methodology was also successfully tested as a pre-translation analysis method for training purposes as part of an educational innovation project in the Degree in Translation and Interpreting at the University Pablo de Olavide (De la Cova 2020).

The present case study (brand language in online help content) illustrates the potential of the GT method for the qualitative analysis of complex constructs which have not been sufficiently explored and are not ripe for other deductive methods of content, text or discourse analysis. This is the case with translation problems. Although the concept of translation problems is recurrent in Translation Studies (Wilss 1977; Krings 1986; Nord 1988/2005; Toury 2010, among others), few studies adopt a systematic approach to analysing this elusive concept. This research shows that GT offers a valid guide for this kind of qualitative research. As explained earlier, this method's repetitive phases of coding and constant comparison generate categories of great theoretical value that help us understand a phenomenon that is not widely studied (brand language problems in localization).  The  theories  induced  by  GT  methods  open  up  future  lines  of  experimental  and quantitative research.

## References

- Aguado de Cea, Guadalupe 2006: De bits y bugs a blogs y webs: aspectos interdisciplinares, socioculturales y lingüísticos de la terminología informática. In Gonzalo, Rosario/Hernúñez, Pollux (eds.), CORCILLVM: Estudios de traducción, lingüística y filología dedicados a Valentín García Yebra . Madrid: Arco Libros, 693-720.
- Alonso, Elisa/Calvo, Elisa 2015: Developing a blueprint for a technology-mediated approach to translation studies. In Meta: Journal Des traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal 60(1), 135-157.
- Baruch, Talia 2012: Localizing brand names. In Multilingual. Language. Techonology. Business 23(4), 40.
- Belda Medina, José Ramón 2003: El lenguaje de la informática e internet y su traducción . Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.
- Bellman, Steven/Potter, Robert/Treleaven-Hassard, Shiree/Robinson, Jennifer A./Varan, Duane 2011: The effectiveness of branded mobile phone apps. In Journal of interactive Marketing 25(4), 191-200.
- Bowker, Lynne/ Pearson, Jennifer 2002: Working with specialized language: A practical guide to using corpora . London: Routledge.
- Constantinides, Efthymios 2002: The 4S web-marketing mix model. In Electronic commerce research and applications 1(1), 57-76.
- Dahlvig, Anders 2011: The IKEA edge: Building global growth and social good at the world's most iconic home store . New York: McGraw Hill Professional.
- De la Cova, Elena 2015: Lenguaje tecnológico y problemas para el traductor: El caso de la traducción de neologismos de inglés a español en la localización. In E-Aesla. Revista Digital 1 [online]. http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/eaesla/ pdf/01/69.pdf (accessed 15 September 2020).
- De la Cova, Elena 2017: La localización de la ayuda online: Categorización de problemas para la traducción . PhD thesis. Seville: University of Sevilla.
- De la Cova, Elena 2020: Gestión de la identificación de problemas en proyectos de localización con herramientas TAO. In Gázquez Linares, José Jesús et al. (eds), Innovación docente e investigación en arte y humanidades. Avanzando en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje . Madrid: Dykinson, 1011-1022.
- De Mooij, Marieke 2013: Global marketing and advertising: Understanding cultural paradoxes . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- DePalma, Donald 2006: Quantifying the return on localization investment. In Dunne, Keiran J. (ed.), Perspectives on Localization . Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 15-36.
- Dong, Lily C./Helms, Marily M. 2001: Brand name translation model: A case analysis of US brands in China. In Journal of Brand Management , 9(2), 99-115.

