International Journal of Philology

Linguistic representation of the category of “object” in English biotechnology terminology

Yurii Rozhkov, Olena Syrotina
Download article
Abstract

The relevance of this article is determined by the need to examine how the category of “object” is represented in English biotechnology terminology. The aim of the study was to identify the subcategories of the concept of “object” that find their lexical expression, as well as to investigate the linguistic mechanisms – particularly morphological and syntactic structures – used to denote them. To achieve this aim, a set of selective, analytical, morphological, structuralsemantic, classificatory, systemic, and statistical methods was employed. It was found that within the English biotechnology terminological system, the category of “object” comprises four main subcategories: biological (36.5%), chemical (23.8%), technological (21.0%) objects, as well as materials and products (18.7%). Both simple and compound structures are employed to represent the category of “object” linguistically in English biotechnology terminology. Biological objects are predominantly expressed by simple nouns, whereas technological objects, materials, and products are more frequently represented by compound phrases. Chemical objects exhibit an almost equal distribution between simple and compound forms. Overall, the majority of terms are nouns, which is consistent with the norms of scientific and technical terminology. The obtained results confirmed the findings of modern studies regarding the dominance of nominal structures and the tendency to use compound names in biotechnology terminology, which is driven by the need for precision and systematicity in professional nomination. The practical significance of the study lies in the potential application of its results in teaching English for Specific Purposes to students majoring in Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Keywords

categorisation; subcategories; nominal structures; phrases; lexical expression

Suggested citation
Rozhkov, Yu., & Syrotina, O. (2025). Linguistic representation of the category of “object” in English biotechnology terminology. International Journal of Philology, 16(4), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/4.2025.54
References
  1. Bogachyk, M., & Bihunov, D. (2020). The structural-semantic features of computer terms in English. Cognitive Studies|Études Cognitives, 20, article number 2262. doi: 10.11649/cs.2262.
  2. Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226245.001.0001.
  3. Britannica Dictionary. (n.d.). Object. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/ object.
  4. Brona, O.A. (2023). Structure and semantics of term concepts in English-language geological discourse. (PhD thesis, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine).
  5. Cohen, H., & Lefebvre, C. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  6. Collins, M. (2025). Etymological pathways and lexical formation in English biotechnology terminology. American Journal of Philological Sciences, 5(7), 1-5.
  7. Collins. (n.d.). Object. Retrieved from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/ english/object.
  8. Dalieva, M.X. (2023). The problems of conceptualization and categorization in English terminology. American Journal of Pedagogical and Educational Research, 16, 33-37.
  9. Encyclopaedia of Biotechnology. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.eolss.net/toc/c17browsecontents.aspx.
  10. Garmash, O.L. (2014). Verbalization of English biocentric lexicalised concepts of affixal type. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philolgy, 2(7(34)), 47-50.
  11. Garmash, O.L. (2017). Verbalization of English technocentric lexicalised concepts formed by the metacognitive mechanism of affixation. Scientific Notes of the Nizhyn State University Named After Mykola Gogol. Philological Sciences, 1, 158-164.
  12. Kimball, N. (2002). Glossary of biotechnology & agrobiotechnology terms. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  13. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001.
  14. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013.
  15. Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. doi: 10.1515/9780804764469.
  16. Mattiello, E. (2022). Neoclassical combining forms. In Transitional morphology: Combining forms in modern English (pp. 79-105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108923561.
  17. Miglani, G.S., Chhuneja, P., & Gosal, S.S. (2025). Glossary of agricultural biotechnology. Wallingford: CABI. doi: 10.1079/9781800627772.0000.
  18. Myshak, O. (2017). The main means of formation of biotechnological terms. American Journal of Research, 4(4), 84-97.
  19. Rak, O., Surodeikina, T., Voytkevich, N., & Linnikova, V. (2023). Structural, word-formation and etymological peculiarities of the English terminology of infectious diseases. Young Scientist, 12(124), 87-92. doi: 10.32839/2304-5809/2023-12-124-15.
  20. Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B.B. (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and categorization. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781032633275.
  21. Ross, B.H. (1997). The use of categories affects classification. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(2), 240-267. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2515.
  22. Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1988). Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.50.
  23. Slater, A., Scott, N.W., & Fowler, M.R. (2008). Plant biotechnology: The genetic manipulation of plants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. Stasyuk, T.V. (2020). Terminosphere of new technologies: Linguo-socio-cognitive factors of formation and development. (Doctoral dissertation, NASU Institute of Ukrainian Language, Kyiv, Ukraine).
  25. Syrotin, O. (2012). Peculiarities of the structure and translation of biotechnological terms. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology, 2(4), 206-209.
  26. Syrotina, H. (2022). Concept categories expressed in English terms of the biotechnology sphere. Cogito – Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 14(1), 174-187.
  27. Syrotina, O., & Lashkul, V. (2023). Conceptual categories represented by English terms of the food industry. Cogito – Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 15(4), 286-303.
  28. Taubaldiyev, M., Mambetova, M., Kulmanov, S., Yelemessova, Zh., & Ashimbayeva, N. (2024). Problems and prospects of systematization of the general scientific terminology. Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series “Physics”, 56, 758-767. doi: 10.54919/physics/56.2024.75doh8.
  29. Taylor, J.R. (2003). The classical approach to categorization. In Linguistic categorization (pp. 1940). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780199266647.003.0002.
  30. Togano, Y. (2024). A word-based approach to the so-called category-changing usage of the English derivational prefix out-. Languages, 9(5), article number 172. doi: 10.3390/ languages9050172.
  31. Tyutyunyk, A.A. (2021). Structural and semantic features of French terms in the field of biotechnology. In Collection of materials of the V Round Table with international participation “Modern trends in phonetic research” (pp. 99-102). Kyiv: Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute.
  32. Voloshchuk, I., & Mukhanova, O. (2021). Terminological conceptualization in healthcare professional communication. Advanced Linguistics, 8, 40-46. doi: 10.20535/26175339.2021.8.248080.
  33. Whitaker, H., & Hawthorne, E. (2025). Conceptualising “property” in English food industry terminology: A linguistic analysis of lexical representation. Current Research Journal of Philological Sciences, 6(8), 1-8.
  34. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culturespecific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780195073256.001.0001.
  35. Zaid, A., Hughes, H.G., Porceddu, E., & Nicholas, F. (1999). Glossary of biotechnology and genetic engineering. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.