Transliteration and transcription of brand names
How to choose a method: a working algorithm for naming
In practice, the decision is never made based on a single criterion. The team responsible for localizing the name usually goes through several checks before finalizing the final version.
- They check the phonetic structure of the original — are there sounds that do not exist in the Russian language (English interdental th, Japanese long u).
- They check if the trademark is registered in Latin script — if so, under 168-FZ the original can be left without translation.
- They run the variants through focus groups of native speakers — this is how the problem with ASUS was discovered at one time — incorrect pronunciation can coincide with an English indecent word.
- They check if the domain name is taken and whether the transliterated version coincides with an existing competitor brand.
- They check the result against the already established speech practice — if the audience of 10 years misnames the brand but does it habitually, breaking this habit is often more expensive than leaving the mistake.
Why Dove is translated by sound, while Twitter is translated in a mixed way
From a sample of 70 international brands, 50 are transmitted by pure transcription, and this is no coincidence: short names without complex letter combinations fit easily into Russian phonetics. Dove becomes "Dav", Red Bull becomes "Red Bull": the sound is fully transferred because it does not create conflicts with Russian orthography.
The remaining 20 brands from the same study require a combined approach — transcription plus transliteration elements. Twitter is a characteristic example: the unpronounceable English 'r' in casual speech is preserved in writing, the double 't' becomes 'tt', and the result is 'Twitter', not the more phonetically accurate 'Twiter'. The same applies to Campbell — the double consonant is preserved graphically, even though the language speaker does not pronounce it properly. Facebook and Microsoft follow the same logic: part of the word is conveyed by sound, part by spelling, because pure transcription would sound unrecognizable, while pure transliteration would be inconvenient for pronunciation.
Where mistakes are most commonly made: Asian brands
The most systematic error in the Russian adaptation of Eastern brands is transcribing according to English rules instead of the original Korean or Japanese ones. Samsung, according to Korean phonetics, should sound like 'Samsung', Toshiba — like 'Toshiba', Hitachi — like 'Hitachi'. In reality, 'Samsung', 'Toshiba', 'Hitachi' have taken root — variants that went through English intermediation and became entrenched in the language before anyone bothered about phonetic accuracy.
This shows the main practical conclusion: correctness of the method and correctness of the result are different things. The method may be chosen incorrectly, but if the audience has been using exactly such a variant for 20 years, changing it is economically meaningless.
Law 168-FZ: what can be left in Latin script
Russian legislation forbids the use of exclusively the Latin alphabet in public information (signage, advertising, packaging) without a Russian equivalent. But there are two legal exceptions that are often overlooked:
- registered trademarks — Ozon and Wildberries are legally protected as is, Latin script is permitted;
- words included in official dictionaries of the Russian language — some foreign terms are already considered borrowings rather than foreign spelling.
From this practical conclusion for naming: if a brand plans to operate in Russia, registering a trademark in Latin script is not only legal protection but also a way to avoid forced Russian adaptation, which may distort pronunciation.
Transcription and transliteration: what is the difference at the mechanical level
Transcription reflects the sound of a word — how it is pronounced by a native speaker. Transliteration reflects the spelling — letter by letter, regardless of how it will actually sound. Warner Brothers becomes "Warner Brothers" — the Russian "u" here is a convention, because the English "w" does not exist in the Russian alphabet, and the sound is conveyed through the closest possible equivalent, not an exact copy.
| Method | What is being transmitted | Example | When it is applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcription | sound | Dove → Dove | short words, no phonetic conflict |
| Transliteration | letters | Xerox → Xerox (by spelling, although pronounced "Xerox") | official documents, legal texts |
| Combined method | sound + spelling | Twitter → Twitter | complex phonetics, double consonants, silent letters |
Practical transcription and entrenched errors
Academic linguists call "practical transcription" the optimal method precisely because it does not chase phonetic accuracy for the sake of accuracy — it takes morphology, graphic traditions of the language, and ease of pronunciation into account simultaneously. This is a compromise, not a scientific transcription for linguists.
But even the ideal method cannot save one from linguistic inertia. Nike, by all rules of English phonetics, should sound like 'Nayki,' and by reference to the ancient Greek goddess of victory, Nike — like 'Nika.' In the Russian language, a third, compromising variant — 'Nayk' — has taken root, which does not coincide with either the original or the mythological basis. Xerox is pronounced 'Ziroks' in English, but entered Russian as a transliteration 'Kseroks' — so firmly, that the word has become a verb ('otkseryit' — to photocopy). It makes no sense to change these variants now: the language has already voted, and a brand that attempts to 'correct' the established pronunciation risks not being recognized by its own audience.
