1

IVAYLO DAGNEV

METAPHORS AND SHELLS IN ANATOMY:

BULGARIAN-ENGLISH CROSS-LINGUISTIC COGNITIVE STUDY

2
 3

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

3.4.1. Metaphor in Blending Theory 40

3.5. Metaphor as structural alignment 42
3.5.1.Metaphor as interaction 42
3.5.2. Career of Metaphor Theory 43
4. Chapter Four: The Theory of Lexical Concepts and 46
Cognitive Models
4.1. Steen and metaphor stidues 46
4.2. The Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models 52
4.3. Figurative meaning in TLCCM 60
4.4. Shell nouns 62
5. Chapter Five: Building the Corpus 66
5.1. Theoretical underpinnings 66
5.2. Word formation 68
5.3. Adjectives 75
5.4. Nouns 78
5.5. Substantive phrases 79
6. Chapter Six: General terms and shell words in anatomy 82
6.1. Shell nouns in Bulgarian anatomy 82
6.2. Shell nouns in Enlgish anatomy 85
6.3. General terms with preserved metaphorical nomination 96
6.4. Summary 105
7. Chapter Seven; Metaphorically motivated terms 111
7.1. Motivating features 111
7.2. Shape as motivating feature 111
7.3. Function as motivating feature 114
7.4. Orientation as motivating feature 115
7.5. Image schemas as motivating features 116
7.6. Motivating features matrix 117
 5

7.7. Summary 118

7.8. Metaphorical Compounds 120
8. Chapter Eight: Conclusions 123
9. References 126
10. List of dictionaries, used in the research 137
11. APPENDIX 1. Corpus of anatomical terms 138
12. APPENDIX 2. Termini generales 164
 6

List of tables and figures

Tables:

1. Table 1 Predicted distribution of metaphoric use in various genres 13

2. Table 2. Actual distribution of metaphoric use in various genres 13
3. Table 3. Image schemas according to Johnson. 30
4. Table 4. Criteria for metaphor in grammar in three schools of 49
metaphor research.
5. Table 5. Parametric versus analog concepts 52

Figures:

1. Fig.1. Picht on the subject study of terminology (Picht 2009) 16

2. Figure 2. Evans’ model. 55
3. Figure 3. Semantic composition in TLCCM 57
4. Figure 4. Lexical representation: relationship between the lexical 59
concept and the cognitive model of the word “shlem”.
5. Figure 5. Scheme of epistemic representation of shell concepts 83
6. Figure 6: Overlapping by matching the features between cognitive 97
models of the lexical concept [PRYSTEN] (metaphor).
7. Figure 7: Scheme of the lexical concept of the common word 113
“chervey”
8. Figure 8. Scheme of the lexical concept of the term prashkovidna 121
vryzka/ fundiform ligament.
 7

Key to transliteration and typographical signs

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.

Key to transliteration signs:

Bulgarian sound - notation To be read in English
Vowels:
a /a/ - short a
e /e/ short e as in bell
u /u/ short u as in bull
o /o/ short o as in call
i /i/ short i as in pit
y /ǝ/ short ǝ as in rubber

Consonants, presenting difficulties in

reading to English readership

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.

I paid special attention to the Builidng the Corpus part, as it is a mixed

theoretical and practical unit, which by clarifying the selection of terms shows
how I identify metaphoricity - a key moment in contemporary metaphor
research.

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

1.1. Metaphor and science

Metaphor as a means of expression has long been neglected and even

undesirable in specialized literature. Considered a trope, and as such, often
deemed inappropriate in the "accurate" language of research, it has not been
studied in the context of scientific discourse. With the appearance and
developmentof cognitive linguistics and cognitive semantics in the mid 70s and
80s, and especially with the pioneering work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980,
1999), Johnson (1987), Lakoff (1987, 1993), Conceptual Metaphor Theory
(CMT) has radically changed the understanding of the scientific world about the
inevitable role of metaphor in conceptualizing abstract ideas and thus enhancing
knowledge at large.

