Here is a follow-up to The Trojan "Brand" 1.
For Japanese, the word “brand” calls up a costly image. It is “a brand name,” a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name. Japanese tend to associate the word with fashion goods of high quality, such as Hermes and Louis Vuitton.
A bit of a surprise that this is the same brand as "brands and ashes"!
Originally, the mark made by burning iron is a sign of infamy, indicating a mark of someone’s ownership or trademark. From this, though initially negative, the word seems to have developed the more familiar meaning, at least among Japanese, “a particular sort or class of goods, as indicated by the trademarks on them.” (OED, s. v. “brand,” n. 6), first recorded around the middle of the 19th century.
It is interesting that the English dictionary does not give a sense of high class to "brand" itself. This means the implication attached to the word is peculiar to Japanese. What we call “brand” item gives an air of extravagance, usually pointing to luxurious items normally available to wealthy people. I suppose that the semantic gap is a reflection of Japanese attitude towards western culture, but it is worth further research.
Japanese usage of "brand" is far removed from the original sense the word carried. With its drastic change of connotation, they enjoy basking themselves in the Trojan "brand" in a different way.
For Japanese, the word “brand” calls up a costly image. It is “a brand name,” a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name. Japanese tend to associate the word with fashion goods of high quality, such as Hermes and Louis Vuitton.
A bit of a surprise that this is the same brand as "brands and ashes"!
Originally, the mark made by burning iron is a sign of infamy, indicating a mark of someone’s ownership or trademark. From this, though initially negative, the word seems to have developed the more familiar meaning, at least among Japanese, “a particular sort or class of goods, as indicated by the trademarks on them.” (OED, s. v. “brand,” n. 6), first recorded around the middle of the 19th century.
It is interesting that the English dictionary does not give a sense of high class to "brand" itself. This means the implication attached to the word is peculiar to Japanese. What we call “brand” item gives an air of extravagance, usually pointing to luxurious items normally available to wealthy people. I suppose that the semantic gap is a reflection of Japanese attitude towards western culture, but it is worth further research.
Japanese usage of "brand" is far removed from the original sense the word carried. With its drastic change of connotation, they enjoy basking themselves in the Trojan "brand" in a different way.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