Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IVAYLO DAGNEV
CONTENTS 3
List of tables and figures 6
Key to transliteration and typographical signs 7
Foreword 9
1. Chapter One: Introduction 12
1.1 Metaphor and Science 12
1.2. Metaphor and Terminology 15
2. Chapter Two: Cognitive linguistics and figurative language 19
2.1.Basic enets of cognitive linguistics 19
2.2. Prototype character of concepts 22
2.3. Meaning in Language 24
2.4. Meaning and language use 26
2.5. Conceptual organization 27
2.5.1. Frames 27
2.5.2. Domains 27
2.5.3. Idealized Cognitive Models 29
2.5.4. Image Schemas 29
2.5.5. Mental Spaces 30
3. Chapter Three: Metaphor theories and their application in
the field of anatomy 33
3.1. Metaphor theories 33
3.2. Metaphor as juxtaposition 34
3.3. Category-transfer models 35
3.3.1. Conceptual Metaphor Theory 35
3.3.1.1.Primary Metaphor Theory 37
3.3.2. Class-Inclusion theory 38
3.4. Feature-matching model 40
4
Tables:
Figures:
1. TYPOGRAPHICAL NOTATION
The font used is Times New Roman 14; all terms and cited theories are in Times
New Roman 14 Italic; all words cited are in “inverted commas”.
2. KEY TO TRALSITERATION
All words in Cyrillic have been transliterated, unless mentioned otherwise.
ch /tʃ/ as in chopper
sh /ʃ/ as in shopper
ts /ts/ as in tse-tse
j /ʒ as in pleasure
yu /ju/ - as in euro
ya /ja/ as in yammy
8
9
Foreword:
This book is based to a great extent on my PhD Thesis, without being a copycat
version of the latter. The rationale behind publishing it is twofold. First, it was
the kind offer of Scholars Press, for which I am abundantly grateful. Second, as
my PhD was written in Bulgarian (a stipulation of Bulgarian law) and not
published officially, I thought that my research on it deserved to be made public
in the only lingua franca today – English. In the course of time since my PhD
Thesis was out, I have made corrections and certain embelishments to the
research.
This book also highlights the main findings in my research connected with the
metaphorical nature of anatomical terms. That is way I skipped some parts of the
PhD which were more subject to the requirements set by my Supervisors and
which I deemed not so essential to the study.
The first four Chapters of the book set the theoretical stage for the Chapters
presenting the results. Thus, the Introduction ushers the readers into the special
topic of terminology and metaphor studies, while the next three gradually
proceed from the broad concepts of Cognitive linguistics – the theoretical
mainframe of the research, through my understanding of the cognitive theories
dealing with metaphor, to the specially chosen analytical method – The Theory
of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models of the British scholar Vyvyan Evans,
which serves as the benchmark from where I set out on my explorations into the
field of anatomical terms in Bulgarian and English.
In the Chapter dedicated to shell words, I have explicitly given examples from
the English corpus, with my purpose being easier understanding of this linguistic
phenomena, which is comparately new in current semantic studies. The
investigation of the particular shells in my research has no parallel as it deals
with head nouns and not with contextual shell words. Another reason I chose the
English examples is the very nature of the nalysis which presupposes a deeper
understanding of the intricacies of the studied language and the potential
meanings of the lexemes. Bulgarian, being relatively unknown to the Western
10
readership would have posed more difficulties in perceiving the subtle shades of
meanings, which are fundamental to the research.
To redress the situation I have analyzed some Bulgarian headwords in the latter
section of this Chapter, to show the ability of the so-called general terms
(termini generales) to revive their metaphorical status.
The part concerned with true metaphors also investigates Bulgarian terms,
drawing parallels with their English equivalents. To keep the book succinct and
to the point I have presented an example illustrating every motivating
metaphorical nomination feature.
One last consideration is connected with presenting the analysis of the study. I
have transliterated all Bulgarian terms from Cyrillic in the main analystical
parts.
The book also presents the full list of terms in Bulgarian, English and Latin, to
make referincing easier. I have enlisted all general terms as well in any need of
verification arises.
11
12
Chapter 1. Introduction
Yet, the misalignment between metaphor and science continues to spur a broad
theoretical debate in linguistics and philosophy. With regard to secondary
nomination in terminology though, the importance of metaphorisation and
metonymization has been demonstrated by a number of researchers, such as
Sager (1990), Popova (1986a), Telia (1977 in Popova 2012) etc. The concept of
"scientific metaphor", however, remains ambiguous, especially with regard to
the opposition "living/ dead" metaphors.
More recently, Steen has made an interesting comparison between the expected
and the real distribution of metaphorical language in different genres. From
Tables 1 and 2 (below), it is clear that the academic genre, although not first in
the ranking of real language corpora, is also characterized by the presence of
metaphors (Steen 2014).
13
Ficiton 44.7%
Talk 39.7%
News 34.9%
Academic texts 32.8%
Table 1 Predicted distribution of metaphoric use in various genres (based
on Steen 2014)
Ficiton 18.3%
Talk 16.2%
News 11.7%
Academic texts 7.6%
Table 2. Actual distribution of metaphoric use in various genres ( based
on Steen 2014)
contrast between the contextual meaning of the lexical unit and its common,
everyday meaning (Pragglejaz 2007, in Steen 2007). It may be absent from the
immediate context, but occurs in other contexts (Steen 2011: 6). When dealing
with a scientific field, it serves as context, and in the case of anatomical terms,
the human body is an invariably present context, and with a view to the
individual organs or parts what serves as context are the functional subsystem
or other physical entity to which they belong.
Putting together terms and metaphors in one study is more than natural because
they both reflect some kind of cognitive structure - most commonly a concept,
but also clearcut and delineated logical conclusions. Terminology makes a
systemic inventory of the knowledge of objects in a given field of study and
their conceptualization (cognitive function). In addition, it arranges the forms of
representation of this knowledge structure through which knowledge can be
transmitted (communicative function). Terms, names, definitions, explanations,
descriptions, specific purpose phraseology units, illustrations are all forms of
representation. Thus, such systemic arrangements help terminology,
information systems, databases, and other documentation. Here is how H. Picht
represents the subject study of terminology (Picht 2009):
16
SYSTEMATIC
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
SYSTEMATISATION
TERMINOGRAPHY
in the assembly units (form-meaining pairs) over time. This fact was the reason
for the father of terminology Eugen Wȕster to separate terminology from
linguistics. Until the 1980s, scholars in thos field adhered to five basic
traditional principles in terminology (Cabre 2003):
(b) concepts are clearly outlined and are part of a conceptual system;
In her famous caveat on the crisis in terminology Cabre (2003) points out that
such principles show narrow-mindedness as they do not account for the
development of cognitive psychology and philosophy. Thus, it is impossible to
distinguish everyday language from the specialized knowledge: "the content of
the terms is bound to the form, and therefore the units not only denote
(designate) but also signify something with all the cognitive consequences of
their meaning" (Cabre 2003: 183). The combination of three functions in a
terminology unit - as a unit of knowledge, language, and communicative unit -
does not distinguish it from any language element. Each lexeme has the
potential of becoming a term. Therefore, the exclusive reference to definitions
when analyzing terms is not a very productive analytical approach. In addition
to the limitations introduced by the specialized vocabulary, the use of terms is
guided by principles that are valid for everyday vocabulary (ibid.). A facilitating
factor in this respect in our case is that anatomical terms have specific physical
references.
18
Cognitive linguistics is not a unified theory, but an approach that has adopted
some general principles and postulates. The main features of this approach are:
(Evans and Green 2006, Pencheva 2011):
The nature of the relationship between the conceptual structure and the external
world, perceived through perceptual experience, is of fundamental importance
for cognitive semantics. In this line of reasoning, the thesis of embodied
knowledge is an attempt to explain the conceptual organization based on our
interaction with the physical world. Also, according to this thesis, the nature of
the conceptual organization arises from our physical experience and its meaning,
as well as our interpretations, are partly related to reality.
Language units are symbolic and are formed by the lexical concept, which
represents its semantic structure and linguistic form. For Langacker, symbolism
rests on the general psychological ability to make associations, thanks to which
a kind of experience can create a connection with another one (Langacker 2008:
14-16). Language meaning reflects "our internal representation of the world, so
we have at our disposal different language units to identify different
conceptualizations of reality" (Pencheva 2011: 51).
Within the PT, there are basic-level categories that are optimal to achieve the
greatest cognitive economy. This level of inclusiveness is equivalent to the
average level of detail description, with categories such as WHEEL, DOG,
CHAIR. Rosch also finds that at this level the interaction of the categories is
greatest (Rosch 1978, in Evans and Green 2006: 255-268).
this level are monolexic, unlike the hypotactic categories (categories down of
the vertical axis, therefore more specific), which are more often composed of
more lemmas - eg. 'chair' and 'rocking chair' (Rosch 1978, in Evans and Green
2006: 264). Secondly, basic level concepts are more used than the hypertactic or
hypotactic categories. The purpose of the higher ranking catogories is to
designate functional and collective features of the concept, while the lower
ranking concepts on the vertical axis illuminate specific characteristics of the
concepts (Ungerer and Schmid 2006: 76-84).
A central problem addressed in the present work is the difference between literal
and figurative meaning. However, their difference can be evidenced only in the
context of linguistic meaning as a whole, as well as in its connection to the
concept.
they are subject. In this sense, the task of languistic semantics is to provide an
accurate description of the ”'elements of meaning” and the rules for combining
them. According to this methodological approach, the linguistic meaning of the
word is fixed and independent both from the linguistic and non-linguistic
contexts. The assertion that the words (or, more precisely, the lexemes) have
pre-fixed and immutable senses in the statement, which is only the sum of the
latter together with the grammatical rules, is unacceptable.
Words, on the other hand,, according to Evans, have a "Proteus" character and
are "to a certain extent a function of a specific language context from which they
are part" (Evans 2009). In proof of this, Pustejovsky asserts that no matter how
large the inventory of the lexical meanings of the word, it can not foresee its
creative uses (ie, new meanings) (Pustejovsky 1995).
Evans goes even further by claiming that words outside context are completely
devoid of meaning, while the latter is itself a function of speech, not of separate
lexical realizations associated with a language unit (Evans 2009, 2010). In his
view, words are associated with lexical concepts that are conceptual
representations specifically tailored to the needs of language and its
externalization. Secondly, the contribution of language to meaning-construction
can be understood by examining how lexical concepts are integrated into speech.
Of course, their integration is a small part of the overall process of meaning
construction. One complete analysis of the concept should include conceptual
integration processes that Fauconnier calls “backstage cognition” and integration
of non-linguistic information, including the context (Fauconnier 1994, 1997).
26
The variety of language means can hardly be compared to the scope of different
situations, events, activities, relationships in reality. Moreover, no situation in
reality can be identical to another, so we have to use language to express unique
meanings in unique situations, in unique ways. Thus, language users are forced
to use a conventional linguistic repertoire, including models of composition of
language forms in an unconventional way (Evans 2010: 9). The reason for the
"Proteus" character of language meaning is that words only make sense in
speech. However, they undergo “shifts” in their semantic value and are never the
same as their lexical representations. Thus, language meaning is never directly
perceived, but is “constructed” in use based on how the changes in the meaning
of words in language are influenced by the context. Therefore, there is an
important difference between meaning and lexical surface realizations - the
former is the property of the utterance, while the latter are the mental
abstractions that we extract and retain in our knowledge of the language
(lexicon) to reproduce the whole variety of new uses that the word denotes in the
particular context.
27
Before we look at metaphor theories in more detail, we will briefly review the
basic theories of cognitive linguistics in terms of conceptual organization in
order to use the most appropriate model or models for the needs of the present
work.
2.5.1. Frames
Fillmore argues that all logically related parts of knowledge are structured into
conceptual frameworks, defining them as "specific unified frameworks of
knowledge or related schematics of experience" (Fillmore 1985: 223). In order
to interpret each of the concepts in the frame it is necessary to understand the
whole structure in which it falls, and when one of the components of this system
is introduced into the discourse, all the others become automatically available
(Fillmore 1985: 111). Frames are motivated by human experience, social
institutions and cultural practices, so our shared knowledge about them guides
communication.
Some frames are common to certain social or expert groups (such as in different
terminology communities), others are largely built on culturally specific
knowledge. They are created in the form of categories whose structure is based
on some motivating context and their relationships are activated by the same
categories (Ungerer, Schmidt 2006: 212).
2.5.2. Domains
According to Lakoff (1987, 1990, 1993) and Johnson (1987), these schematic
concepts expand systematically with the accumulation of linguistic experience,
and form more complex, abstract categories and conceptually structured
conceptual domains. This process the authors call conceptual projection.
Metaphor is also a kind of projection, and as a confirmation they point to the
fact that in English (and not only in it) states such as 'love' are structured
according to the CONTAINER schema. Thus, according to the view of the
embodied experience, concepts arise from representational brain states (Evans
2015a: 253).