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

Register Predicted percentage of metaphor use

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)

Register Actual metaphoric use

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)

The cognitive turn in linguistics addresses linguistic phenomena in direct

connection with 'experience' and 'use' as its dynamic aspects. This applies to
terms which are also cognitive structures. We can now state, that the time of
clearcut definitions, found in paper-based specialized dictionaries, is considered
to have long since passed, and with the help of technological revolution and the
ubiquity of the Internet, any user is now able to retrieve the necessary data at the
click of a button. This fact leads to a "paradigm shift" in linguistic and scientific
discourse. The issue is no longer limited to the correctness and standardization
of terminology units, but to their use according to the user's goals.

The communicative characteristics of the linguistic means of expression, their

pragmatic meaning, are becoming increasingly clear not only as a complement
to their content but also as their decisive aspect. According to the Pragglejaz
group, metaphorical uses are indirect meanings of the words that arise from the
 14

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.

The turbulent development processes in the communication between cultures in

the modern world have shown some dormant problems in the use of terminology
in different spheres of knowledge. The intervention of cultural stereotypes in
metaphorical thinking and in the identification of certain metaphorical uses is
undisputed (cf. Kovecses 1995, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2010). In this situation, the
need for a "comparative analysis" is particularly noticeable, since the results of
such analysis can help to find adequate equivalents of metaphorical terms in
cases where they are missing or inadequate (too long, opaque etc.).

The present study is an analysis of metaphoricity in the Bulgarian and English

systems of anatomical terms based on cognitive linguistics. Here, of course, we
are not referring to the Latin names, which are nomenclatures and
internationally standardized respectively, or to their Bulgarian and English
matches. Latin terms, however, offer irreplaceable information on how and to
what extent metaphor is involved in the anatomical terminology of the two
paralleled languages. The existence of a firmly established Latin nomenclature,
valid in both the Bulgarian and the English anatomical terminological system,
puts the use of the synonymous forms in both languages in a relatively unstable
situation. Medical education specialists are not qualified to discuss these issues.
On the other hand, until recently between terminology and linguistics there has
been an unnecessarily fixed boundary. Undoubtedly, much of the anatomical
terminology has an experimental character. In view of the practical applications,
 15

the study of metaphoricity in terminology provides an opportunity to define

arguments for or against theoretical statements in both the terminology and the
study of metaphor as a linguistic fact. Moreover, by their very nature, terms are
names, that is, they allow to examine precisely the connection between
conceptual content and its expression in communication.

1.2. Metaphor and Terminology

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

Cognitive function Communicative function

Object Forms of representa

Concept term, name,
definition,
explanation
description,
phrase from ESP
illustration

SYSTEMATISATION

TERMINOGRAPHY

SYSTEMS, BASED ON KNOWLEDGE

WORD FORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION

Fig.1: Picht on the subject study of terminology (Picht 2009)

A languistic study of domain terms (ie, by non-specialist) can only contribute to

the motivation to choose a name and illuminate the connection with the
everyday language from which many names are derived. The problem is that the
exponents of these concepts, the language units, are by definition underdefined
and allow multiple meanings in different contexts and speech situations. This is
an advantage when a flexible shade is needed, but it leads to permanent changes
 17

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):

(a) the onomasiological principle is leading in terminology (the direction

is from the term to the word, unlike in lexicology);

(b) concepts are clearly outlined and are part of a conceptual system;

(c) terms must be unambiguously defined;

(d) terms are unambiguous and unchanging;

(e) terms and concepts are studied in a synchronous way.