How to choose a method: a working algorithm for naming
In practice, the decision is never made based on a single criterion. The team responsible for localizing the name usually goes through several checks before finalizing the final version.
- They check the phonetic structure of the original — are there sounds that do not exist in the Russian language (English interdental th, Japanese long u).
- They check if the trademark is registered in Latin script — if so, under 168-FZ the original can be left without translation.
- They run the variants through focus groups of native speakers — this is how the problem with ASUS was discovered at one time — incorrect pronunciation can coincide with an English indecent word.
- They check if the domain name is taken and whether the transliterated version coincides with an existing competitor brand.
- They check the result against the already established speech practice — if the audience of 10 years misnames the brand but does it habitually, breaking this habit is often more expensive than leaving the mistake.
Why Dove is translated by sound, while Twitter is translated in a mixed way
From a sample of 70 international brands, 50 are transmitted by pure transcription, and this is no coincidence: short names without complex letter combinations fit easily into Russian phonetics. Dove becomes "Dav", Red Bull becomes "Red Bull": the sound is fully transferred because it does not create conflicts with Russian orthography.
The remaining 20 brands from the same study require a combined approach — transcription plus transliteration elements. Twitter is a characteristic example: the unpronounceable English 'r' in casual speech is preserved in writing, the double 't' becomes 'tt', and the result is 'Twitter', not the more phonetically accurate 'Twiter'. The same applies to Campbell — the double consonant is preserved graphically, even though the language speaker does not pronounce it properly. Facebook and Microsoft follow the same logic: part of the word is conveyed by sound, part by spelling, because pure transcription would sound unrecognizable, while pure transliteration would be inconvenient for pronunciation.
Where mistakes are most commonly made: Asian brands
The most systematic error in the Russian adaptation of Eastern brands is transcribing according to English rules instead of the original Korean or Japanese ones. Samsung, according to Korean phonetics, should sound like 'Samsung', Toshiba — like 'Toshiba', Hitachi — like 'Hitachi'. In reality, 'Samsung', 'Toshiba', 'Hitachi' have taken root — variants that went through English intermediation and became entrenched in the language before anyone bothered about phonetic accuracy.
This shows the main practical conclusion: correctness of the method and correctness of the result are different things. The method may be chosen incorrectly, but if the audience has been using exactly such a variant for 20 years, changing it is economically meaningless.
Law 168-FZ: what can be left in Latin script
Russian legislation forbids the use of exclusively the Latin alphabet in public information (signage, advertising, packaging) without a Russian equivalent. But there are two legal exceptions that are often overlooked:
- registered trademarks — Ozon and Wildberries are legally protected as is, Latin script is permitted;
- words included in official dictionaries of the Russian language — some foreign terms are already considered borrowings rather than foreign spelling.
From this practical conclusion for naming: if a brand plans to operate in Russia, registering a trademark in Latin script is not only legal protection but also a way to avoid forced Russian adaptation, which may distort pronunciation.
Transcription and transliteration: what is the difference at the mechanical level
Transcription reflects the sound of a word — how it is pronounced by a native speaker. Transliteration reflects the spelling — letter by letter, regardless of how it will actually sound. Warner Brothers becomes "Warner Brothers" — the Russian "u" here is a convention, because the English "w" does not exist in the Russian alphabet, and the sound is conveyed through the closest possible equivalent, not an exact copy.
| Method | What is being transmitted | Example | When it is applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcription | sound | Dove → Dove | short words, no phonetic conflict |
| Transliteration | letters | Xerox → Xerox (by spelling, although pronounced "Xerox") | official documents, legal texts |
| Combined method | sound + spelling | Twitter → Twitter | complex phonetics, double consonants, silent letters |
Practical transcription and entrenched errors
Academic linguists call "practical transcription" the optimal method precisely because it does not chase phonetic accuracy for the sake of accuracy — it takes morphology, graphic traditions of the language, and ease of pronunciation into account simultaneously. This is a compromise, not a scientific transcription for linguists.
But even the ideal method cannot save one from linguistic inertia. Nike, by all rules of English phonetics, should sound like 'Nayki,' and by reference to the ancient Greek goddess of victory, Nike — like 'Nika.' In the Russian language, a third, compromising variant — 'Nayk' — has taken root, which does not coincide with either the original or the mythological basis. Xerox is pronounced 'Ziroks' in English, but entered Russian as a transliteration 'Kseroks' — so firmly, that the word has become a verb ('otkseryit' — to photocopy). It makes no sense to change these variants now: the language has already voted, and a brand that attempts to 'correct' the established pronunciation risks not being recognized by its own audience.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