Gilles Fauconnier sets out the principles of Mental Spaces Theory (MST) in
Mental Spaces (1985) and Mappings in Thought and Language (1997). The
31
their elements and a blended space that evolves dynamically and contains both
elements inherited from the input spaces and its own emergent meanings
(Fauconnier, Turner 2002: 42-43).
33
metaphor from the source domain to the target domain. For example, in the
conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY, the concept of LOVE is
conceived through the concept of JOURNEY. Metaphorical mapping is always
one-way - concepts that serve as conceptual domains of the source can not
become, without a change of meaning, concepts of the target domain - THE
JOURNEY IS LOVE, according to Lakoff is not a conceptual metaphor.
Apart from the individual mappings that conceptual metaphors contain, they
have in their structure also 'metaphorical consequences' (entailments). This is
because the source domain aspects that are not explicitly mapped can be further
inferred by analogy, as for example in the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS
A JOURNEY (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980):
Examples:
B. The two countries have gone a long way before settling their
misunderstandings.
In addition to the roles that the participants in the source domains enter
(TRAFFIC HAS PASSENGERS, DIRECTION, MOVEMENT), there is still a
great deal of untapped potential in this metaphor. For example, travel can lead to
many other developments and enrich and supplement the metaphor itself:
meaning than the mapping itself, which is formed in the target domain. Thus, an
element of the conceptual structure comes into the foreground and serves as a
basis for mapping, while other elements remain latent in the mapping process.
This idea, in essence, does not differ from Talmy's figure and ground (Talmy,
2000a) and Langacker's base and profile (1987, 2008), which is in fact a
reflection of the perspective of cognitive linguistics.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory is the starting point for Joseph Grady (1997ab,
1999) in the formulation of his Primary Metaphor Theory (PMT). According to
Grady, there are two types of metaphors - primary and compound. The primary
ones are perceived directly and are the basic building material for the compound
ones, which in turn form as an organized set of the first. The main idea that
distinguishes PMT from CMT is that in the former the association formed in the
mapping structure is between two equally basic primary concepts, not as in
CMT - between a simpler concept in the source domain and a more complex
(abstract) one in the target domain. Thus, Grady addresses the problem of the
target domain in CMT, which Gregory Murphy outlines in an article on
metaphorical representation (Murphy 1996). Murhy claims that in the first place
the target domain possesses an invariant internal structure that limits the
possibilities for mapping, and secondly that it is more abstract from the source
domain. Grady supports the idea that the difference between the two domains in
the mapping process is in the degree of subjectivism: the primary target concept
reflects the subjective perception of sensomotor perceptions and represents
"judgments, assessments, and implications" (Grady n.d .: 5-15). Therefore, these
concepts are not abstract, in the sense of non-experiential, but rather the opposite
- they are directly drawn from our physical experience. Their level of mental
awareness is lower than the source concepts. The main function of primary
metaphors is to structure the target concepts through sensomotor imagery or to
38
This short presentation shows that Glucksberg and colleagues focus not on
metaphoricity as conceptual apparatus, but rather on the so-called “novel”
metaphor. The novel metaphor is unambiguous and has a dual reference (to a
reference and a superordinate term - for example in the sentences “Cigarettes are
a time bomb”, “This boy is a time bomb”, a “time bomb” counts both to the
39
actual bomb and to the class of dangerous entities, while conventional metaphor
is unambiguous and has a single reference (only to a superordinate term - for
example, in the terms - tendon, initially “dry veins” - not carying blood or other
liquids; it is then conventionalized to an opaque concept with a single
reference). Glucksberg refers to Brown, who argues with respect to the
metaphorical function of the metaphor that "Metaphor differs from other
taxonomic attitudes in that the superior concept does not receive a salient lexical
realization, and the realization of the hypotactic element (ie ' the source vehicle)
is extended to the target. "(Brown 1958: 140, in Glucksberg and Keysar 1990:
8).
Both CMT (along with Primary Metaphor Theory) and Class-Inclusion Theory
are vulnerable in several aspects. Firstly, as these models focus exclusively on
source-related schemas, they have difficulty explaining the different effects that
are obtained by applying the same source domain to multiple target domains. As
Camp notices, when we think of “Juliet as the sun”, it is very different from the
thought of “Achilles as the sun” (Camp 2006: 163). Therefore, the Source
domain must be generic enough to apply to each target domain. This problem is
considerably constrained by the selective characteristics of the target domain,
defined by the so-called Invariance Principle (Brugman 1990, Lakoff 1990;
1993; Lakoff and Turner 1989; Turner 1990, 1991),and the fact that the scheme
is context-sensitive (cognitive or communicative). Finally, since the scheme is
generated by abstraction, the difficulty consists in explaining the particular
features that metaphors invoke. For example, since the characteristics of the
source domain are also domain-specific, then in the sentence "My job is a
prison" these characteristics will also have to be present in the scheme. It
follows from this that those same characteristics would be applicable to the
sentence "My marriage is a prison", but in reality the two sentences may have a
completely different interpretations.
40
example raises the question of the context in the metaphor analysis as well as the
idea of the levels of metaphoricity in terms of conceptual understanding of
concepts and their dependence on the respective interpretation (Langacker
1987). The discussion of the specific fusion in the metaphoral blend illuminates
the categorial apparatus of other metaphorical theories that have already been
presented using concepts such as 'class inclusions' and 'categorial expansion'
(Glucksberg), which are based on the idea that between the target domain and
the source domain there have to exist a noticeable semantic difference in order
to perceive a phenomenon as a metaphorical concept close to that proposed by
Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT). Finally, it should be noted that the idea of
suppressing certain components in the elements of the blended space is a
prerequisite for the assumption that there are levels of metaphoricity, i.e. there
are both purely metaphorical integration networks and completely conventional
ones, and the space between them is graded with different metaphorical
combinations. This is in line with the idea supported by CIT and related to
primary and compound metaphors. One disadvantage of these statements is that
they do not take into account the language components that influence metaphor -
the context, the semantic affordances, as well as the complex distinction
between literal and figurative meaning.
The Career of Metaphor Theory of Bowdle and Gentner sets out the ambitious
task of answering the question when metaphors are mentally treated as
categorizations and when as similes (Steen 2008). It uses ideas from CMT, as
well as from Class-Inclusion Theory (Bowdle and Gentner 2005). According to
Gentner and her colleagues, conceptual metaphors and mapping processes are
valid in the formation of a concept, which, however, as linguistic expressions
are subject to conventionalization as a consequence of language use. Thus,
metaphor initially structures one domain through another, but then attaches itself
to only one newly created category. In alignment, first of all, ad hoc adjustments
are sought in the the target domain to salient features in the source domain. This
involves indirect adjustment between identical relationships that have a definite
argument at each characterization. For example, if sharks are typically
aggressive, and we call our lawyer a shark, we create the category of
“Aggressive entities” (not the conceptual metaphor PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS).
An example from anatomical terminology would be: when created, the word
“shuttle” from the everyday lexicon fits with the anatomical organ, as both
objects repeat multiple recurrent movements: 'running blood' and 'flowing water'
in the comparison of blood vessels and aqueducts (an example by analogy with
Camp 2006: 165). Then, all such individual adjustments are linked to the most
schematic core of inter-system structures. During the mapping phase, to the
target domain are added features that are missing from its characterization but
44
are compatible with what is known about it and whose presence would complete
the structural isomorphism. This solves the problem of informativity, ie it
explains why metaphorical expressions are more informative (in other theories
such features are called “emergent”).
On the other hand, viewed through the prism of anatomy experts, anatomical
terms are conventional names that have long been considered non-metaphorical
in the sense of “novel” metaphors. The process of conventionalisation is
historically and culturally specific, and depends on the current position of the
lexeme in the system of interconnections at the time of the creation of the term.
45
The Career of Metaphor Theory is the backbone for constraining the corpus
from anatomical terms that other researchers consider to be metaphorical. As
Kio Kageura repeatedly points out (Kageura 2002: 12), the majority of
terminological researchers only claim to deal with the content of the specialized
concept, while in practice discuss the lexical concept. The definition of a
specialized term - a basic tool in terminology - often has little to do with the
content of the lexical concept and leads to inadequate analyses. Adam's apple is
defined as "a protrusion in the front of the neck formed by the thyroid cartilage
of the larynx, often more pronounced in men." This anatomical object is neither
eaten (there is no taste, bark, pips, etc.) nor grows on wood. On the other hand,
the “apple” is not a possession of someone to justify the presence of the modifier
As for the Relevance Theory of Sperber and Wilson (1986, 1987, 2004), it also
offers some interesting solutions, but since the corpus does not contain a related
speech, it, as has been said, is outside the scope of this study.
46
In line with these considerations, Evans (2009) argues that both above-
mentioned theories are theories of 'backstage cognition'. Thus, CMT is an
analytical model exploring the role of non-linguistic conceptual processes
facilitating the development of background meaning, while CIT (Coulson 2000,
Fauconnier and Turner 2002, 2008) views language as a schematic structure
involved in semantic composition.
Both Evans and Steen insist on the creation of theoretical models aimed at
linguistic knowledge as such, beyond the conceptual, as it were, a model of
“frontstage” cognition. Only in this way, according to the two authors, one can
understand the relation between figurative and literal meaning.
Steen is also of the opinion that Career of Metaphor Theory can provide a more
faithful metaphor analysis. According to him, “novel” (deliberate) metaphors
48
require a comparison between the source domain and the target domain in the
mapping process, but subsequently, once conventionalised, metaphors are not
processed by comparison, but by “lexical disambiguation” (Giora 2008):
In addition, we must also make provision for the absence of any metaphoricity
in adjectives, derived from a metaphoric noun: (see Chapter… on building up
the corpus).
51
The initial arguments in Evans' approach relate to the role of language from the
perspective of embodied cognition. According to Evans, concepts are divided
into analogous (scalar, rich, fuzzy), and parametric (based on choice according
to a number of features, see below). The role of language is summed it up in the
following way:
Evans calls attention to data from the experiments of the group of researchers
around Lawrence Barsalou: In generating features of a concept, experiments
show that the answers reveal not only cognitive content but also reflect another
source of information, namely the system of language forms (Barsalou 2008
2011, 2012, 2013). Evans refers to information relating to lexical classes: eg
“red” against “redness”:
Examples:
Both forms (redness, red) refer to the same perceptual state, but they construe
the content in different ways, giving rise to different simulations: redness –
interpretation relating to a skin codition; red (undesirable) property of the skin.
53
The main tenet of the theory is that the language system provides a mechanism
of control facilitating the action of conceptual representations in favor of
linguistically modeled meaning-construction.
Another starting point is the fact that the meainings of language units are
inexhaustible. The variety of language tools, however, can hardly be compared
to the range of situations, events, activities, relationships in reality. Moreover,
no reality situation can be identical to another, thus we are forced to use
language to express unique meanings, in unique situations, in unique ways.
Thus, language users are forced to use conventional linguistic repertoire,
including models of composition of language forms in an unconventional way
(Evans 2010: 9). The reason for the "Proteus" character of linguage meaning, as
has already been said, is that words only make sense in speech. Because of this,
they undergo shifts in their semantic value and are never the same as their
lexical implementations. Thus, language meaning is never directly perceived,
but is "constructed" in usage based on how changes in word meaning are
influenced by the context. Therefore, there is an important difference between
meaning and lexical representations - the first is the property of the utterance,
while the latter are the mental abstractions that we extract and retain in our
knowledge of the language (lexicon) to reproduce the whole variety of new uses
that the word denotes in a particular context.
For their part, according to TLCCM, open class lexical concepts are related to
multiple areas in the conceptual system, called association areas. The scope of
these areas, to which lexical concepts provide access, is formulated as an access
site. Each lexical concept gives access to a huge semantic potential, but a small
part of it is activated in the interpretation of a specific statement. The conceptual
content of a given lexical concept on the other hand constitutes the conceptual
representations shaping its semantic potential.
moves, and is puts from one place into another; fits in- ie. the underlined
words of the dictionary definition (see Chapter 5 – vlagalishte/uterus) are
its semantic affordances.
Lexical concept
Figure 3. Evans’ model (adapted from Evans 2010: 604); the bracket
encompasses the cognitive profile
constructs to simulate at the speech level. These two mechanisms are lexical
concept selection and fusion.
The first mechanism serves to identify the most appropriate lexical concept
associated with a form during the utterance process. Because the linguistic
system consists of symbolic units - combinations of form and lexical concept,
this means that each form can be linked to a large number of language concepts.
For illustration, let's take the lexical form of:
2. Ivan is at school.
Then LCU is interpreted, i. the open class of lexical concepts (full notional
words), within the framework of the LCU, activates part of the conceptual
content (the semantic potential) to which the latter provides access. The
57
activated part of the semantic potential is limited by the semantic value of LCU
of the lexical open-ended concept as a result of integration. In other words,
interpretation is limited by integration - a process that involves "unpacking" the
language content (Figure 4 on Evans 2010: 18).