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

Cabre also insists on collecting a body of usages in different contexts. Because

of the referrential assocation of the anatomical terms with their objects, and not
least their multiplicity, the collection of a discursive corpus was not considered
necessary for the purposes of this study. The sources for the collection of terms
were limited to specialized dictionaries, encyclopaedias and atlases (see Chapter
6. Building the Corpus)

In her empirical research on the terminology of the Humanities, Rita

Temmerman analyzes the categorization and semantics of the terms that allow
for an experimental approach based on the cognitive models of Langacker,
Lakoff, and Geeraerts. She makes a compromise and assumes that terms as units
of knowledge also contain concepts that are prototype in nature, rather than
stagnant and firmly outlined. It follows that the definition of terms is flexible
and changes according to the context, the level of specialization and the nature
of the addressor and the addressee (Temmerman, 1997, 2002, 2003).
Temmerman therefore recognizes the role of metaphor not only in the the
process of nomination, but also in interpreting the terms, which remains a
controversial issue.

Pamela F. Benitez welcomed the convergence of terminology with linguistics as

shown in Cabre’s General Theory of Terminology, as well as in Temmerman’s
Sociocognitive Theory, but she also highlighted some imperfections. According
to Benitez, it is necessary to choose a linguistic model that is systematically
followed. She recommends paying more attention to the network of ontological
knowledge in science. Of particular interest to her are the problems of the
mechanism of the emergence of specialized meaning in term formation from the
lexicon of non-specialised vocabulary (Benitez 2009).
 19

Chapter 2. Cognitive linguistics and figurative language

2.1. Basic tenets of cognitive linguistics

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):

 Conceptual structure is embodied;

 Semantic structure is conceptual structure;
 Meaning representation is encyclopaedic;
 Meaning-construction is conceptualisation;
 Language use serves as a criterion of meaning.

The model that cognitive semantics perceives is based, according to Talmy, on

"the study of conceptual content and the organization of language" (Talmy
2000a). In this sense, cognitive semantics is found on the research of the
relations of embodied experience, the conceptual system and the linguistic
representation of the latter.

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.

In cognitive terms, each aspect of the structure of the language is conceptualized

(Langacker 1987). This means that every level of linguistic representation - both
lexical and syntactic - is structured through conceptualizations of a different
kind. The meaning of language units is not fixed, but is subject to construal
 20

operations and conventions. In cognitive semantics theory, there are different

types of interpreting operations: L. Talmy (Talmy 2000a, 2000b) develops force
dynamics concepts, used by Mark Johnson (Johnson 1987), Stephen Pinker
(Pinker 2009), and Ray Jackendoff (Jackendoff 1990). They describe how
objects interact with power, a major source of causality. Another interpretive
operation introduced by Talmy is the so-called figure-ground relation, in which
all relations in language both temporal and spatial are expressed by determining
the position of one object-figure in relation to another (Talmy 2000a, 2000b).
Langacker, for his part, builds his own system of construal operations,
commonly referred to as focal adjustment (Langacker 1987, 2008).
Conceptualisation, he claims, also includes perspectives - the relationship
between the conceptual profile and the base. For Croft and Cruise, the base is a
complex conceptual structure that includes different profiles, but is in itself
insufficient to define a language concept. It is a semantic structure that functions
as the basis for at least one conceptual profile (Croft & Cruz 2004: 15). In turn,
the profile of a single language unit is that part of its semantic structure on
which the unit focuses attention, and the aspect of its semantic structure that is
not the focus but is necessary for the understanding of the profile is its basis, ie.
the unit is organized around a profile and a base, which is in practice developing
a background and figure concept (Evans, Green 2006: 166, 538).

In the theoretical makeup of cognitive linguistics, there is a consensus on the

role of language. In its essence, it is symbolic and is seen in the context of
knowledge as a whole. It refers to concepts in the speaker's mind, not directly to
real-world objects. A situation is not described as it exists "objectively", while
its observer plays an active role, interprets it and imposes a structure on it. Since
language can not be isolated from general knowledge, it does not have
autonomous modules or components of grammar. The basic unit of knowledge
is the concept that is essential for categorization and conceptualization, while
 21

linguistic significance is an expression of the conceptual structure. For its part,

the latter is related to the representation of knowledge, including the
organization and structure of the concepts in the conceptual system (Pencheva
2011: 48). Cognitive linguistics assumes that concepts are prototypical in nature,
ie. there is no need for a set of necessary and sufficient features to define them.
According to Rosch's Prototype Theory, concepts can not be considered as
independent semantic structures studied on their own. Rosch’s statements can
also be interpreted as a rejection of componential analysis, which would be a
mistake, since no semantic description can pass without it (Rosch 1978 in
Pencheva 2011: 127).

