International Journal of Philology

Scientific discourse through the lens of the internal form of the term

L. Shanaieva-Tsymbal, Hamest Tamrazyan, Nataliia Yamnych
Download article
Abstract

Discourse is a dynamic linguistic phenomenon that occupies an intermediate position between language and speech, and its study through the lens of the internal form of the term allows for the revelation of its semantic motivation and cognitive foundations. The research aimed to investigate the functioning of terms in scientific discourse and to analyse the importance of their internal form for precise interpretation and communication. The methodological framework included descriptive, analytical, component, definitional, comparative, contextual and discourse analysis. It was revealed that a great number of terms show clear evidence of internal form indicators. The internal form is substantiated to function as a cognitive mechanism, connecting linguistic form and conceptual content. Statistical analysis confirmed that the majority of terms possess at least partial motivation, either morphological, semantic, or metaphorical. The analysis noted that metaphors play a crucial role, extending common physical experiences into abstract economic reasoning. It was further revealed that metaphors showcase the internal form as a link between empirical experience and theoretical abstraction. The cross-linguistic comparison showed that English-Ukrainian term pairs display full or partial motivation equivalence. It was identified that the internal form also preserves conceptual precision by anchoring the term to its original semantic motivation, which is particularly vital in written discourse. The findings confirmed that the internal form of a term is an active component in meaning construction and a mental schema that mediates between an abstract concept and its linguistic expression. Its cognitive, communicative, and epistemological functions were studied. The research concluded that preserving the internal form in translation and adhering to terminological standards is vital for maintaining semantic accuracy and international consistency in scientific communication 

Keywords

linguistic expression; terminology; cognitive motivation; semantic accuracy; conceptual content; motivational equivalence; metaphor

Suggested citation
Shanaieva-Tsymbal, L., Tamrazyan, H., & Yamnych, N. (2025). Scientific discourse through the lens of the internal form of the term. International Journal of Philology, 16(3), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/3.2025.74
References
  1. Albota, S. (2024). Linguistic representation of Ukraine in English-language media discourse: A corpus-assisted approach. In CLW-2024: Computational linguistics workshop at 8th international conference on computational linguistics and intelligent systems (CoLInS-2024) (pp. 1-28). Lviv: Lviv Polytechnic National University.
  2. Aristotle. (1963). Categories and de interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Batsevych, F. (2004). Fundamentals of communicative linguistics. Kyiv: Academy.
  4. Cap, P. (2019). Discourse studies: Between social constructionism and linguistics. A critical overview. Topics in Linguistics, 20(2), 1-16. doi: 10.2478/topling-2019-0006.
  5. Gryshchenko, O. (2024). Discourse: Knowledge, news, and fake intertwined. Philological Review, 1(23), 4-11. doi: 10.31499/2415-8828.1.2024.306854.
  6. Hokhman, K. (2018). Academic discourse in the system of institutional discourses. Scientific Bulletin of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky, 26, 37-47.
  7. Holianych, M. (2008). Internal form of words and discourse. Ivano-Frankivsk: Publishing and Design Department of the Information and Communication Technology Center of the Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University.
  8. Holubova, H.V. (2022). Variability of the concept “scientific discourse”: Modern dimension. Тrаnscarpathian Philological Studies, 1(25), 89-92. doi: 10.32782/tps2663-4880/2022.25.1.17.
  9. Kolesnikova, I.A. (2009). Linguacognitive and communicative-pragmatic characteristics of the professional discourse. (Doctoral thesis, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine).
  10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001.
  11. Li, L., Dodge, J., Bamman, D., & Keith, A.K. (2022). Words as gatekeepers: Measuring disciplinespecific terms and meanings in scholarly publications. ArXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.09676.
  12. Lysychenko, O.B., & Melko, K.B. (2025). Structural models of term formation in Ukrainian IT discourse: Transformations and trends. Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology, 28(1), 122-130. doi: 10.32589/2311-0821.1.2025.335651.
  13. Matthews, P.H. (1997). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acref/9780199675128.001.0001.
  14. Rehak, R. (2023). The language labyrinth: Constructive critique on the terminology used in the AI discourse. In P. Verdegem (Ed.), AI for everyone?: Critical perspectives (pp. 87-102). London: University of Westminster Press. doi: 10.16997/book55.f.
  15. Shanaieva-Tsymbal, L., & Yamnych, N. (2023). Enhancing effective communication in public administration: The role of phraseological units in foreign language learning. Cogito – Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 15(3), 127-135.
  16. Shepitko, S. (2010). Scientific discourse components. Research Bulletin. Series: Philological Sciences, 89(5), 164-167.
  17. Stadnichenko, O., Stasyk, M., Shulha, O., Nazarenko, I., & Chaikovska, U. (2024). Interaction of cultural and linguistic aspects of Ukrainian philology: Modern vectors of scientific discourse. Synesis, 16(3), 169-187.
  18. Suzen, N., Mirkes, E.M., & Gorban, A.N. (2020). Informational space of meaning for scientific texts. ArXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.13717.
  19. Synytsia, I. (2021). The discursive opposition and the “power of discourse” in the Ukrainian mass media. SHS Web of Conferences, 100, article number 02007. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/202110002007.
  20. Temmerman, R. (2000). Why traditional terminology theory impedes a realistic description of categories and terms in the life sciences. Terminology: International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialised Communication, 5(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1075/term.5.1.07tem.
  21. Tomakhiv, M.V. (2015). Scientific English discourse: The current state of development and future prospects of study. Odesa Linguistic Journal, 5, 154-157.
  22. Tsaruk, O. (2016). Semantic constituents of a scientific and technical term. Scientific Notes of Ostroh Academy National University, Philology Series, 60, 247-249.
  23. Van Dijk, T.A. (2017). Discourse and power. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.