Fusion
In its turn, image schemas are analogous to semantic values, while concepts gain
meaning only within some knowledge (cognitive model or "theory" according to
Murphy and Medin 1999), they are the center of a network of inferential
judgments. Thus the notion of 'head' makes sense to the notion of 'part of a
body'.
Cognitive metaphors motivate language use and vice versa - they are activated
by language use but there is no isomorphic relationship between them (Evans
2009).
The term, as part of the lexical concept, has its peculiarities - it is part of the
speech (part of “parole”) and not part of the linguistic system. This means that
while the word can be studied within the linguistic system, that is, at all levels -
phonological, morphological, semantic, etc., this is not always valid for the
58
term. Thus, if the linguistic aspects were analyzed on the basis of the factual
identity or the similarity of the terms with the words, this would be a study of
the lexical concepts (Kageura 2002: 13). For the present work this conclusion is
important because we are not interested in the purely terminological aspect of
the anatomical terms - their systemicity, precision, etc., but in the linguistic
aspects, and especially the nomination and linguistic motivation of the terms as
regards their lexical concepts.
The main analytical tool in TLCCM, as indicated, is the cognitive profile of the
language unit. It is noteworthy that the cognitive profile of a word can contain
completely different concepts (with their cognitive patterns). This Evans calls
"the illusion of unity" (Evans 2015: 268). Cognitive profiles may not coincide in
different languages. For example, “vreme” (en-“weather, time”) in Bulgarian is
an exponent of the cognitive model 'atmospheric conditions', 'physical
dimension', 'grammatical temporality', but in English these cognitive patterns
correspond to 'weather', 'time', 'tense'. Informally, the cognitive model can be
represented by the formula IN THE CAPACITY OF, e.g. as a part of a body or
part of an instrument, a member of a team, etc. This way of presentation
circumvents the problem of rendering of features and the determination of their
weight or salience, as the features appear instead as a bundle of intertwined
affordances. It has been experimentally proven that the processing of linguistic
information is predominantly done in such chunking (Camp 2006). While
Lakoff's ICMs refer to the overall structure of the concepts of the relationships
between the individual "theories" or domains (for which he does not have a
separate term), Evans refers to primary and secondary (derived) cognitive
models in the overall cognitive profile of a lexeme.
o part of armor
o hat of an aviator, astronaut, athlete, etc.
o protective cover
o anatomical object “suhojilen shlem” (en - еpicranial aponeurosis)
o as a helmet (hence „part of a plant“)
SYMBOLIC UNIT
Metallic hat
The secondary model with the FUNCTION feature creates “shell” meaning (see
3.3) "protects/ something/” . This secondary cognitive model of shlem, through
its openness, but also thanks to the "inheritance" of the primary cognitive model,
creates other cognitive models in which the word “shlem” is not involved, but
the parametric concepts retain their proximity as features: described as “brain
envelope”, “skull cover” carry the shape and function derived from the primary
cognitive model of "metallic hat":
The difference between the described semantic composition theories and their
metaphor rendering is that TLCCM respects the knowledge of language on the
grounds that not all concepts are learned perceptibly, and that some metaphoric
meanings are learned before the literal (cf. the example of the conceptual
metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR and the fact that statements such as “He is
attacking my position” are learned earlier than the knowledge of war). In other
words, in principle, it is possible in the personal history of an individual the
word shlem, or vuzelche (en-“nodule”) to be learned first with the anatomical
term meaning. Figurative language that is motivated by language use, by the
communicative needs of the speaker, is called discursive metaphor (Evans 2009:
75). Discursive metaphors can be fixed in language quite independently of the
conceptual mechanisms that have generated them in the first place. In turn,
conceptual metaphors may never find expression in language.
According to Evans (2009), three are the factors, responsible for the creation of
figurative meaning:
62
With regard to the first factor, the distinction that Evans makes between literal
and figurative meaning refers to the activated semantic potential during the
interpretation process in meaning construction of the speech act (Evans 2009,
2011, 2015). In other words, while the literal meaning of a speech act is the
result of an interpretation that activates a primary cognitive model, the “clash”
in the profiles of the primary cognitive models that are subject to matching
occurs in figurative meaning. This discrepancy is smoothed out as one of the
profiles of the cognitive model is matched with a profile of the secondary
cognitive models of the lexical concept. For example:
In this sentence, the figurative meaning results from the mismatch between the
cognitive pattern profile [JOHN] and the information characteristic associated
with the predicate: “is a pig”. This process of mitigating discrepancy is limited
by the Principle of Ordered Search, which states that " The search proceeds in
an ordered fashion, proceeding on the basis of secondary cognitive models that
are conceptually more coherent with respect to the primary cognitive models "
(Evans 2010: 625).
As far as salience is conserned Evans (ibid.) argues that in actual use the
problem of the distinction between literal and figurative meaning is more
complicated, as the notion of "entrenchment" in semantic memory must also be
taken into account. For example, idiomatic expressions are interpreted more
quickly as units of figurative meaning than ones of literal meaning: „pull the
strings” is more likely to be interpreted as an idiom than literally, if of course,
the interpreter knows the meaning of the idiom. Otherwise, there may also be a
misunderstanding of the meaning, i. the literal meaning of an expression may
63
Relative complexity is the third aspect that has to be factored out when dealing
with metaphoricity. It has to be understood as “the length of the access route in
cases of clash resolution” (Evans 2015;631). Let us recall that the term "access
route" denotes the distance between the profile of primary cognitive models and
the secondary, i.e., if a secondary cognitive model is farther away from the
primary models, it will be less coherent with them, and therefore more energy
will be required to match smoothing of the mismatch, which means more
abstract figurative meaning.
For example:
In both cases, we have figurative meaning, but example (2) is more difficult to
understand and requires more context. If in example (1) the clash resolution is
achieved relatively easy between the secondary model of the source domain of
(sun) with the primary cognitive model of the lexical concept [EYE] based on
the conceptual meanings of [SUN] – “bright, shining, radiant”, in example (2),
the access route from primary cognitive models to secondary is longer, as hands
usually are associated with the sun.
Relative complexity also applies to what Ungerer and Schmid(…. Citation) call
lean mapping and rich mapping, such as:
3. Ivan is a pig.
In the current work, Evans’ model has been simplified and modified. The study
of the corpus led to an observation inspired by Schmidt (2000). It is about a
particular category of lexemes that Schmidt calls “shells”. In his definition,
"Shell nouns make up an open-ended functionally-defined class of abstract
nouns that have, to vary- ing degrees,the potential for being used as conceptual
shells for complex, proposition-like pieces of information."(Schmidt 2000:4).
Examples include: “fact”, “case”, “idea”, “problem”, “position”, “cause”,
“situation”, “something”, etc. Shell nouns are indexical words or "hollow
words, envelopes" because their meaning is incomplete; they only point to what
can fill the envelope, but still give it some structure. Thus, the meaning
associated with these shell units is both context-related and in turn it generates a
linguistic context:
The shell noun, which serves as the head of the nominal phrase, together with
the determiner “the’ and the modfier “government”, form the shell-content
complex (Schmidt 2000:9) (in bold typeface), while the content of the shell is
underlined.
have assumed that shell function may be applicable to specific nouns. Some of
the anatomical terms, the so-called termini generales such as glava (en –
“head”), vryzka (en – “link”, “connection”), gynka (en – “fold”), etc. can also be
qualified as shells because their semantic value is extremely contextually
defined:
glava na rebroto (en - head of rib), dylboka glava (en – deep head)
kvadratna vryzka (en - quadrate ligament ), kosa vryzka (en – oblique
cord)
predverna gynka (en – vestibular fold), sinovialna gynka (en – synovial
plica).
Although these terms are not abstract concepts, in a functional aspect they play a
role very similar to the examples given by Schmidt (ibid.).
The idea of a particular class of words that group semantic features but are un-
related to a referent is also found in other authors. According to Geeraerts, such
words have greater reference potential and thus become useful for naming
different referents (onomasiological salience, Geeraerts 2010: 200). From a
theoretical point of view, the need for a context to determine the meaning of a
single lexeme is in fact equivalent to deleting the difference between polysemy
and vagueness (vagueness, ibid., 199). : "The level of the generalized terms ... is
salient from an onomasiological point of view: in the lexical field of a
taxonomy, the level of the generalized words defines a group of salient features.
In this sense, the basic level embodies a group of preferences: given a referent,
the most likely name for this referent among the alternatives that taxonomy
offers will be a name located at the basic level "(ibid.). At first glance it seems
strange that the generalized words are not hyperonimic, but in connection with
the nature of the anatomical terms (physically perceived) it is important to note
that it is precisely words from the basic level that are conceptualized as sensory
and functional gestalts (Geeraerts ibid). The eventual clash between the
specificity of the object and the abstract nature of terms causes the conflict in
66
terminology that has been said. Once again, the choice of a linguistic rather than
a terminological approach to the names of the anatomical objects is argued.
Hopper and Traugott (2003) also believe that generalization is not accompanied
by loss of semantic material. Dancygier and Sweetser are other authors who
have come close to the idea of the peculiar behavior of a class of words that we
call shells. For example, in transparent language and information detox word
combinations, the metaphorical meaning of “transparent” and “detox” as a
source is such that it refers to the target. Thus, the phrases profile both the
source and the target, which is more than a simple metaphor (Dancygier and
Sweetser 2014: 21). This remark resembles Black's Interactive Theory (see
Chapter Three). What does "more" or "beyond" metaphorical meaning mean to
the Evans’ model? This can probably be represented as an introduction to the
lexical concept as a secondary cognitive model in the already meaningful words
“transparent”, “detox”.
This corresponds to Evans's idea that lexical concepts provide access to rich
frames - for example, the term krystets (en – sacrum). One particular example of
a construction in which metaphorical meaning is dictated by the context is
especially common in anatomical terminology. Dancygier and Sweetser call it a
"source-of-target construction" (ibid., 189). Their example is 1. “The solid rock
of brotherhood”; in anatomy an easy example is 2. The bridge of the nose.
bridge changes its meaning to the context of its definition, and therefore there is
no reason to be considered a (conceptual) metaphor in the sense of cross-domain
mapping. These considerations are related to the current studies in anatomical
terminology, which describe source domains such as CONSTRUCTION
OBJECTS etc.
The hypothesis of a class of shell words can be presented as follows: These are
words that allow a meta-semantic generalization of all their existing extensions
of meaning to a level of schematicity, which in turn serves only as a shell to
index new meaning in some context. This description contains the idea of
onomacyological salience.
68
As a further objective, the task was to seek the metaphor manifestation in view
of teaching and translation of specialized terminology. That is why we limited
ourselves to sources available to the study of anatomy in Bulgarian universitites
where the teaching of the two languages - Bulgarian and English - is widely
accepted.
Anatomical terminology is strictly classified, and new entries are accepted with
their Latin names. As mentioned, Terminologia Anatomica is the latest
classification and covers about 7,500 terms, with about 1,500 more than the
previous Nomina Anatomica. The main task was to limit this huge corpus to
those units whose nominative motivation was likely to be based on
69
As far as the procedure of term extraction is concerned, there are two main
approaches. The first is about predefined language parameters, etc. corpus-based
approach. This approach is based on deduction or “top-down” analysis and the
corpus only serves as a database of examples. The other approach is corpus-
driven approach, which makes use of inductive resoning or “bottom-up”
analysis. This means that the investigation starts with each unit, and
categorization is the end product, wholly dictated by the data (cf. Tognini-
Bonelli, 2001). Stressing that no corpus can be completely neutral and
thoroughly analyzed, McEnery, Xiao & Tono (2006) argue that in reality the
two methods are not so different at all. McEnery and Hardie (2012) imply that
the methods are not contradictory but: “The implication of corpus-based versus
corpus-driven is that the primary difference between the two is the degree to
which empirical data from a corpus is relied on”(McEnery & Hardie 2012:151).
Obviously, our research also inevitably combines both approaches in the hope
that selection is not imposed to avoid inconvenient data. First of all, we have
already mentioned that we do not stick blindly to a certain understanding of
metaphor. If we were looking for conceptual metaphors in anatomical terms, it
would have been a deductive study seeking something of unproved validity (cf.
Stein 2007: 42). In order to build a real corpus to be used inductively, the first
constraint on the corpus was to unambiguously exclude the compositional or
"literal" descriptive terms created by the rules of the medical nomenclature, and
to focus on the so-called names whose semantic motivation is not quite
transparent, as they coincide with words from everyday vocabulary. As a first
step, we filtered though a relatively large corpus of 851 terms (words and
70
–eyelid) - the word has largely lost its connection to the verb “clap” (from
“klepam” – en – “clap”) and has been fastened exclusively to the context of
parts of the body and even closer to the specialized discourse of medicine.
Regarding metaphorization, Pacheva-Karabova's claim that anatomical
terminology is mass metaphorical is not new (Pacheva-Karabova 2005). Max
Blake was the first to argue that "perhaps every science must begin with a
metaphor and end with algebra" (in Pasi 1988: 99). As a knowledge transfer
unit, however, the term, unlike its derivative word, is deprived of the ability to
designate objects, it can not by itself become a marker of a particular image
because of its abstractedness. Therefore, it is more accurate to speak either of a
metaphorical nomination in an onomasiological aspect or of a metaphor /
metonymy based polysemy in a semasological aspect (cf. also Nikolova 2003:
37). Usages such as "terminological metaphor" and "metaphorical term" are, in
our view, oxymorons, unless we mean both the source and the target to be terms.