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).

According to the thesis of the encyclopaedic nature of semantic structure (Evans

& Green 2004, Cruise & Croft 2002) word meaning is not limited to dictionary
definitions, but serves as "open access" (“access points” in Langacker terms,
Langacker 1987) to huge repositories of knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of an
object is not only determined by the denotative or even connotative value of the
word, but is a much wider concept, depending on our overall knowledge of the
subject. Thus encyclopedic semantics presupposes several basic principles, first
of all rejecting the difference between semantics and pragmatics. Second, it is
assumed that encyclopedic knowledge is organized as a network (Pencheva
2011: 69) and, thirdly, it manifests itself in use, marked by contextual factors.
Last but not least, the core meaning of a word is relatively stable, although its
 22

encyclopedic meaning is dynamic. However, it is noteworthy that the removal of

the boundary between semantics and pragmatics may lead to a misunderstanding
of the language process. Without the presence of a speech community, and
contextualized communication ther cannot exist a stable meaning; language is
not only a sediment of the individual's cognitive activity, but also a means of
influencing the Other; its communicative function(dialogue) stands at its core.

Lastly, the thesis of use as a criterion of meaning postulates that linguistic

knowledge, i.e. of the meaning-form relationship, is only manifest in language
use and it is the action that affirms it. One consequence of this thesis is the idea
of entrenchment, ie. the extent to which a symbolic unit is considered to be a
"routine operation" in the thinking of the language user. Entrenchment is
unthinkable, however, without the social aspect and without the frequency
factor. The activation of the symbolic units depends on the degree of their
entrenchment in the memory, each of which occupies a certain place in the
cognitive organization (Langacker 1987: 59). Entrenchment does not only
depend on the frequency of activation of concepts or constructions of individual
users, but also on languages and linguistic communities as a whole (Schmidt, in
press 118).

2.2. Prototype character of concepts

Prototypes are abstract, schematic representations of the most essential traits of

the members of a particular category. The term 'prototype' can be considered
either as applicable to the most important member of a category or as a
schematic representation of the conceptual core of the category. According to
Eleonor Rosch's Prototype Theory (PT), the basic principles that lie in the
conceptual organization of concepts are two: the principle of cognitive economy
and the principle of the perceived world structure (Rosch 1978, in Evans and
 23

Green 2006: 255-257). The principle of cognitive economy is based on the

understanding that the human brain seeks to gather maximum information about
the world around it with minimal effort. This principle is at the heart of the
formation of our categorical apparatus. According to the principle of perceived
structure of the world, we perceive reality in correlation, ie. we associate certain
concepts with others on a systemic basis. For example, the word “hand” is
associated with 'fingers' rather than 'feathers', as we know from experience that
feathers are not compatible with human (or other anthropomorphic) anatomy.

According to Prototype Theory, concepts are not grasped as freely combinable

but are in a complex interdependent organization based on the most typical types
- prototypes - not every member of a category is equally representative of it.
Some members are "more typical" or “central”. Prototype categories are also
characterized by similarity on the basis of family resemblance relations. While,
of course, the properties of the kinship concepts are not identical, they are
similar, which attributes them to a family - ie. their semantic structure has "the
shape of a radial set of clustering and overlapping members" (Pencheva 2011:
127). Prototype categories have fuzzy boundaries, ie. a lexical concept can be
assigned to different categories, e.g. “carpet” can be classified in the
FURNITURE category, but also in the EQUIPMENT category (ibid.). It is
precisely because of these characteristics that prototype categories can not be
determined by a set of critical attributes.

