Note: This was Lexicon's first linguistic profile, written in May, 1989, as an exercise in applying linguistic analysis to brand names. We still find the analysis useful and interesting, but comparing it to more recent profiles shows how the art has evolved at Lexicon over the past seventeen years. Names form impressions that can be judged according to two sorts of linguistic parameters: phonological and morphological. Phonological characteristics include the phonetic properties of the individual sounds, more global patterns such as syllable structure and rhythmicity, and impressions due to orthography rather than sound per se. Morphological characteristics have to do with the meaningful parts that names can be broken down into: do they denote or connote desirable or undesirable things in relation to what the name refers to? The names Zantac and Tagamet are similar phonologically in a number respects. Both are relatively short, both begin and end with an obstruent (a stop or a fricative), and both begin and end with a closed syllable. In both names, the first syllable has main stress, and the final syllable has secondary stress. The vowels in both names are pronounced with a significant degree of jaw opening, which makes them relatively loud, and the vowels are all short, lax vowels. Here the phonological resemblance ends. The medial unstressed syllable of Tagamet is absent from Zantac. The fact that Zantac consists of two adjacent stressed syllables gives it a staccato effect that is absent from Tagamet. The effect is enhanced by the fact that its two syllables contain the same vowel, as well as by the explosive [t] of the second syllable. Tagamet has one phonological characteristic going for it. It begins and ends with the same letter, making it easier to remember: cf. Xerox, Kodak. But Zantac is still a more memorable name than Tagamet, partly because it is one syllable shorter and partly because it is simply a better name. Tagamet starts out strong, with an aspirated [t], but its energy is dissipated by its length, as well as by its alternating rhythmic structure: stressed, unstressed, stressed; closed, open, closed. A contributing factor is the nasal sonorant [m] that begins the final syllable: it is melodious, soft, easy. This combination of properties is desirable in some cases: "caramel" (especially when pronounced with three syllables) is a perfect name for this chewy object (somewhat fortuitously, since the Latin "calamellus" and Greek "kalamos" from which it is derived denote a reed or cane). In the present instance, this effect is of questionable value. If one really wanted to soften the ending, it would have been better to go whole hog and make the final consonant a sonorant: Tagamel in fact is probably a better name than Tagamet. One additional phonological characteristic that gives Zantac its force is the nasal sonorant [n] at the end of the first syllable. (Note the important role that position plays here: the syllable-initial [m] of Tagamet weakens its effect, while the syllable-final [n] of Zantac enhances its effect.) This [n] makes the first syllable of Zantac longer than the first syllable of Tagamet (since the stop [g] closes that syllable more abruptly) and the nasalization of [n] carries back into the preceding vowel. Thus the first syllable begins with the buzz of [z] followed immediately by the hum of nasalized [a] and nasal [n]. This vibrating sequence is arrested by the stop [t] which initiates the second syllable, and the abruptness is enhanced by the final stop, [k] for orthographic "c". The effect is to make the rhythmic structure (stressed, stressed) more interesting: the first syllable is dragged out, and the second is much more abrupt. It is a bit like lightning, followed by a thunder clap. Of course, in evaluating the effects of sound patterns we need to take into account the characteristics that the name is intended to communicate. One might expect that the best sort of name for an ulcer drug would be one that communicates soothing action. Neither of these names, with all their obstruent consonants, does this. What the sound patterns of Zantac convey is a product that is busy (buzzing, humming first syllable) and serious (sharp second syllable). With Tagamet, the force of the initial [t] fizzles until we get to the very end. The morphological structure of the two names reveals further important differences. The initial "z" of Zantac helps it to look modern (as is appropriate for a genetically engineered drug) and at the same time the sequence "za" places it in a family with peppy words like "zap" and "pizzazz". The final "ac" suggests the word "action", and the final "tac" helps it place it in a family (quite legally, it would appear) with the successful Contac. There are no undesirable associations here. Tagamet, on the other hand, is morphologically problematic. The first real expression that I associate it with is "tag-along". This connotes a lackadaisical quality that is clearly undesirable. Further analysis yields further problems. The medical term "tag" refers to a polyp or flap, while "met" is a unit of heat production by the body. I doubt that these associations were intended, and for all but the few who consult medical dictionaries they probably go unnoticed. But they certainly do not help the word to mean what it was intended to mean. Back to Lingustic Profile page.