However, this could only happen at some meta-level with a ludic function.
Anatomical terms obtained through specialization of commonly used words
have a relatively large share in anatomy (Nikolova 2003: 19). The development
of anatomy, unlike other sciences, leads to an increase in the number of new
concepts, but the known names, especially for the external organs of the body,
remain the same. Examples of specialization are: bedro (en-hip), bradichka (en
– chin), vrat (en - neck), kozha (en – skin), and others. In English, this way of
speech is also preserved, albeit not as much as in Bulgarian, as the main external
organs, which are not strickly terminological (and therefore more used in
colloquial styles) are also the product of specialization: bone, thigh, skin , leg,
kidney, neck, tooth, cheek, heel, finger, and so on.
The challenge in our work was to capture those terms whose semantic history is
preserved and the metaphor is not "dead" (Muller 2008). If permanent and
current cognitive patterns are outlined in the summary, some conceptualizing
73
Calques in Bulgarian
Calques in English
philtrum philtrum
fovea fovea
cornea cornea
cilium cilium
retina retina
lens lens
75
modiolus modiolus
phalanges phalanges
crista gali crista gali
This mismatch naturally reflects the cultural differences between the two
communities. It has now become clear that both the borrowings and the calques
contain some kind of figurative meaning in the Latin original. These are “dead”
metaphors such as the Latin musculus (muscle) literally 'small mouse',
diminutive of latin “mus” (Online Etymological Dictionary), ventricle of the
Latin ventriculus (relating to the “heart”, ventriculus cordis), literally 'little
belly' diminutive of venter (genitive “ventris”). Such terms were excluded from
the analysis on account of transparency loss in the adoptive languages for
reasons described above.
At first glance it was logical to exclude the claqued metaphors and metonymies.
In its essence, calquing is a literal translation of a word from a foreign language
with home-based lexical means. As we have seen, the Shapel structure of the
foreign (terminological) entity is constructed according to the grammatical rules
of the adoptive language. In the light of what has been said about the terms and
their possible metaphoricity, we clearly see the utility of an analytical model like
that of Evans, since the lexical concept is what conveys metaphoricity because
76
of the paradigmatic links between the lexemes. Calques in many authors are
assigned to a separate word-forming group (Nikolova 2003: 61). Due to the
potential for de-familiarisation or reviving the figurative expressions, these
terms were left open for analysis. There are also calques, especially in
Bulgarian, which are close to free word-formation, eg. the anatomical term like
diga (en-dike), lat. obex “barrier”, whereas in English, for example, the term
requires code switching. Another case is when the same Latin term finds several
Bulgarian equivalents. It seems to us that word formation in calquing can be
represented as non-passing through lexical concepts, while the relationships
between the meanings are mainly in the conceptual side. In order to be
consistent, we must describe calques as creating lexical concepts in the given
language (see Figures 1 and 2).
In quantitative terms, the calqued terms prevail. In this situation, in practice, the
interesting question that remains for the researcher is whether the creation of a
term has led to word formation or only to the polysemy of the original lexeme.
For example, terms such as teltse (en- small body), vyzelche (en – small knot)
are on the one hand composite, but in terms like byalo kryvno teltse (en -white
blood cell) and limfno vyzelche ( en - lymph knot) it is not possible to use tyalo
(en – body) while vyzel (en –knot) is being used. This means that there is an
autonomous word teltse2 containing a lexical concept (and a referent) quite
different from teltse1, but vyzelche retains a paradigmatic connection with vyzel.
Unless this distinction is made, we come to paradoxical conclusions about
conceptual metaphors of the type:
but:
vyzelche2: vyzel1 (specific) > (metaphoric extension) > [vyzel2±small]1
1
Legend: vyzel (en- knot, node), vyzelche – diminituve of vyzel
Teltse – dminutive of tyalo (en –body)
Hylmche – diminutive of hylm ( en – hill)
78
5.3. Adjectives
The role of modifiers for metaphor identification is an interesting theoretical
question. As we have seen, adjectives can only relate to the lexical concept
(Evans, 2011). If an important aspect in the definition of a metaphor is the clear
indication of a displacement or 'tension' between the core meaning of the word
(ie, the current one, decontextualized) and its deliberate meaning in the context,
then modifiers can play a role in such an indication. In other words, when bridge
of the nose is said, the explanatory phrase already suggests that it is not a real
bridge, it acts as a context. Popova also notes this phenomenon by claiming that
metaphor is included in the composition of the term, along with the smallest
nominative context that explains the reference to metaphorical nomination
(Popova 1986: 26). It can be argued that this "microcontext" creates a cognitive
model as part of the cognitive profile of the lexical unit (Evans 2009). A similar
approach is also used by Sweetser, who argues that in adjective-noun unit the
noun referentially profiles a given object as a member of a particular category,
and the adjective complicates an active area from the noun's profile. Sweetser
80
5.4. Nouns
Nouns formed in a lexico-morphological way were also excluded, such as those
formed by affixation, as they are transparent in their semantics. This group is
mentioned because in previous publications, terms such as razgyvatch (en-
extensor) were treated as metaphors, making use of the conceptual metaphor.
ANATOMIC ORGANS ARE ANIMATE AGENTS. Examples with prefixation
and suffixation are many - such as those formed with home prefix: “nad” –
nadgryklyanik (en – epiglottis); “pred” - predmishnitsa (en – forearm); with
foreign prefixes: diastema (en –diastema), epifiza (en - pineal gland). The latter
were also excluded as opaque. In English, affixation plays a role primarily
through suffixes that help to adapt the terms: -al-renal; -c (i) al-fascial; -ial-
synovial; -oid-sesamoid; -ent-afferent; -ing - perforating.
For the purposes of the study, it made sense to focus on those terms whose link
with the generic words that produced them was not overwhelmed by the strong
formulaity of the term. Therefore, one of the tasks when the cropus was built
was to reduce it after removal of the structures with unambiguously anatomical
meaning. The established word-Shapetive techniques to achieve this are two:
Diminutive forms
a) the most commonly used suffix – “che”: vyzel-vyzelche, krak –
krache, etc;
b) the suffix –“itsa”: klyutchitsa (en – clavicle), rogovitsa (en –
cornea);
c) the suffixes – “ka”, “en-tse”: matka (en-uterus), kylbentse (en –
glomerulus);
d) nouns, formed by compounding. By means of compounding, the
Formation of words is achieved by joining two or more heads of full
notional words into a complex derivative word, a great number of
noun terms are formed in anatomyin this way (Boyadzhiev, Kutsarov,
Penchev 1999: 267). These compounds are specially termed, and
83
although some of them have imagery in the nomination, they are not
formed by metaphorical projection.
…..of…..
decussation of pyramids, genu of the facial nerve, nucleus of lateral
lemniscus, taenia of fourth ventricle, uvula of cerebellum
b)w ith attributive adjectives (synaptic structures). Synaptic structures are
perceived as being unified, with a clear denotation, and can not always be
84
COGNITVE HYPERMODEL
PROFILE
SYMBOLIC UNIT
Х+А
Х+B
Х+D
For example, let's take a part of the word combination prashkovidna vryzka na
penisa (en - fundiform ligament of the penis; translated literally as “slinglike
connection of the penis”), in which the headword vryzka is a shell word. The
analytical procedures (on Evans) are as follows:
In the cognitive model of prashkovidna vryzka, we can find the image schemas
of “vryzka”, “prashka”: type is a shell ("hollow") noun, filled with the content
of “prashka”, and the whole is integrated into a concept.
Let’s widen the scope of the example prashkovidna vryzka with another one,
also having the shell word “vryzka”.
1. Prystenovidna vryzka na radiusa (en – annular ligament, translated
literally as “ring-shaped connection of radius”)
2. Lychista vryzka na kitkata (en – radiate carpal ligament, translated
literally as “radiate wrist connection”)
3. Krystosani vryzki na kolyanoto (en – cruciate patellar ligament, translated
literally as “crossed connection of the knee” )
FUSION
Prysten-о-vid–n-а + vryzka na + radiusa
Compound noun with connecting predicative + preposition + definiteness
vowle + suffix + female gender
88
Band
The term can be found in most branches of anatomy:
• Myology –fascia, thin board, band
• Nerve System –flat band
• Splanchnology - ventricular (fold) band of larynx
• Arthrology - ischiocapsular band
The main meanings of the lexical concept [BAND] are related to the word
“strip”, and hence the semantic affordances and features of the lexical concept -
bands can surround, bind, it can take on a different shape, can be combined with
other bands, so the semantic feature 'long, narrow and soft' is responsible - if it is
90
put into other ones, then the second meaning of the definition – “stripe” . The
material / texture is also plastic - the referent to the word “band” can be made
from fabric, but also from metal - the fifth meaning of the definition - in the
cognitive hypermodel it is schematically represented as “something flexible,
soft”. This schematicity of the lexical concept helps its ability to be turned into a
shell - in anatomy, as defined in the definition of band, what is in focus is the
feature Shape: "long, narrow, soft" - ie. the other features of the dictionary entry
are dropped and in the specialized language of the anatomy band acquires
indexicality (type) whose tokens are the uses in the terms - in this sense band
resembles the Bulgarian words vryzka and gynka. This indexicality is combined
with the modifying component in the terminological compound to compose the
overall meaning of the term, e.g. in a flat band, calque of the Latin taenia
thalami, the fusion includes feature Shape – “something flat” plus “something
long, narrow and soft”.
Bud
Bud:
1. (Botany) a swelling on a plant stem consisting of overlapping immature
leaves or petals
2.
a. a partially opened flower
b. (in combination): rosebud.
3. (Biology) any small budlike outgrowth: taste buds.
4. something small or immature
5. (Biology) an asexually produced outgrowth in simple organisms, such
as yeasts, and the hydra that develops into a new individual
6. (Recreational Drugs) a slang word for marijuana
7. (Botany) in bud at the stage of producing buds
8. nip in the bud: to put an end to (an idea, movement, etc) in its initial
stages - buds, budding or budded.
9. (Biology) (intr) (of plants and some animals) to produce buds
10. (intr) to begin to develop or grow.
11. (Horticulture) (tr) horticulture to graft (a bud) from one plant onto
another, usually by insertion under the bark.
(American Heritage® Dictionary 2011)
is: "gem" (hence gem in English - "precious stone"). Probably in the fusion
operation, the interpretation of the affordance 'something precious' is matched
by 'something that will grow and develop'. The Bulgarian term lukovitsa (en – “
bulb”), the main motivating feature is Shape (part of the primary cognitive
model), the other meanings of the word “lukovitsa” remain unrealized in the
term - for example, "serves for food" and "beginning of a new plant" - from the
secondary cognitive model (Bylgarski Tylkoven Rechnik 2012)). In the
synaptic compound, vkusova chashka, (en- taste bud, literal translation “taste
cup”), the affordance “something is poured, filled”, engendered by the special
shape of the cup, forms the basis of the lexical concept motivating the term, the
former being part of the secondary cognitive model, and that is why the term
vkusova chashka is metaphorically motivated. The compound vkusova chashka
is synaptic because its interpretation is holistic, ie. there is a separate lexical
concept [VKUSOVA CHASHKA], as opposed to, for example, other lexical
concepts that have the component “chashka” – “chashka na lale” (en – “tulip
petal”), etc. With respect to bud, we can assume that the word is a shell whose
cognitive content is schematic, meaning 'swelling', 'outgrowth' without creating
a specifically clear image.
Duct
Terms excerped from the Corpus:
English terms Latin terms
Shape as a motivating feature is not in focus, it can match that of the tube, canal,
pipe, and cavity, channel, channel, reservoir. In each of the lexical concepts of
these words linked onomasiologically by family resemblance, the specific shape
mediates different semantic affordances that serve as starting points for new
features (in secondary cognitive models). Duct, however, is a shell word whose
lexical concept includes a generalized feature Function, meaning 'to lead
something away' into the cognitive hypermodel, along with the schematic
feature Shape. There is no figurative projection, in the fusion process the word
duct is combined with the modifying component, which gives the basic meaning
of the overall lexical concept - eg. thoracic duct - locative, striated duct –
SURFACE (image schema), uniting duct – CONTACT (image schema).
Process
Terms excerped from the Corpus:
English terms Latin terms
referent, the knowledge of all the referents with that name reveals the etymology
of the word.
Spine
these words in the semasiological aspect share the feature “something sharp”
and hence the onomasiologically the word is calqued by the different translators
in different ways.
Worthy of note are the different lexemes used in Bulgarian, especially since in
both terms in "Osteology", the Latin equivalence is spina - spina angularis and
spina nasalis anterior. The use of shipche and dendritno shipche may be related
to gemmula - a diminutive form of gemma, so the nomination of this term is
quite independent of the terms in the “Osteology” section.
