Algérian Pharmaceutical Brand Names: Word-Formation Processes and Semantics Motivations

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48075/odal.v7i1.36704

Keywords:

commercial onomastics, lexicology, pharmaceutical naming, naming patterns, Algeria

Abstract

This article examines the morphological processes and semantic motivations involved in the formation of pharmaceutical brand names in Algeria. The central question is to identify which formal mechanisms and meaning strategies are favoured by national companies, in a context where naming must both guide product interpretation and ensure brand distinctiveness. The corpus comprises 127 denominations collected from the official websites of Biopharm and Merinal, considered representative of national pharmaceutical production and/or marketing. Each item was described according to the “final process” criterion (the dominant operation in the resulting form) and then subjected to a two-level analysis: (i) lexical morphology, distinguishing in particular compounding, affixation, truncation and arbitrary creation; and (ii) semantic analysis based on the endocentric/exocentric contrast and on naming patterns (descriptive, actantial, associative and appellative). Quantifying the categories and identifying lexical bases makes it possible to describe the naming trends observed in the corpus and to pave the way for inter-operator comparisons. The results reveal a clear predominance of compounding and suffixation over arbitrary creation, whereas prefixation, syncope, blending, hybridisation, parasynthesis, apocope and rearrangement play only a marginal role. At the

 

semantic level, endocentric denominations largely dominate, indicating a strong tendency towards referential readability. Pattern distribution confirms the primacy of the appellative scheme, followed by the associative, descriptive and actantial schemes. Overall, these observations delineate modern commercial onomastics that articulates signals of specialisation with brand differentiation. The study thus provides an empirical contribution to pharmaceutical onomastics in the Algerian context, while noting the limitations of a corpus based on online catalogues and opening prospects for extending the corpus and assessing LASA risks among health professionals and patients.

References

Amossy, R. (2010). La présentation de soi. Ethos et identité verbale. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.

Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BiopharmDZ. (n.d.). Site institutionnel. https://www.biopharmdz.com/ (Consulté entre le 1

mars 2025 et le 30 avril 2025)

Charaudeau, P. (1995). Ce que communiquer veut dire. Sciences Humaines, 51.

Corbin, D. (1991). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique (Vols. I & II). Villeneuve-d’Ascq : Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Dubois, J., Giacomo, M., Guespin, L., Marcellesi, C., Marcellesi, J.-B., & Mével, J.-P. (1994).

Dictionnaire de linguistique et des sciences du langage. Paris : Larousse.

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1): 191-198.

European Medicines Agency (EMA). (2021). Guideline on the acceptability of names for human medicinal products processed through the centralised procedure (Revision 7) (EMA/CHMP/287710/2014 Rev. 7). https://www.ema.europa.eu/ (accessed 27 April 2025)

Faure, P. (2018). La néologie commerciale. L’exemple des noms de médicaments. Cahiers de lexicologie, 113(2) : 129-144.

Fèvre-Pernet, C. (2008). Stratégies dénominatives en onomastique commerciale. Dans J. Durand, B. Habert & B. Laks (dirs.), Actes du Congrès mondial de linguistique française – CMLF 2008. Paris : EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf08268 (Consulté le 25 avril

Fèvre-Pernet, C., & Roché, M. (2005). Quel traitement lexicographique de l’onomastique commerciale ? Pour une distinction nom de marque / nom de produit. Corela – Cognition, Représentation, Langage, HS-2. https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.1198 (Consulté le 30 avril

Fradin, B. (2003). Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.

Fromer, M. J. (2002). What’s in a name? Quite a lot when it comes to marketing & selling new

cancer drugs. Oncology Times, 24(12): 19-20.

Gaudin, F. (2003). Socioterminologie. Une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie.

Bruxelles : De Boeck Supérieur.

Gary-Prieur, M.-N. (1994). Grammaire du nom propre. Paris : Presses universitaires de France. Gary-Prieur, M.-N., & Noailly, M. (2019). Le nom propre. In Encyclopédie grammaticale du français.

Guilbert, L. (1975). La créativité lexicale. Paris : Larousse.

Humbley, J. (2018). La néologie terminologique. Limoges : Lambert-Lucas.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1):.1-22.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11(1):5-20.

Lanseur, S. (2017). Les noms de médicaments produits par SAIDAL. Approche morphosémantique. Cahiers de la langue et de la littérature, 1(10), 183-

https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/66819 (Consulté le 1 juin 2025)

Leblanc, B., & Bilodeau, C. (2007). Les noms de marques de médicaments. Points de repères linguistiques et onomastiques. Dans J. J. Lévy & C. Garnier (dirs.), La chaîne des médicaments. Perspectives pluridisciplinaires (pp. 313-334). Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Lerat, P. (1995). Les langues spécialisées. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.

Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. J. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3):406-414.

Maingueneau, D. (2022). L’ethos en analyse du discours. Louvain-la-Neuve : Academia. Merinal. (n.d.). Site institutionnel. https://merinal.com/ (Consulté entre le 1 mars 2025 et le 30

avril 2025)

Rey, A. (Ed.). (2022). Dictionnaire historique de la langue française (Éd. Ultime, 2 vols.). Paris

: Le Robert.

Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2006). Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica, 40(1-2): 155-181.

Sager, J. C. (1990). A practical course in terminology processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vaxelaire, J.-L. (2009). Lexicologie du nom propre et onomastique. Nouvelle Revue d’Onomastique, 51 : 301-315.

World Health Organization. (2017). Guidance on the use of International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for pharmaceutical substances. Geneva : World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/guidance-on-the-use-of-inns (accessed 25 June

.

World Health Organization. (2018). The use of stems in the selection of International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for pharmaceutical substances (WHO/EMP/RHT/TSN/2018.1). Geneva : World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/275695 (accessed 25

June 2025).

Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand names on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1) : 43-51.

Published

12/03/2026

How to Cite

ADRAR, Lamia. Algérian Pharmaceutical Brand Names: Word-Formation Processes and Semantics Motivations. Onomastics from Latin America, [S. l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 1–29, 2026. DOI: 10.48075/odal.v7i1.36704. Disponível em: https://saber.unioeste.br/index.php/onomastica/article/view/36704. Acesso em: 16 jun. 2026.