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).

Regarding language representation, according to PT, the basic level of

categories is essential due to a number of factors. First of all, the categories of
 24

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).

2.3. Meaning in Language

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.

As Evans notes, the adequate description of meaning (not just language

meaning) is the Holy Grail for many sciences - linguistics, psychology,
philosophy, neurobiology, etc (Evans 2009). On the other hand, understanding
the role of words in constructing language meaning is controversial and
problematic for linguistics. Structuralism and generative linguistics ignore it,
while formal semantics, presented mostly in the works of Katz and Postal, does
not place it at the center of its research (Katz and Postal 1964, Katz 1966, in
Evans & Green 2006). However, componential analysis, developed in the works
of the abovementioned authors is a variation of Frege's logical elaborations, and
assumes that the meaning of speech is the consequence of adding or combining
smaller units of linguage meaning mediated by the grammatical configurations
in which they appear. In other words, the components of linguage meaning are
the meanings of the individual components and the grammatical rules to which
 25

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).

As Croft notes, the understanding of the language meaning of the utterance

precedes that of the individual word, its contribution being calculated on the
basis of the whole (Croft 1993). In other words, the meaning of the word is
highly dependent on the meaning of the context. This view is diametrically
opposed to the postulates of componential analysis.

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

2.4. Meaning and language use

In his Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (TLCCM), Evans

unambiguously emphasizes the role of the thesis of use as a criterion of meaning
in linguistics (Evans 2010). Its basic prerequisite is inextricably linked, and
arises from the use of language (Croft 2000, Langacker 1987, 2008, Tomaselo
2003). The “users” of language interpret it through the processes of abstraction
and schematization (Langacker 1987, 2008), pattern-recognition and the ability
to guess the intentions of the recipient in the communicative process (intention-
reading abilities, Tomaselo 2003, 2008), which are entrentched thought
processes consisting of a conventional combination of form and meaning.

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

2.5. Conceptual organization

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

The term conceptual domain is introduced by Langacker, which he considers to

be: "... cognitive integrity, mental experience, representative spaces, conceptual
constructs, or conceptual complexes ..." (Langacker 1987: 147). This definition
sounds very general, the very concept being understood differently from the
 28

researchers. Langacker proceeds from the presumption that meaning is

encyclopedic, and lexical concepts can not be understood without a wider
cognitive context. In his view, this structured context is the conceptual domain.
The set of domains forms its matrix (ibid.).

As an important element in his methodological and analytical apparatus,

Langaker (1987) puts the perspectivization - the relationship between the
conceptual profile and the domain. According to Croft and Cruz, the domain is a
complex conceptual structure that includes different profiles, but in itself
insufficient to define a linguistic concept. It is a semantic structure that functions
as a domain for at least one conceptual profile (Croft, Cruz 2004: 15). The
language unit profile is that part of its semantic structure on which the unit
focuses attention, and the aspect of its semantic structure, which is not the focus
of attention but is needed to understand the profile, is its domain (or base, in the
later versions of Langacker's theory of conceptual organization), that is, the unit
is organized around a profile and a conceptual domain (Evans, Green 2006: 166,
538). To a certain extent, this conceptual organization is reminiscent of the
figure and ground introduced by the gestalt psychology in Talmist linguistics, in
which all relations in language, both temporal and spatial, are expressed by
defining the position of an object-figure in relation to (an)other-object (s)
(Talmy 2000a).