Tract
Terms excerped from the Corpus:
Английски термини Латински термини
our view, they have retained to a certain extent in their cognitive profiles their
specific features formed on the basis of metaphorical mapping and therefore
cannot be considered shell units.
The metaphoric nature in these terms may be "revived" as opposed to the
"hollow" shell words, or terminological use has not at all erased their
metaphorical motivation. Below is an attempt to visualize different cases of
"living" metaphor based on Evans’ model:
prysten1
shape
prysten
material
prysten2
shape
Saturn
prysten3
shape navel
Venets
The lexeme venets (en – transalted literally “wreath”) is present in two terms –
zyben venets (en –literal – “dental wreath”) and lychist venets (en – Lit. –
“radiant wreath”), with English matches gingiva (gums) and radiate crown. The
101
The dictionary meaning of the word enables us to analyze the cognitive model
profiles of “venets”:
1. Short rounded wooden rod, tapering at both ends, used for spinning by
rotation
2. Specialized: Part of spinning or weaving yarn winding machine.
3. Specialized Machine part (lathe, drilling machine, etc.) in the shape of a rod
with a circular cross section that rotates around its axis.
Spindle:
1.
a. A rod or pin, tapered at one end and usually weighted at the other, on
which fibers are spun by hand into thread and then wound.
b. A similar rod or pin used for spinning on a spinning wheel.
c. A pin or rod holding a bobbin or spool on which thread is wound on an
automated spinning machine.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spindle)
different organs, but neither the word “vreteno” nor “spindle” are shells but
rather metaphors.
(BTR2012)): Greben:
1. Flat object with teeth for combing.
2. Toothed, fleshy growth of the head of a cock or other bird.
3. Mountain ridge.
4. The highest, elongated part of the wave.
from above', as well as with other semantic affordances, the other lexical
concepts from the dictionary entry for “greben”. The English term equivalents
are diverse: crest, ridge, ligament. Regarding the word “ridge”, it has a slightly
more schematic character:
1. A long narrow top section or ridge: the ridge of a wave.
2. ....
a. A long, narrow, elevated section of the earth's surface, such as a chain
of hills or mountains or the division between adjacent valleys.
b. A long mountain range on the ocean floor.
3. A narrow, elongated zone of relatively high atmospheric pressure. Also
called wedge.
4. A long, narrow, or crested part of the body: the ridge of the nose.
5. The horizontal line formed by the juncture of two sloping planes,
especially the line formed by the surfaces at the top of a roof.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ridge)
In the cognitive model profile of [RIDGE], there enters the lexical concept
[CREST], which is semantically narrowed down in the lexical concept
[RIDGE]. The semantic features that are matched to the secondary model of
[RIDGE] are 'long', 'narrow', 'elevated'. This is also confirmed by dictionary
meaning of “crest”:
1.
a. A usually ornamental tuft, ridge or similar projection on the head of a
bird or other animal.
b. An elevated, irregularly toothed ridge on the stigmas of certain flowers.
c. A rose or an appendage on a plant part, such as a leaf or petal.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crest)
106
The difference between the two lexical concepts seems to lie in a visual
perspective - in the case of crest, the Shape is more specific and "more
figurative" (from the dictionary definition: ornamented tuft, ridge ...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crest) a denser visual image is built, while in
“ridge” the semantic features are schematic. The Bulgarian word “greben” does
not make such a difference, eg. sense 3 of the Bulgarian definition corresponds
to both “ridge” (sense 2a of the dictionary definition) and “crest”. In “crest”, the
'upper part' position prevails, not the 'teeth' feature:
The word “shiyka” has the meaning: a small anatomical object with features of
'shiya' (en – “neck”).
107
The different meanings of “shiya” confirm this type of word formation - not
only in the anatomical sense (as synonym of “vrat” –en- also “neck”), but also in
the sense "shiya na butlka” (en – “neck of a bottle") ( we cannot say “vrat na
butilka”*), and also of other objects of the corresponding shape, as well as in the
expressions eg. “siromashiya do shiya" (en – transl. “as poor as a church
mouse”), " zatyvam do shiya” (en – “up to one’s ears in”), where the word is
used in a metonymic way.
“Shiyka” is a separate lexical concept with dictionary definition:
As can be seen, the lexical concept also demonstrates a change, since the only
trace in the secondary cognitive model from the primary one is 'thin part' of
something’ (bottle, pitcher, uterus). In our view, it is questionable whether it is a
metaphorical expansion or a literal similarity (see Chapter Five). If the term is
used as a consequence of literal similarity, it means that it has a rather
schematic structure that "substitutes" on the basis of a certain similarity (for
example, similarity in Function) or is filled with content that points to
indexicality.
However, in the new lexical concept [SHIYKA]1, the primary cognitive model
profile is a consequence of the match of the anatomical object (or other object of
reality - a bottle, a pitcher, etc.) with the feature Shape of the secondary
cognitive model of [SHIYKA] – in the concept of the ommon-use word, which
108
6.4. Summary
In previous analyses of metaphoricity in anatomical terminology, it is assumed
that terms such as vryzka, gynka, glava, hod, yama/groove, duct, spine, process,
etc. are motivated by the possibility of mapping features by similarly between
the content of the daily, common-use words and anatomical objects which are
named (or, more precisely, the concepts of them), therefore such terms are
metaphoric, since two domains are involved. In the approach we use, we have
attempted to check Evans's suggestion of the existence of nouns with a function
commensurate with that of the famous shifters (pronouns like “I”, 'you', 'this').
Such lexical elements have a semantic structure, but their referential meaning is
not fixed and changes according to the context. That is why they are called
"hollow nouns or "shells" by Schmidt and Evans, but, as has been said, such a
class of nouns - or rather a class of uses - can be distinguished by a number of
other authors behind different names. With their schematic semantic structure,
they readily accept context reference and, in that sense, are word-indexes. Index
words are convenient for naming, they first come to mind on an onomasiological
109
task (Gaerrerts 2010). A comparison can be made with the Relevance Theory
approach, according to which figurative language passes through an ad hoc
concept with a generalized schematic meaning. With our example “vryzka”, this
would mean that from the everyday meanings of “vryzka na obuvki” (en –
“shoelaces”) and so on, a schematic meaning of VRYZKA is derived online, and
then it is modified according to the context (Wilson, Carston 2007). In practice,
however, there is evidence that both the speaker and the listener carry the
schematized "hollow" noun in their mental inventory. This is a way of
describing the potential associated with every word creation. Using the
schematic lexical concept as an index (shell), the speaker points to the features
of the new reference. Here we can use the distinction between type ( type=shell
noun) and expression (the specific name developed using the linguistic and
epistemological context, token). The decontextualized relationship is the type,
and in the anatomical terminology kolenni vryzki (en -knee ligaments) and the
like is the manifestation.
Indirect relationship is what allows the elliptical structure, e.g. if the index word
is part of a synaptic name, in discourse, the head often replaces the entire name:
e.g. mida, instead of ushna mid (en - auricle).. The same relationship is
performed at the level of text cohesion. Words like “problem”, “cause”, etc. are
not only explained by subordinate sentences, as Schmidt points out, but they
also "summarize" an already presented situation:
Example:. I can not change my profile photo. How can I handle this
problem?
Such literature data served to encourage us to develop the idea of Evans and
Schmidt and call it the "hollow" noun index words (shells). The analysis of the
anatomical terms that contain repetitive heads confirmed the utility of
highlighting the feature indexicality in the semiotic / symbolic structure of the
lexical concept in certain cases. An attempt is made to visualize the difference
between the index words "in stock" in the lexicon and those that are not such in
the daily vocabulary. Evans himself does not offer an analysis of such a subtle
level of concrete examples, so it is also a test of the feasibility of TLCCM ideas.
The interesting conclusion of the analysis is that it is possible that within the
specialized language of anatomy certain nouns to have acquired index character
111
- head, vagina, stomach, abdomen, lip, duct, process and their Bulgarian
counterparts: glava, vlagalishte, stomah, korem, ustna, etc. Others, even when
entering the anatomical terminology, had been indexed – vryzka, koren, vyzel,
gynka, gryb, dryjka/groove, band, process, spine, tract.
We may conclude that index words can not be considered metaphors. This has
resulted in another restriction of the corpus with metaphorically motivated terms
to existing proposals. In this case, limiting the corpus was the core of the
analytical part.
Besides the levels of representation of knowledge in the model of TLCCM, it
should be noted that the presented analysis takes into account the continuous
exchange between semantic and onomasiological factors and the essence of the
phenomenon as a product or as a process. This corresponds to the observations
made in the literature on the role of deliberation both in the use of metaphors
(Steen 2007, 2008, 2014) and in the creation of terms (Kageura 2002: 12). The
two aspects of the phenomenon clearly show the repeated conviction of a
number of cognitive linguists that, due to the historical and social essence of
language, the diachronic aspect is obligatory for language analysis, and in
particular when analyzing the source of figurative uses (Gaerrerts 2010: 249).
The development, as seen in the case of the English word “socket”, is not
necessarily from a specific to a generalized term. In the TLCCM model, this is
presented as a re-arrangement of primary vs. secondary cognitive models. A
word may suffer a narrowing, ie. the generalized concept of primary appears
again as a secondary cognitive model. Such differences naturally occur between
different languages due to different patterns of use:
112
Examples:
1. L. Ventriculus - ‘little belly’primary E. Ventriclе –of the heart primary
For the nouns of the group considered to be non-indexed, the criterion is that in
their cognitive model they retain a greater number of specific features, the
cognitive model itself is secondary, according to Evans, they are metaphorical.
In other words, the creation of an anatomical term has led to the lexeme
polysemy (a semasiological process based on figurative similarity) - venets,
vreteno. We think, however, that examples like these speak in favor of the so-
called by Gaerrerts literal similarity that he does not consider metaphorical
(Gaerrerts 2010: 283). It can be said that the cases of term Formation on literal
similarity rely on lexemes with pronounced indexicality. Their onomasiological
predisposition is due to the specific combination (encapsulation) of semantic
features, which are also characteristic of the newly referenced (as is the case in
jargon).
It can be said that the excerpted terms of the corpus are dominated by
'metaphors' or general terms in which the metaphor can be 'awakened' (in the
sense of Muller 2008).An interesting observation from the analysis is that
2
Chovka2 (en – rostrum) – chovka na mazolestoto tyalo (en – rostrum of corpus callosum
113
We accept Chitkina's (1988) and Pernishka’s (1993) views, that the main
motivating features are similarity in Shape, Function, Position, or a
combination of these , the so-called Matrix of features. In this chapter we are
going to look at the specific terms, ie. those that, unlike general ones (termini
generales), are independent macroscopic terms and do not serve as heads for
compound terms.
PCM
PCM Shape PCM
Position Function
(elongated)
2
[CHERVEY] ]
PCM
Animal
vermes
1
[CHERVEY]
Figure 7: Scheme of the lexical concept of the common word “chervey” and the
projection in the cognitive profile from Primary Cognitive Model into the
Seconadry Cognitve Model, denoting the term chervey.
Legend: PCM –Primary Cognitive Model; SCM – Secondary Cognitive Model
Kylbentse
The term kylbentse / glomerulus is formed after the lexical concept [KYLBO]
(en – “ball) is stripped of its most general meaning and the homonymous suffix
– “enz” is added.
Kylbentse: “kylbo” (generalised)+ Small = New Word
There is no metaphorical mapping in the formation of kylbentse, but there is a
metaphorical extension in the formation of the different concepts from the
117
profile of the cognitive model of the lexical notion [KYLBO]. As seen by the
definition, the semantic feature Shape of the lexical concept [KYLBO] is
relatively "unspecified," which makes it relevant as an indexing structure.
However, kylbentse is a separate lexical concept in the anatomical language,
which entered anatomy already formed, ie. word formation was performed
before the word entered the anatomical discourse - the presence of polysemy on
the basis of the lexical concept [KYLBENTSE] suggests a figurative projection
on the basis of the features Shape and the image schema SCALE. Kylbentse is a
specific term in anatomy and is a calque of the Latin diminutive of “glomus”,
“glomer” – a ball. In English anatomy the term is borrowed.
Podpora
The word “podpora” is part of the term podpora na byalata liniya// posterior
attachment of linea alba,, the Latin adminiculum lineae albae. The word of the
common language “podpora” has long since lost its metaphorical character, ie.
even the first meaning of the dictionary entry is devoid of real denotation, it is a
new concept formed by the metaphorical extension:
118
In our opinion, the lexical concept [PODPORA] is from the one end of the
metaphorical/nonmetaphoric scale, in the sense that the concept is fully
conventional; it is a "dead" metaphor. It is also indicative that the English term
attachment, in terms of its semantic features, is schematic and devoid of a
particular denotation. Adiminiculum in Bulgarian means 'podpora', 'pole' and is
used to denote the pins of vineyards that hold the plant. Thus, the Latin word is
more specific and the double reference of metaphorical transmission is still
"awake".