- Douglas, Susan P./Craig, C. Samuel/Nijssen, Edwin J. 2001: Integrating branding strategy across markets. Building international brand architecture. In Journal of International Marketing 9(2), 97-114.
- Dunne, Keiran 2006: A Copernican revolution. In Dunne, Kiaran J. (ed.), Perspectives on Localization . AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins, 1-11.
- Edvardsson, Bo/ Enquist, Bo/Hay, Michael 2006: Values-based service brands: narratives from IKEA. In Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 16(3), 230-246.
- Esselink, Bert 2003: The evolution of localization. In The Guide from Multilingual Computing & Technology: Localization 14(5), 4-7.
- Facebook 2019: ¿Qué estilo y tono debería usar para escribir traducciones? [online]. https://www.facebook.com/help/ translations/1751846921742839#localization (accessed 5 September 2020).
- Francis, June N.P/Lam, Jane P.Y./Walls, Jan 2002: The impact of linguistic differences on international brand name standardization: A comparison of English and Chinese brand names of fortune-500 companies. In Journal of International Marketing 10(1), 98-116.
- Glaser, Barney/Strauss, Anselm 1967: The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
- Grotjahn, Rüdiger 1987: On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In Faerch, Claus/Kasper, Gabriele (eds.), Introspection in second language research . Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, 54-82.
- Hubscher-Davidson, S. (2011). A Discussion of Ethnographic Research Methods and their Relevance for the Translation Process. In Across Languages and Cultures , 12(1), 1-18.
- Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel 2009b: The intersection of localization and translation: A corpus study of Spanish original and localized web forms. In Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 5(2), 186-207.
- Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel 2011: To adapt or not to adapt in web localization: a contrastive genre-based study of original and localized legal sections in corporate websites. In Jostrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 15, 2-27.
- Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel 2013: Translation and web localization . London: Routledge.
- Kassawat, Madiha 2020: The double function of language: an analysis of product naming and industry terminology in Arabic localized websites. In Language for International Communication: Linking Interdisciplinary Perspective 3, 31-41.
- Krings, Hans Peter 1986: Was in den Köpfen Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern . Tubingen: GNV.
- Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA) 1998: LEIT phase I final report. LISA Education Initiative Task -force (LEIT) . (Report November, 22). [s.l.]: LISA.
- Lommel, Arle/ Burchardt, Aljoscha/Uszkoreit, Hans 2015: Multidimensional quality metrics (MQM) definition. In QT21: Quality Translation 21 [online]. http://www.qt21.eu/mqm-definition/definition-2015-12-30.html (accessed 25 September 2020).
- Maroto, Jesús/de Bortoli, Mario 2001: Web site localization. In Ralf Russow/Barbereau, Danielle (eds.), ELICIT 2001: European Languages and the Implementation of Communication and Information Technologies: proceedings of the first international ELICIT conference . Paisley: University of Paisley.
- Morón, Marián/Calvo, Elisa 2018: Introducing transcreation skills in translator training contexts: A situated projectbased approach. In JoStrans (29), 126-148.
- Mozilla 2019: Mozilla L10n Style Guide. MDN Web Docs [online]. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/ Localization/L10n\_Style\_Guide (accessed 9 October 2020).
- Nord, Christiane 1988/2005: Text analysis in translation: Theory methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis (2a. ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
- Nord, Christiane 1997/2001: Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained (2nd. ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome.
- Nord, Christiane 1997: A functional typology of translations . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
- Nord, Christiane 2010: La intertextualidad como herramienta en el proceso de traducción. In Puentes 9, 9-18.
- Nord, Christiane 2012: Texto base - Texto meta: un modelo funcional de análisis pretraslativo . Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I. Servei de Comunicació i Publicacions.
- O'Hagan, Minako/Ashworth, David 2002: Translation-mediated communication in a digital world: Facing the challenges of globalization and localization . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

- Pedersen, Camilla 2015: Exploring the concept of transcreation: A theoretical and empirical study of transcreation with BMW as an empirical example . Master's Thesis. Aarhus: Aarhus University.

QT21 2018: Quality Metrics [online]. http://www.qt21.eu/quality-metrics/ (accessed 8 October 2020).

QT21 Quality Translation 2018: Introduction [online]. http://www.qt21.eu/ (accessed 8 October 2020).

- Robson, Colin 2002: Real world research. A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers . Oxford: Blackwell.
- Rojo, Ana María 2013: Diseños y métodos de investigación en traducción . Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.
- Saldanha,  Gabriela/O'Brien,  Sharon  2013: Research  methodologies  in  translation  studies .  Manchester:  St.  Jerome Publishing.
- Schäler, Reinhard 2007: Reverse localisation. In Localisation Focus: the International Journal of Localisation 6 (1), 39-48.
- SEMrush blog 2018: ¿Qué es la experiencia de marca? 5 casos de éxito [online]. https://es.semrush.com/blog/experiencia-de-marca-casos-exito/ (accessed 14 October 2020).
- Sharifi, Hamid 2016: Intertextual relations in web localization. In The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 3(2), 152-164.
- Strauss, Anselm / Corbin, Juliet 1990: Basics of qualitative research . California: SAGE
- Szymyślik, Robert 2019: Estudio de los problemas de traducción vinculados a mundos ficticios: Fahrenheit 451 de Ray Bradbury . PhD Thesis. Seville: University of Pablo de Olavide.
- Tarnovskaya, Veronika. V./de Chernatony, Leslie 2011: Internalising a brand across cultures: the case of IKEA. In International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 39(8), 598-618.
- Toury, Gideon 2010: What's the problem with 'translation problem'? In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara/Thelen, Marcel (eds.), Meaning in translation . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 231-254.
- Wang, Becky/ Kim, Su Jung/Malthouse/Edward C. 2016: Branded apps and mobile platforms as new tools for advertising. In The new advertising: Branding, content, and consumer relationships in the data-driven social media era 2, 123-156.
- Wang, Fade 2012: An approach to the translation of brand names. In Theory & Practice in Language Studies 2(9).
- Wehrmeyer, J. 2014: Introducing Grounded Theory into Translation Studies. In Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 32, 373-387.
- Williams, Jeff 2012: International branding errors cause trouble. In Multilingual. Language. Techonology. Business 23(3), 66.
- Wilss, Wolfram 1977: Übersetzungswissenschaft: Probleme u. Methoden . Stuttgart: Klett.