Rozhkov, Yu.
(2022).
Terminology studies: Linguocognitive paradigm.
International Journal of Philology,
13(1),
24-33.
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog2022.01.024
The article considers the main tasks of cognitive terminology as a new direction of linguistic research, which is formed at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, and prospects for studying the cognitive potential of terminology in various formats of scientific knowledge. Cognitive (cognitive-discursive) terminology studies the role of terminological units in scientific cognition and thinking, the problem of interaction between the language of science and scientific cognition, the phenomenon of scientific knowledge, its typology and forms of representation in the mental space of the specialist. The study of terminological systems with the involvement of methods of cognitive analysis and the construction of specific cognitive models allows a deeper examination of the processes of their formation and functioning. Methods of cognitive terminology provide an opportunity to understand not only the formation and development of professional concepts and categories, but also their hierarchy, organization, structure. Category – one of the cognitive forms of human thinking, which allows summarizing and classifying existing experience and knowledge. Concept – a dynamic mental formation, the development of which is influenced by the national language, knowledge and experience of man, reflected in psyche; in addition, the concept is the result of cognitive activity of both the scientific community and a specialist, in particular, a veterinarian. Frame – a schematic organization of the data obtained, through which a person learns special information
scientific paradigm; cognitive terminology; categories; concepts; frames; metaphor; metonymy
[1] Awaysheh, A.A. (2018). Review of medical terminology standards and structured reporting. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 30(1), 17-25. doi: 10.1177/1040638717738276.
[2] Baker, P.A. (2006). Glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgn University Press.
[3] Belkhir, S. (2019). Animal-related concepts across languages and cultures from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 295-324. doi: 10.1075/cogls.00042.bel.
[4] Biber, D. (2018). Corpus linguistics: Investigating. Berlin: De Greuter. doi: 10.1590/S0102-44501999000100010.
[5] Boas, H.C. (2018). What you see is not what you get: Capturing the meaning of missing words with Frame Semantics. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 53-70). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
[6] Bottini R. (2020). Knowledge across reference frames: Cognitive maps and image spaces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 606-619. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.008.
[7] Brettell, B. (2020). Religious and scientific concept integration in developmental, cultural, and educational context. Religion & Education, 47(3), 257-272. doi: 10.1080/15507394.2019.1643217.
[8] Carvalho, F.M. (2020). Mental or neural representations: Justifying the terminology used in cognitive neuroscience. Porto Alegre: Veridas, 65(2), 387-393. doi: 10.15448/1984-6746.2020.2.35387.
[9] Crawford, R., & Isaeva, E. (2022). Terminology for cognitive transdiscursive mediation in American football. In Specialized knowledge mediation (pp. 221-263). Chamberlain: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-95104-7_11.
[10] Croft, W. (2020). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Cuyckens, H., & Geeraerts, D. (2018). Introducing cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Geeraerts. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0001.
[12] Dessì, D., Recupero, D., Fenu, G., & Consoli, S. (2019). A recommender system of medical reports leveraging cognitive computing and frame semantics. In Machine learning paradigms (pp. 7-30). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-94030-4_2.
[13] Esra, A. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and digital lexicography. In The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics. London: Routledge.
[14] Fauconnier, G. (2018). Methods and generalizations in linguistics. In Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning (pp. 205-228). Leiden: Brill.
[15] Fischer, K. (2015). Accounting for the role of situation in language use in a cognitive semantic representation of sentence mood. In Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Greuter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.179.
[16] Geeraerts, D. (2021). Cognitive semantics. In The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 19-29). London: Routledge.
[17] Goldberg, A.E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9.
[18] Hartmann, S. (2017). Open corpus linguistics: Overcoming Rissanen’s problems (and others) with open data.
[19] Hartmann, S. (2021). Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9(1).
[20] Hassemer, J. (2021). Cognitive Linguistics and Gesture. In The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.
[21] Huang, H. (2018). Comparative study on cognitive mechanism of terminology between Chinese and western medicine based on questionnaire survey of linguistic psychology. China Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Pharmacy, 4(15), 64-72.
[22] Ivashchyshyn, O.M. (2017). English terminological phrases in texts on the problems of technogenic impact on the environment. (PhD thesis, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine).
[23] L’Homme, M.C. (2018). Maintaining the balance between knowledge and the lexicon in terminology: A methodology based on frame semantics. Lexicography, 4(1), 3-21.
[24] Lakoff, G. (2018). Ten lectures on cognitive linguistics. Taipei: Brill.
[25] Langacker, R. (2021). Syntactic reanalysis. In Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57-140). Houston: Texas University Press.
[26] Lei, L. (2019). Research trends in applied linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis and its implications. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 540-561.
[27] Li, C. (2022). How scientific concept develops: Languaging in collaborative writing tasks. System, 105, article number 102744. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2022.102744.
[28] Makowska, A. (2020). Terminology and phraseology in research papers in the domains of new technologies. Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
[29] Masuda, H. (2022). Discourse module in mind: A biolinguistical hypothesis of macro-structure. Text & Talk, 42(1), 51-75.
[30] Rozhkov, Yu. (2022). Linguistic representation of the feature category in the English clinical veterinary terminology. Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 14(1), 188-203.
[31] Rozhkov, Yu., & Syrotin, O. (2022). Verbalization of the concepts of disease and animal disease in English. Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 13(4), 224-233.
[32] Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2015). Language and emotion. The cognitive linguistic perspective. In Emotion in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ceb.10.08sch.
[33] Stasiuk, T.V. (2012). The nature of the term in the cognitive and anthropological paradigm of linguistics. Scientific Bulletin of the UNESCO Department of KNLU. Series: Philology. Pedagogy. Psychology, 25, 95-100.
[34] Syrotina, O. (2021). Paradigmatic relations in the English terminology of biotechnology. Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 13(3), 172-187.
[35] Syrotina, O.O. (2021) Verbalisation of the concept of biotechnology in the terminological system of the English language. International Philological Journal, 12(4), 60-66. doi: 10.31548/philolog2021.04.011.
[36] Taylor, J. (2018). Ten lectures on applied cognitive linguistics. Taipei: Brill.
[37] Tyler, A. (2018). What is applied cognitive linguistics. Answers from current SLA research. London: Routledge.
[38] Ungerer, F. (2015). An Introduction to cognitive linguistics. New York: Longman.
[39] Wallmark, Z. (2018). Describing sound: The cognitive linguistics of timbre. In The Oxford handbook of timbre (pp. 579-608). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190637224.013.14.
[40] Wen, X. (2021) Cognitive linguistics. Retrospect and prospect. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(2), 155-170. doi: 10.1075/cogls.1.2.01wen.
[41] Wilcox, S. (2018). Websites for cognitive linguistics and CIFCL speakers. In Ten lectures on cognitive linguistics and the unification of spoken and signed languages. Taipei: Brill.
[42] Winters, M.E. (2018). Cognitive linguistics for linguists. Berlin: Springer.
[43] Yuzhakova, O.I. (2012). Research of Ukrainian terminology systems and term nominations in the cognitive aspect. Bulletin of Lviv Polytechnic National University. Series Problems of Ukrainian Terminology, 733, 60-66.
[44] Zacharias, S. (2021). Metaphor in Foreign Language Instruction. Metaphor and the Social World, 11(2), 361-367.
[45] Zhabotynska, S. (2019). The study of language: Linguistic paradigms. Retrieved from https://research.amanote.com/publication/ZaWdAXQBKQvf0Bhi4eyF/the-study-of-language-linguistic-paradigms.