The motivating feature Orientation works in concert with the spatial group
image schemes (M. Johnson 1987) such as UP-DOWN, FRONT-BACK, LEFT-
RIGHT, PERIPHERAL CENTER CENTER-PERIPHERY, NEAR-FAR. The
terms that are motivated by Orientation are: ekvator na leshtata/ equator of the
lens and meridiani na leshtata/ meridians of the lens. The metaphorical feature
Orientation also plays a role in other terms subject to Matrix of features - e.g.
Ostrov/Island. What is special in the abovementioned terms is that they
designate anatomical units that do not have a physical reference, as opposed to,
for example, heart, brain, liver. We can argue that equator and meridians are
terms in anatomy, like others, which can be interpreted in a wider cognitive
context (within CMT they are conceptual metaphors). According to the
dictionary entry, the word “equator” means:
119
((BTR 2012)): “ekvator”: An imaginary circle that divides the globe to the
north and south.
On the basis of these two definitions, it can be concluded that for the motivation
of the lexical concept [EQUATOR OF THE LENS] is not enough that the word
“lens” is interpreted as a globe, but rather as a "earth globe", ie. planet, since
only the latter have equators and meridians, ie in the secondary cognitive model
of the lexical concept [EQUATOR OF THE LENS] exists the model "globe =
planet". In this sense, we can assert that the conceptual metaphor of the EYE
LENS IS EARTH GLOBE plays a role. The same argument is valid for the term
meridians of the lens. Let us recall that Evans does not completely reject the role
of conceptual metaphors, but claims that it is not the only mechanism for
figurative meanings, as is the case with equator of the lens.
Kolba
The term kolba is used in two words – vytreshna kolba ( en – literally “an inner
flask”) and vynshna kolba (en – literally “an outer flask”). The word "kolba" is
also motivated by CONTAINER scheme, although theoverall motivation rests
on a matrix of bundles of semantic features - for example, “kolba” has a certain
Shape, contains some substance (liquid), serves for a particular purpose
(laboratory experiments). The English equivalent is bulbous of Latin “bulbus” –
“onion”, “bulb”, ie. the profile of the cognitive model is different, and
CONTAINER scheme does not play a role. Like other terms, kolba is
metaphorically motivated, but the anatomical concepts [VYTRESHNA
KOLBA] and [VYNSHNA KOLBA] are not metaphors.
7.7. Summary
The analysis that is presented in this section is typological. The reason for this is
that a detailed study of all metaphorically motivated terms would exceed the
volume of the work. However, we have presented some examples of the
metaphorically motivated monolexemic specific terms. The method of analysis
is direct, for three reasons: a) the number of semantic calques in English is much
122
Vryzka za obuvki
(en – lit. “shoe lace”)
[VRYZKA]
Vryzka
[PRASHKA]
?
[TYPE]
In the cognitive model of prashkovidna vryzka, we can find the image schemas
for “vryzka” and for “prashka”: “type” is a shell noun filled with the content of
prashka, and the whole is a concept.
Many of the specific terms considered individually can also be treated as
synaptic - e.g. ushna mida/auricula which corresponds to the three main criteria
for the presence of synaptic structures (Murdarov 1983):
1. Stability of the syntagmatic relationship – no modifier can be added to
ushna mida
2. Stability of the semantic relationship between determinant and
determining- ear can not be replaced by another word and a semantic
equivalent expression.
3. Frequency of use – ushna mida is a fixed concept in anatomy
125
On the other hand, ushna mida and other similar compounds can be directly
interpreted, as the modifier performs the usual for the anatomical nomenclature
function to present a localized relationship by possession: ushna mida, (en –lit.
“pinna of the ear”), ochen beltyk (en – lit. “white of the eye”), while in
mazolesto tyalo/corpus callosum, the relationship is different, we can’t say:
“tyaloto na mazola”.
126
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the analysis we can categorically reject the claim of the entirely
metaphorical nature of anatomical terminology. Of course, here we have to
make one important point - linguists understand metaphor in a different way,
which defines both their theoretical and methodological apparatus in
metaphorical identification. In response to this complex problem, the present
work has applied a practical solution - we have put the anatomical terms
themselves into the center of the problem, with the understanding that they are
primarily language units and that is why our attention has been focused on the
language characteristics of the initial words in the process of nomination. On the
other hand, the specifics of the terms themselves illuminate the picture of
complex interacting cognitive and linguistic factors, thus enabling them to be
more clearly defined. It is of utmost importance that the concepts behind the
anatomical terms are stable and experiential - for the most part, they have a
specific physical reference. In the light of these considerations, one of the
central issues in the metaphor study is whether mappings from a specific domain
to a specific domain should be considered as metaphors. This issue is
complicated, as the situation of so-called "image metaphor" is unspecified, and
the analysis of from the standpoint of CMT, at least in terms of anatomical
terminology, is inconclusive. We have assumed that each case must be
considered separately, and the analysis itself has proved that a general
conclusion can not be drawn for all cases because metaphor is a dynamic factor
that depends not only on naming but also on interpretation , i.e. associated with
use. Therefore, metaphors in anatomy can not be explicitly referred to as "dead",
and according to the language manifestations, a relative degree of "revival" of
the metaphoricity for the individual terms can be established. An important
methodological consideration in the metaphorical analysis was that we searched
for the so-called linguistic metaphors, i.e. for us the most important factor was
127
the linguistic side of metaphoricity. Perhaps that is why we are of the opinion
that we can not claim that metaphor (especially conceptual metaphor) is totally
manifested in anatomy.
As for the comparison between Bulgarian and English terms, based on the
analysis, we can conclude (in no case this may be a final "verdict") that the
specialized anatomical language in Bulgarian anatomy is significantly richer
with regard to the metaphor manifestations. Here we shall only repeat that
because of a multitude of cultural and linguistic factors, in Bulgarian there is a
parallel system of transparent (as interpretation) terms, which can be analyzed
for metaphorical projection. Perhaps because of the more prominent purism in
the Bulgarian tradition, the nominators were really more creative.
In order to arrive at these conclusions referring to the very nature of metaphor in
the anatomy and to the comparison between the two languages, we studied a
number of theoretical models and addressed the suggestions of the British
linguist Vyvyan Evans and his Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive
Patterns several reasons. Firstly, TLCCM assumes that the linguistic aspect of
metaphor and figurative language is of paramount importance. It offers a
modern linguistic and conceptual analysis of the interface between concept and
linguistic realization, which proved to be relevant in the study of anatomical
terms with their specificity. No less important was the fact that this theory,
unlike most others, not only from the school of cognitive linguistics, considers
both conceptual and linguistic peculiarities of the concepts in a very balanced
way. Its constructivist approach has proved to be appropriate in examining the
most widespread terminological units in anatomy – compound terms.
Furthermore, TLCCM accepts the ideas of Career of Metaphor Theory with
regard to metaphor, both as a process and as a product - that is, a term may have
arisen by metaphorical projection but subsequently interpreted as a specialized
vocabulary, not metaphoric. Thus, the only thing that can be ascertained with
regard to the metaphoricity of terminology is to what extent it participates in the
128
REFERENCES
15. Varela, Thompson, & Rosch 1991: Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. The
embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
16. Gentner, Bowdle 2001; Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. Convention, form, and figurative
language processing. Metaphor & Symbol, 2001, 16, 223–247.
17. Gentner, Rattermann 1991: Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J. Language and the career
of similarity. In S.A. Gelman, & J.P. Brynes (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning
(pp.199–241). London: Cambridge University Press.
18. Gentner & Wollf 1997: Gentner, D., & Wollf, P. Alignment in the processing of
metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331–355.
19. Gibbs 1999: Gibbs, R. Intentions in the experience of meaning. New York: Cambridge
University Press
20. Gibbs 2006: Gibbs, R. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
21. Gibbs 2008. Gibbs, R. (Ed.) Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Gibbs 2013: Gibbs, R. Why Do Some People Dislike Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In
Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Thirty Years After, ed. R. Fusaroli & Morgagni S.. In
Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, Vol. V No. 1-2, (pp 14-37)
23. Glucksberg & Keysar 1990: Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. Understanding metaphoric
comparisons: Beyond Similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18.
24. Glucksberg, Brown, & McGlone 1993: Glucksberg, S., Brown, M. E., & McGlone,
M. S. Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom
comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 5, 711–719.
25. Glucksberg & Keysar 1993. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. How metaphors work. In
A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition), pp. (401–424). London: Oxford
University Press.
26. Glucksberg & McGlone 1999. Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M.S. When love is not a
journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1541–1558.
27. Glucksberg 2001. Glucksberg, S. Understanding figurative language: From
metaphors to idioms. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
28. Goldberg 1995. Goldberg, A. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to
argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
131
43. Evans 2010b. Evans V. Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New
Directions In: Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn (2007) "Metaphor and the
'Emergent Property' Problem: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach," Baltic International
Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 3.
44. Evans 2015а. Evans, V. What's in a concept? Analog versus parametric concepts in
LCCM Theory. Published 2015. The Conceptual Mind: New Directions in the Study of
Concepts, pp. 251-290. Ed. by Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence. MIT Press.
45. Cabré Castellvi 1995. Cabré Castellvi M.T. On diversity and terminology.
Terminology. Vol. 2 (1), 1-16.
46. Cabré Castellvi 1999. Cabré Castellvi M.T.. Terminology. Theory, methods and
applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
47. Cabré Castellvi 2000. Cabré Castellvi M.T. Elements for a theory of terminology.
Terminology. Vol. 6 (1), 35-57.
48. Cabré Castellvi 2003. Cabré Castellvi M.T.. Theories of terminology. Terminology.
Vol. 9 (2), 163-199.
49. Kageura 1998/1999. Kageura, K. Theories ‘of’ terminology. A quest for a framework
for the study of term formation. Terminology. 5(1), 21-40.
50. Kageura 2002. Kageura K. The Dynamics of terminology. John Benjamins Publishing
Company. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
51. Katz & Postal 1963. Katz J. and Postal, P., An Integrated Theory of Linguistic
Descriptions,Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press, 1964.
52. Katz 1966. Katz, J. The Philosophy of Language, New York.
53. Camp 2006. Camp. E. Metaphor in the Mind. The Cognition of Metaphor. Philosophy
Compass 1/2: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 154–170.
54. Keysar & Glucksberg 1992. Keysar, B., & Glucksberg, S. Metaphor and
communication. Poetics Today, 13, 633–658.
55. Keysar et al. 2000. Keysar et al. Conventional language: How metaphorical is it?
Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576–593.
56. Kimmel 2002. Kimmel, М. Metaphor, Imagery, and Culture. Spatialized Ontologies,
Mental Tools, and Multimedia in the Making. Ph.D., Department of Philosophy,
University of Vienna.
57. Clausner & Croft 1999. Clausner T. C. and. Croft W. Domains and image schemas.
Cognitive Linguistics 10–1 (1999), 1–31 Walter de Gruyter
133
58. Croft 1993. Croft, W. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and
metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–70.
59. Croft & Cruse 2004. Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
60. Cruse 2002. Cruse, D. Alan Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings, in Y.
Ravin and C. Leacock (eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 30–51.
61. Coulson 1996. Coulson, S. The Menendez Brothers Virus: Analogical Mapping in
Blended Spaces. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and
Language. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI, pp. 67-81.
62. Coulson 2001. Coulson, S. Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending
in Meaning Construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
63. Kantcheva 2009. Kantcheva , P. Bylgarskata anatomichna terminologiya dnes PH
ARSO, Sofia.
64. Kövecses 1995. Kövecses, Z. American friendship and the scope of metaphor.
Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 315–346.
65. Kövecses 2002. Kövecses, Z. Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66. Kövecses 2005. Kövecses, Z. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
67. Kövecses 2006. Kövecses, Z. Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. Kövecses 2010. Kövecses, Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Second Edition.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
69. Langacker 1987. Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1.
Stanford University Press. California.
70. Langacker 1987. Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2.
Stanford University Press. California.
71. Langacker 1993. Langacker, R.W. Universals of Construal. In Proc. of the 19th
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Feb. 12-15, 1993. Berkeley. 447-
463.
72. Langacker 2008. Langacker, R.W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New
York: Oxford University Press.
134
73. Levinson 1997. Levinson St. With language in mind: the relationship between
linguistic and conceptual representation. In Bloom et al eds 109-169 MIT Press
74. Lakoff & Johnson 1980. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
75. Lakoff 1987. Lakoff, G. Fire, women and dangerous things. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
76. Lakoff 1993. Lakoff, G. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony,
Metaphor and thought, 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Lakoff & Johnson 1999: Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Philosophy in the flesh: The
embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
78. МакКлоски 1964. MacCloskey, M.A. Metaphors. Mind, 73, 215–233.
79. Maturana & Varela 1980. Maturana, H R.,Varela, F. J. Autopoiesis and Cognition.
The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel, p. 13..
80. Murdarov 1983. Murdarov, Vl.. Syvremeni slovoobrazovatelni protsesi PH- BAS
Sofia.
