International Journal of Philology

Conceptual and metaphorical models of contemporary English-language cybersecurity terminology

Vladyslav Zhovtiak
Download article
Abstract

The relevance of the study is conditioned by the rapid development of digital technologies and the need for linguistic understanding of how specialised terminology forms a professional picture of the world in the field of cybersecurity. The purpose of the study was to identify, systematise, and cognitively interpret conceptual metaphors in contemporary English-language cybersecurity terminology, and to determine their role in the processes of conceptualisation of digital threats and defence mechanisms. The research was based on the provisions of the theory of conceptual metaphor and was aimed at identifying mechanisms of linguistic conceptualisation of abstract processes related to information security, digital threat management, and the functioning of cyberspace. The material of this scientific research consisted of 4,000 English-language terms selected from the authoritative English-Ukrainian dictionary of terms on information technology and cybersecurity. The methodological basis was cognitive and metaphorical analysis, semantic classification, component and quantitative analysis, which helped to establish the hierarchy and performance of metaphorical models in the terminology under study. As a result of the analysis of cybersecurity terms, it was found that a significant part of them was formed based on conceptual metaphorisation. The most productive were ontological metaphors (436 units), in which cybersecurity was understood as a control, system, cipher, or data storage container. A significant group consists of natural metaphors that include models of fluids, plants, and animals, and medical metaphors related to the conceptualisation of computer viruses. Among the structural metaphors (416 units), the metaphor “cybersecurity is military operations” (attack, threat, combat, weapons) dominates, and the architectural model “cybersecurity is home” (access keys, locks, gateways). Orientation metaphors turned out to be small in number and perform mainly a navigation function, providing a hierarchy of concepts such as threat level, security level, attack vectors, and system boundaries. The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of using its results in research on cognitive linguistics, terminology, discourse analysis, and in training courses and applied developments related to digital communication and information security

Keywords

cognitive linguistics; language conceptualisation; digital threats; term; figurative models

Suggested citation
Zhovtiak, V. (2025). Conceptual and metaphorical models of contemporary English-language cybersecurity terminology. International Journal of Philology, 16(4), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/4.2025.73
References
  1. Abu Rumman, R., Haider, A., Yagi, S., & Al-Adwan, A. (2023). A corpus-assisted cognitive analysis of metaphors in the Arabic subtitling of English TV series. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), article number 2231622. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2231622.
  2. Banevych, M. (2025). Conceptual metaphor realization in political discourse. Studia Methodologica, 59, 18-25. doi: 10.32782/2307-1222.2025-59-2.
  3. Dyrmo, T. (2025). Extending extended conceptual metaphor theory: Rethinking levels, modalities, and meaning-making. Cognitive Semiotics, 18(1), 23-51. doi: 10.1515/ cogsem-2025-2001.
  4. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  5. Gaskins, D., Falcone, M., & Rundblad, G. (2024) A usage-based approach to metaphor identification and analysis in child speech. Language and Cognition, 16(1), 32-56. doi: 10.1017/ langcog.2023.17.
  6. Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Hladun, A.Ya., Puchkov, O.O., Subach, I.Yu., & Khala, K.O. (2018). English-Ukrainian dictionary of information technologies and cybersecurity terms. Kyiv: National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”.
  8. Khmelnytskyi, R. (2024). Conceptual metaphor emotion is a substance in a container for verbalizing emotional concepts (based on Frank Herbert’s Dune and its Ukrainian translation). Black Sea Philological Studies, 5, 143-151. doi: 10.32782/bsps-2024.5.21.
  9. Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108859127.
  10. Kramer, O. (2025). Conceptual metaphor theory as a prompting paradigm for large language models. ArXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01901.
  11. Kryknitska, I.O. (2024). Modification of the algorithm for conceptual metaphor analysis. Transcarpathian Philological Studies, 36, 89-93. doi: 10.32782/tps2663-4880/2024.36.14.
  12. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Pasternak, T. (2024). Military metaphor as a conceptual metaphor. Research Bulletin. Series: Philological Sciences, 210, 35-39. doi: 10.32782/2522-4077-2024-210-4.
  14. Sapozhnyk, I.V., & Surodeikina, T.V. (2025). Metaphorization of English terms in art and commercial law: Comparative aspect. Transcarpathian Philological Studies, 42(3), 299-303. doi: 10.32782/tps2663-4880/2025.42.3.47.
  15. Selivanova, O.S. (2008). Modern linguistics: Terminological encyclopedia. Poltava: Dovkillya-K.
  16. Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A.A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/celcr.14.
  17. Stroganova, H. (2025). Development of views on the linguo-cognitive nature of metaphor. Studia Methodologica, 59, 226-235. doi: 10.32782/2307-1222.2025-59-20.
  18. Tur, O., Shabunina, V., & Sarancha, V. (2025). Discursive features of the use of generative artificial intelligence terminology in professional communication: Analysis of trends and prospects. Acta Academiae Beregsasiensis, Philologica, 4(3), 140-157. doi: 10.58423/27866726/2025-3-140-157.
  19. Wang, D., Li, Y., Wang, S., Chen, X., Liao, J., Li, D., & Li, X. (2025). CKEMI: Concept knowledge enhanced metaphor identification framework. Information Processing & Management, 62(1), article number 103946. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103946.
  20. Yesypenko, N., Pavlovych, T., Migorian, O., Bloshchynskyi, I., & Mysechko, O. (2022). Metaphorical representation of anthropomorphic concepts in British and American fairy tales. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 18-33.