81. Murphy 1996. Murphy, G. On metaphoric representation, Cognition, 60, 173–204.
82. Murphy & Medin 1999. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. The role of theories in
conceptual coherence [Reprint of 1985 article]. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.),
Concepts: Core readings (pp. 425-458). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
83. Muller 2008. C. Muller. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking. University of
Chicago Press.
84. Nikolova 2003. Nikolova, N. Bylgarska anatomichna terminologiya prez Vyzrajdaneto
(1824-1878). PH “Antos”, Shumen.
85. Orthony 1979. Orthony, A. (ed.).1979. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: CUP
86. Pasi 1995. Pasi Is. Metaforata. PH “Trud”, Sofia.
87. Pacheva-Karabova 2005. Pacheva-Karabova, Sv. Metaforichniya ezik na
syvremennata bylgarska akademichna meditsina PhD Thesis, Plovdiv: Medical
University – Plovdiv.
88. Pencheva 1998. Pencheva M.. Chovekyt w ezika. Ezikyt v choveka. University PH St
“Kliment Ohridski, Sofia.
89. Pencheva 2011. Пенчева, М. Когнитивна лингвистика. Речник на понятията и
термините. Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, София 2011
90. Pernishka 1993. Pernishka Е. Za sistemrichnostta v liksikalnata mnogoznachnost na
syshtestvitelnite imena. PH - BAS, Sofia.
135
106. Sperber & Wilson 2004. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. Relevance Theory. In G. Ward, &
L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
107. Sperber & Wilson 2008. Sperber, D., & D. Wilson. A deflationary account of
metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. (pp.
84-108). New York: Cambridge University PressСтанева 2001. Станева, Хр.
Стилистика на българския книжовен език. Абагар.
108. Steen 1994. Steen, G.J. Understanding metaphor in literature: An empirical
approach. London: Longman.
109. Steen 2007. Steen, G. Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
110. Steen 2008. Steen, G.J. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional
modelfor metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23 (4), 213-241.
111. Steen 2010. Steen, G. J. When is metaphor deliberate? In N.-L. Johannesson, C. Alm-
Arvius & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor
Festival Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.
112. Steen 2011а. Steen, G.J. What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean? More thoughts
on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor and the Social World 1 (1), 53-56
113. Steen 2011b. Steen, G.J. The language of knowledge management: A linguistic
approach to metaphor analysis. Systems Research & Behavioral Science 28 (2), 181-
188.30.
114. Steen 2011c. Steen, G.J. The contemporary theory of metaphor — now new and
improved. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 26-64.
115. Steen 2013: Steen, G. J. Deliberate Metaphor Affords Conscious Metaphorical
Cognition. Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Thirty Years After, ed. R. Fusaroli &
Morgagni S.. In Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, Vol. V No. 1-2, (pp 179-198)
116. Steen 2014. Steen, G.J. Researching And Applying Metaphor. Published online: 24
March 2014 DOI: 10.1075/ttwia.83.09ste
117. Sweetser 1990. Sweetser, E. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and
cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
118. Sweetser 1999. Sweetser. Е. Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in
a cognitively realistic framework. In Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and
Methodology, eds. Gisela Redeker and Theo Janssen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.
129-162.
137
APPENDIX 1
1. ANGIOLOGY
27. Долна опорачна вена 27. Inferior mesenteric vein 27. V. mesenterica inferior
28. Дорзален клон на 28. Dorsal branch to corpus 28. Ramus corporis callosi
мазолестото тяло callosum dorsalis
29. Дълбока дланна дъга 29. Deep palmar arch 29. Arcus palmaris
profundus
30. Емисарна вена 30. Еmissary vein 30. Vena emissaria
31. Езичков клон 31. Lingular branch 31. Ramus lingularis
32. Езична артерия 32. Lingual artery 32. Arteria lingualis
33. Задна киткова мрежа 33. Dorsal carpal arch; dorsal 33. Rete carpale dorsal
carpal network, posterior
carpal arch)
34. Заден клон на лявата 34. Posterior left ventricular 34. Ramus posterior
камера branch ventriculi sinistri
35. Изхранваща артерия 35. Nutrient artery; medullary art. 35. Arteria nutricia
36. Камера (стомахче) на 36. Ventricles of heart 36. Ventriculus cordis
сърцето
37. Канална (шийна) част 37. Transverse cervical part 37. Pars transversaria
(cervicalis)
38. Кант на овалната яма 38. Limbus of fossa ovalis; 38. Limbus fossae ovalis
border of oval fossa, annulus
of…
39. Капсулирана артериола 39. Ellipsoid arteriole 39. Arteriola ellipsoidea
40. Клапа 40. Valve (vaginata)
41. Клапен синус. Клапно 41. Valve of coronary sinus, 40. Valva
джобче thebesian valve 41. Sinus valvulae
42. Клонове на бадемовидното 42. Branches to amygdaloid body 42. Rami corporis
тяло amygdaloidei
43. Клонове на предното 43. Anterior perforated substance 43. Rami substantiae
надупчено поле perforatae anterioris
44. Клон на тригеминалния 44. Trigeminal ganglion branch 44. Ramus ganglionis
ганглий trigemini
45. Клонове на 45. Branches to hypothalamic 45. Rami nucleorum
хипоталамичните ядра nuclei hypothalamicorum
46. Клонове на черната 46. Branches to substantia nigra 46. Rami substantiae nigrae
(нигралната) субстанция 47. Calcarine branch (of medial 47. Ramus calcarinus
47. Клон на шпората бразда occipital artery)
48. Комисурни платна 48. Commissural cusps 48. Cuspides commissuralis
49. Крайна (корова) част 49. Terminal part 49. Pars terminalis (Pars
corticalis)
50. Кръвоносни съдове 50. Blood vessels 50. Vasa sanguinea
51. Кръстовищен (хиазмален) 51. Chiasmatic branch 51. Ramus chiasmaticus
клон
52. Латерални мамарни (на 52. Lateral mammary branches 52. Rami mammarii laterals
млечната жлеза) клонове
53. Лимфно сплетение 53. Lymphatic plexus 53. Plexus lymphaticus
54. Луковица на аортата 54. Aortic bulb 54. Bulbus aortae
55. Лъчева (радиална) артерия 55. Radial artery 55. Arteria radialis
56. Лява предсърднокамерна 56. Mitral valve 56. Valva atrioventricularis
клапа. Двуплатнена sinistra (valva mitralis)
(митрална) клапа
57. Медиален кожен клон 57. Medial cutaneous branch 57. Ramus cutaneous
medialis
58. Междуглавичкови вени (на 58. Intercapitular veins (foot & 58. Vv. Intercapitulares
ходилото) hand)
59. Метловидна артерия 59. Penicillar arteriole 59. Arteriola penicillaris
143
2. ARTHROLOGY
3. MYOLOGY
48. Мускул къс разгъвач 48. Extensor pollicis brevis 48. M. extensor pollicis
на палеца muscle brevis
49. Мускул на черепния 49. Occipitofrontalis muscle 49. M. Occipitofrontalis
покрив
50. Мускул на смеха 50. Risorius (muscle) 50. M. risorius
51. Мускул объл 51. Pronator teres muscle 51. M. pronator teres
пронатор 52. Levator labii superioris 52. M. levator labii
52. Мускул повдигач на (or quadratus labii superioiris
горната устна superioris)
53. Мускули повдигачи 53. Levatores costarum 53. Mm. levatores costarum
на ребрата muscles
54. Мускул, смъкващ 54. Depressor septi muscle 54. M. depressor septi
носната преграда
55. Мускул, смъкващ 55. Depressor supercilii 55. M. depressor supercilii
устния ъгъл muscle
56. Мускул привеждач на 56. Adductor pollicis muscle; 56. M. adductor pollicis
палеца Pollical palmar
interosseous muscle
57. Надбодилен мускул 57. Supraspinatus muscle 57. M. supraspinatus
58. Напречна и крилова 58. Transverse, and alar parts 58. Partes transversa et
части alaris
59. Напречни снопчета 59. Тransverse fasciculi 59. Fasciculi transversi
60. Общо влагалище на 60. Common flexor sheath of 60. Vagina communis
мускулните сгъвачи hand musculorum felxorum
61. Общо влагалище на 61. Common tendinous 61. Vagina musculorum
фибуларните мускули sheath of fibulares peroneorum
(fibularium) communis
62. Овална ямка. 62. Saphenous opening 62. Hiatus saphenus
Веносафенен отвор
63. Огъната глава 63. Reflected head of rectus 63. Caput reflexum
femoris (muscle)
64. Орбитална част 64. Orbital part 64. Pars orbitalis
65. Опашен мускул 65. Coccygeus muscle 65. M. coccygeus
66. Остеофиброзен канал 66. Tendon sheath 66. Vagina tendinis
67. Пирамиден мускул 67. Pyramidalis muscle 67. M. pyramidalis
68. Подкожна бурза на 68. Subcutaneous bursa of 68. Bursa subcutanea
грапавината на tibial tuberosity tuberositas tibiae
тибията
69. Подпора бялата линия 69. Posterior attachment of 69. Adminiculum lineae
linea alba albae
70. Полубодилен мускул 70. Semispinalis 70. M. semispinalis
71. Прашковидна връзка 71. Fundiform ligament or 71. Ligamentum fundiforme
на пениса fundiform ligament of the penis
penis
72. Предна пластинка 72. Anterior lamina; arcuate 72. Lamina anterior
line (of rectus sheath)
73. Предно коремче 73. Anterior belly 73. Venter anterior
74. Пристенна тазова 74. Parietal pelvic fascia 74. Fascia pelvis parietalis
фасция (PPF)
75. Пръстеновидна част 75. Annular part of fibrous 75. Pars an(n)ularis vaginae
на фиброзното sheath fibrosae
влагалище
76. Пъпен пръстен 76. Umbilical ring 76. An(n)ulus umbilicalis
77. Радиална глава 77. Radial head 77. Caput radiale
78. Ректовезикална 78. Rectovesical septum 78. Septum rectovesicale
149
преграда
79. Ротиращи мускули 79. Rotator muscles 79. Mm. rotatores
80. Ръбова част 80. Marginal part 80. Pars marginalis
81. Синовиални 81. Synovial sheaths of the 81. Vaginae synoviales
влагалища на foot digitorum pedis
пръстите на ходилото
82. Синовиална торбичка 82. Synovial bursa 82. Bursa synovialis
83. Слабинна връзка 83. Inguinal 83. Ligamentum
ligament(Poupart's inguinale(Arcus
Ligament) inguinalis)
84. Среден стълбест 84. Scalenus medius muscle 84. M. scalenus medius
мускул 85. Epicranial aponeurosis 85. Galea aponeurotica
85. Сухожилен шлем (Aponeurosis
epicranialis)
86. Сухожилна дъга 86. Tendinous arch 86. Arcus tendineus
87. Сухожилно влагалище 87. Тendinous sheath of 87. Vagina tendinum
на дългите сгъвачи на flexor digitorum longus musculi flexoris
пръстите на ходилото muscle (of foot) digitorum pedis longi
88. Сухожилно влагалище 88. Tendinous sheath of 88. Vagina tendinum
на дългия отвеждач и abductor pollicis longus musculorum abductoris
късия разгъвач на and extensor pollicis longi et extensoris
палеца brevis muscles brevis pollicis
89. Съдова лакуна 89. Vascular lacuna 89. Lacuna vasorum
90. Сърповиден ръб 90. Falciform margin 90. Margo falsiformis
91. Трапецовиден мускул 91. Trapezius muscle 91. M. trapezius
92. Триглав мускул на 92. Тriceps brachii muscle 92. M. triceps brachii
мишницата
93. Триъгълен мускул 93. Triangular muscle 93. M. triangularis
94. Улнарна глава 94. Ulnar head 94. Caput ulnare
95. Хумерална глава 95. Humeral head 95. Caput humerale
96. Хумероулнарна глава 96. Humeroulnar head 96. Caput humero-ulnare
97. Челно коремче 97. Frontal belly 97. Venter frontalis
98. Червеобразни 98. Lumbricals of the hand 98. Mm. Lumbricales
мускули
99. Четириглав мускул на 99. Quadriceps, quadriceps 99. M. quadriceps femoris
бедрото extensor
100. Шивашки 100. Sartorius muscle 100. M. sartorius
мускул
4. NERVOUS SYSTEM
lateralis
43. Миелинов слой 43. Myelin sheath 43. Stratum myelini
44. Мозъчен водопровод 44. Cerebral aqueduct 44. Aquaeductus
mesencephali
(cerebri)
45. Моторен неврон 45. Motor neuron 45. Neuronum
motoricum
46. Надхълмие. 46. Epithalamus 46. Epithalamus
Епиталамус
47. Наклон 47. Slope, slanting 47. Clivus
surface
48. Начални ядра 48. Nuclei of origin 48. Nuclei origins
49. Невросухожилно 49. Neurotendinous 49. Fusus
вретено spindle neurotendineus
50. Неврофиламент 50. Neurofilament 50. Neurofilamentum
51. Нежна пъпка 51. Gracile tubercle 51. Tuberculum
52. Нежно снопче 52. Tract of Goll or gracile
gracile fasciculus 52. Fasciculus gracilis
53. Неоцеребелум. Нов 53. Neocerebellum
малък мозък 53. Neocerebellum
54. Оливокохлеарен път 54. Olivocochlear tract 54. Tractus
55. Оливоспинален път olivocochlearis
55. Olivospinal tract 55. Tractus
56. Островен дял (на olivospinalis
остров) 56. Insular lobe 56. Lobus insularis
57. Палеоцеребелум. 57. Paleocerebellum; 57. Paleocerebellum
Стар малък мозък spinocerebellum
58. Парасимпатикови 58. Sacral 58. Nuclei
сакрални ядра parasympathetic parasympathici
nuclei sacrales
59. Пахионови 59. Arachnoid 59. Granulationes
гранулации granulation arachnoidales
60. Паяжиновидна 60. Arachnoid matter 60. Arachnoidea
обвивка (арахноидеа) mater encephalli
на главния мозък
61. Пиален израстък 61. Pial process 61. Processus pialis
62. Пирамидно 62. Decussation 62. decussatio
of
кръстовище (Моторно pyramids (crossing) pyramidum (Dec.
кръстовище) motoria)
63. Плочка на покрива 63. Roofplate of the 63. Lamina tecti
mesencephalon (tectalis)
64. Плътно мехурче 64. Dense core vesicle 64. Vesicula densa
65. Покрив на средния 65. Midbrain tectum 65. Tectum
мозък. mesencephali
Четирихълмие.Тектум
66. Преден кожен клон 66. Anterior pectoral 66. Ramus cutaneus
cutaneous branch (of anterior
intercostal nerves)
67. Пресинаптично 67. Presynaptic density 67. Densitas
уплътнение presynaptica
68. Проекционни нервни 68. Projection fibers 68. Neurofibrae
влакна projectiones
69. Провлак на 69. Isthmus of cingulate 69. Ishtmus gyri
поясчевата гънка gyrus cinguli
(cingulatus)
152
centrales
100. Челен полюс 100. Frontal pole 100. Polus frontlis
101. Челен похлупак 101. Pontine raphe 101. Raphe pontis
102. Човка на мазолестото 102. Rostrum of corpus 102. Rostrum
тяло callosum corporis callosi
103. Шев на моста 103. Opercular part 103. Pars
opercularis
104. Шевови ядра 104. Raphe nuclei 104. Nuclei raphe
105. Шийна примка 105. Loop of nerves 105. Ansa
(Saturn's ring) cervicalis
106. Шийно задебеление 106. Cervical 106. Corpus
enlargement pineale (glandula
pinealis)
107. Шишарковидно тяло 107. Pineal body (gland) 107. Intumescentia
cervicalis
108. Ъглова гънка 108. Angular gyrus 108. Gyrus
angularis
109. Ябълчен нерв 109. Zygomatic nerve 109. Nervus
zygomaticus
110. Ябълчнослепоочен 110. Zygomaticotemporаl 110. Ramus
нерв. branch zygomaticotempor
alis nervi
zygomatici
111. Ядро на 111. Nucleus of the 111. Nucleus nervi
макаричковия нерв trochlear nerve trochlearis (Nuc.
Trochlearis)
112. Яремен нерв 112. Jugular nerve 112. Nervus
jugularis
5. OSTEOLOGY
46. Крило на ралника 46. Ala of vomer, wing of 47. Fissura pterygomaxillaris
vomer 48. Foramen sphenopalatinum
47. Крилонебцова яма 47. Pterygomaxillary fissure 49. Apertura piriformis
48. Крилонебцов отвор 48. Sphenopalatine foramen 50. Os sacrum
49. Крушовиден отвор 49. Piriform aperture 51. Promontorium
50. Кръстцова кост (кръстец) 50. The Sacrum; sacrum bone 52. Hamulus pterygoideus
51. Кръстцов рид 51. Promontory
52. Кукичка на криловидния 52. Pterygoid hamulus 53. Fossa canina
израстък 54. Crus breve
53. Кучешка яма 53. Canine fossa 55. Os scaphoideum
54. Късо краче на наковалнята 54. Short crus of incus 56. Fossa scaphoides
55. Ладиевидна кост 55. Scaphoid (bone) 57. Margo lambdoideus
56. Ладиевидна яма 56. Scaphoid fossa 58. Lamina lateralis
57. Ламбдоиден ръб 57. Lambdoid margin (processus pterygoidei)
58. Латерална пластинка 58. Lateral pterygoid plate 59. Scapula
60. Coste spuriae
61. Radius
59. Лопатка. Плешка 59. Scapula, Shoulder blade 62. Fossa radialis
60. Лъжливи ребра 60. False ribs 63. Margo squamosus
61. Лъчева кост. Радиус 61. Radius
62. Лъчева яма 62. Radial fossa (of humerus) 64. Fovea trochlearis
65. Sulcus malleolaris
63. Люспен ръб 63. Squamosal border (sq.
66. Fibula
margin)
67. Tuberositas masseteria
64. Макаровидна ямка 64. Trochlear fovea
65. Малеолна бразда 65. Malleolar groove 68. Margo mastoideus
66. Малък пищял. Фибула 66. Fibula, calf bone 69. Crista supraepicondylaris
medialis
67. Масетерна грапавина 67. Masseteric tuberocity
70. Linea intermedia
68. Мастоиден ръб 68. Mammillary margin
71. Processus xiphoideus
69. Медиален 69. Medial supraepicondylar
супраепикондилен гребен ridge 72. Nasion
70. Междинна пъпка 70. Intermediate line (zone)
71. Мечовиден израстък 71. Xiphoid process 73. Facies cerebralis
72. Назион. Мост на носа 72. Nasion. Bridge of the nose 74. Incus
75. Crista palatina
73. Мозъчна повърхност 73.
Cerebral surface 76. Meatus nasopharyngeus
74. Наковалня 74.
Anvil
75. Небцов гребен 75.
Palatine crest 77. Crista obturatoria
76. Носогълтачен ход 76.
Nasopharyngeal meatus 78. Cornu coccygeum
(opening) 79. Basis metacarpalis
77. Обтураторен гребен 77. Obturator crest
80. Basis stapedis
78. Опашно рогче 78. Coccygeal cornu
79. Основа на метакарпалната 79. Base of metacarpal bone 81. Canaliculus cochleae
кост
80. Основа на стремето 80. Base of stapes 82. Orbita
81. Охлювно (кохлеарно) 81. Cochlear canaliculus 83. Sinus tarsi
каналче 84. Trochlea peronealis
82. Очница, очна кухина 82. Оrbita, orbit, eye socket 85. Crista galli
86. Coste fluctuantes
156
83. Пазуха на ходилото 83. Tarsal canal, tarsal sinus 87. Tegmen tympani
84. Перонеална макаричка 84. Fibula trochlea of calcaneus
85. Петльов гребен 85. Crista galli 88. Septum canalis
86. Плаващи ребра 86. Floating ribs musculotubarii
87. Покрив на тъпанчевата 87. Tegmental wall, tegmental 89. Aqueductus vestibuli
кухина roof
88. Преграда на мускулно- 88. Septum of musculotubal 90. Facies anterior partis
тръбния канал canal petrosae
89. Предверно (вестибуларно) 89. Vestibular aqueduct 91. Crus anterius
каналче 92. Impressiones digitatae
90. Предна повърхност на 90. Anterior surface of petrous
пирамидата part of temporal bone 93. Tuberositas pterygoidea
91. Предно краче 91. Anterior limb 94. Fossa pterygoidea
92. Пръстовидни вдлъбнатини 92. Impressions of cerebral gyri 95. Tuberculum costae
93. Птеригоидна грапавина 93. Pterygoid tuberocity 96. Tuberculum sellae
94. Птеригоидна яма 94. Pterygoid fossa 97. Foramen lacerum
95. Пъпка на реброто 95. Tubercle of rib 98. Vomer
96. Пъпка на седлото 96. Tubercle of sella turcica, 99. Cingulum membri
tubercle of saddle superioris
97. Разкъсан отвор 97. Foramen lacerum 100. Angulus costae
98. Ралник 98. Vomer 101. Os incisivum
99. Раменен пояс 99. Shoulder girdle 102. Fossa incisiva
103. Bulla ethmoidalis
100. Ребрен ъгъл 100. Costal angle 104. Facies temporalis
101. Резцова кост 101. Incisive bone
102. Резцова яма 102. Incisive fossa 105. Fossa temporalis
103. Решетъчен мехур 103. Ethmoidal bulla 106. Sulcis lacrimalis
104. Слепоочна повърхност 104. Temporal surface
105. Слепоочна яма 107. Foramen caecum
106. Слъзна бразда 105. Temporal fossa 108. Ulna
106. Lacrimal sulcus, 109. Crista sacralis
107. Сляп отвор lacrimal groove mediana
108. Совалка 107. Foramen cecum 110. Tuberculum articulare
109. Срединен кръстцов 108. Elbow bone 111. Angulus sterni
гребен 109. Median sacral crest (sternalis)
110. Ставна пъпка 112. Stapes
110. Articular tubercle (of 113. Crista musculi
111. Стернален ъгъл temporal bone) supinatoris
111. Sternal angle 114. Lingula sphenoidalis
112. Стреме 112. Stapes; stirrup 115. Margo parietalis
113. Супинаторен гребен 113. Supinator crest (of ulna) 116. Tuber parietale
6. SENSORY ORGANS
8. SPLANCHNOLOGY
ring
111. Носна преграда 111. Nasal septum 111. Septum nasi
112. Носни космици 112. Whiskers 112. Vibrissae
113. Обонятелна бразда 113. Olfactory sulcus 113. Sulcus olfactorius
114. Общ жлъчен проток 114. Common bile duct 114. Ductus choledochus
(biliaris)
115. Оголено поле 115. Bare area 115. Area nuda
116. Оментално 116. Omental tuber/ 116. Tuber omentale
възвишение eminence
117. Органна коремница 117. Visceral peritoneum 117. Peritoneum viscerale
118. Опашка на панкреаса 118. Tail of pancreas 118. Cauda pancreaticus
pancreatic cauda
119. Основа на белия дроб 119. Base of lung 119. Basis pulmonis
120. Основно вещество 120. Ground substance 120. Substantia
fundamentalis
121. Остатъчен семепровод 121. Vestige of ductus 121. Ductus deferens
deferens vestigialis
122. Острие на зъба 122. Cusp of tooth 122. Cuspis dentis
123. Отворче на преградата 123. Porous septum 123. Porus septi
124. Палмовидни гънки 124. Palmate folds 124. Plicae palmatae
125. Перфориращо влакно 125. Perforating fibre 125. Fibra perforans
cementalis
126. Пещеристо тяло на 126. Cavernous body of 126. Corpus cavernosum
пениса penis penis
127. Пикочен мехур 127. Urinary bladder 127. Vesica urinaria
128. Пирамиден хрущял. 128. Arytenoid cartilage 128. Cartilage arytenoidea
Аритеноиден хрущял (pitcher-shaped)
129. Плеврален купол 129. Pleural cupola, dome of 129. Cupula pleurae
pleura
130. Плътно петно 130. Macula densa 130. Macula densa
131. Постоянни зъби 131. Permanent teeth 131. Dentes permanents
132. Поясче 132. Cingulum; girdle 132. Cingulum
133. Право черво. Ректум 133. Rectum 133. Rectum
134. Празно черво 134. Jejunum 134. Jejunum
135. Прахова клетка 135. Microphagus 135. Microphagus
136. Преддверие на носа 136. Nasal vestibule 136. Vestibulum nasi
137. Преддверие на устата 137. Vestibule of mouth 137. Vestibulum oris
138. Преддверна гънка. 138. Vestibular fold; false 138. Plica vestibularis
Лъжлива гласна гънка vocal cord
139. Преддверна яма 139. Fossa of vestibule of 139. Fossa vestibuli vaginae
vagina 140. Ramus anterior
140. Преден клон 140. Anterior ramus/ branch
141. Преходен епител 141. Transitional epithelium 141. Epithelium transitionale
142. Провлак на 142. Thyroid isthmus 142. Ishtmus glandulae
щитовидната жлеза thyroideae
143. Простатна матчица. 143. Utriculus prostaticus, 143. Utriculus prostaticus
Мъжка матчица utriculus masculinus,
vagina masculine
144. Птеригомандибуларен 144. Pterygomandibular 144. Raphe
шев raphe/ligament pterygomandibularis
145. Пудендален канал 145. Pudendal canal 145. Canalis pudendalis
146. Пшеничен хрущял 146. Tritiate cartilage 146. Cartilage triticea
147. Пъпка 147. Tubercle 147. Tuberculum
148. Ребрена повърхност 148. Costal facet 148. Facies costalis
149. Режещ ръб 149. Incisal margin 149. Margo incisalis
165
APPENDIX 2
TERMINI GENERALES
1. BULGARIAN
2. ENGLISH