In this way, Langacker complements Fillmore's Frame Theory, yet there is a

difference in understanding the conceptual concepts of both. Filmore only
allows the concepts to be structured through multiple frames (or domains), while
according to Langacker, plurality is typical of concepts. Radden and Dirven find
a difference between the frame as a specific structure of knowledge that
surrounds the categories on the one hand and the domain as a very general
conceptualisation area or a common field to which a given category or frame
belongs in a particular situation on the other (Radden, Dirven 2007: 11).
 29

2.5.3. Idealized Cognitve Models

Lakoff offers category structure of to be represented by Idealized Cognitive

Models (ICM), relying on the assumption that category properties are not
objective but interactive, ie, they represent that which can be interpreted
(Lakoff 1987). Thus our minds construct the categories as abstract concepts - the
essence of idealized generalizations of objects and phenomena in reality. They
include both the encyclopedic knowledge of people in a given domain and the
cultural models of which they are part. ICMs describe ways of organizing
knowledge through its idealized core by its decontextualized default
interpretation (Lakoff 1987: 68-74). ICM suggest the existence of a stereotyped
image that helps us organize human experience and knowledge of the world
around us.

ICMs really resemble Barsalou’s simulations (eg simulations - as a path to

abstraction against simulators = a concretely induced idea). ICMs, consisting of
several intersecting ICMs, collectively generate a cluster that is psychologically
more complex than individual models (Lakoff 1987: 74). Cluster ICMS
essentially resemble Langacker’s domain matrices.

2.5.4. Image Schemas

M. Johnson sets out some basic concepts explaining the mechanics of

embodiment through image schemas (Johnson 1987). Image schemas are
rudimentary concepts, such as CONTAINER, CONTACT, BALANCE, and are
basically preconceptual structures built up of sensory-motor stimuli since the
birth of man. Johnson lists several types of image schemas:
 30

TYPES OF IMAGE SCHEMA

Spatial motion group Force Group Balance Group Unspecified
 Containment  Compulsion  Axis Balance  Contact
 Path  Counterforce  Point Balance  Surface
 Source-Path-Goal  Diversion  Twin-Pan  Full-Empty
 Blockage  Removal of Balance  Merging
 Center-Periphery Restraint  Equilibrium  Matching
 Cycle  Enablement  Near-Far
 Cyclic Climax  Attraction  Mass-Count
 Link  Iteration
 Scale  Object
 Splitting
 Part-Whole
 Superimposition
 Process
 Collection
Fig.2: Image schemas according to Johnson (1987:126)

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).

2.5.5. Mental Spaces

Gilles Fauconnier sets out the principles of Mental Spaces Theory (MST) in
Mental Spaces (1985) and Mappings in Thought and Language (1997). The
 31

main tenet of Fauconnier’s theory is that meaning is not predetermined

knowledge encoded in language, but is a complex process going on a conceptual
level, and as Fauconnier points out, most of the processing is "hidden behind the
scenes" (Fauconnier, 1997). The structuring framework of conceptualization,
according to MST, are mental spaces which are contextually bound, dynamic
sense units. The theory was originally created as an attempt to address the
complex issues of indirect referencing and referential transparency. “Meaning”
according to MST "depends on our ability to distinguish the orbit of referential"
(Coulson, 2001: 25).

Fauconnier’s main assertion is that language does not conceptualize thought in

all its complexity, but rather "programs" simple instructions for expressing rich
and complex ideas. Thus, mental spaces are areas of conceptual space that
contain a specific type of information. They reflect the encyclopedic knowledge
of the world and are contextually and culturally oriented. Because they are
context-dependent, they create "temporary packages" of conceptualized
information specific to the particular discourse being made. For example, the
sentence: "I rolled the red carpet on his arrival." - suggests at least two
interpretations. This means that the language expression has a semantic potential
(meaning potential) that is realized according to the specific language situation.
According to Fauconnier, meaning comes from two operations: 1) building
mental spaces, 2) establishing mapping between them (Fauconnier 1997: 11).

As a natural continuation of MST, Fauconnier, along with Turner, develops

Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT), in which two or more mental spaces
integrate to obtain a blended space (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). In this
process at least four spaces are involved: at least two input spaces, structured by
information from individual conceptual domains that are matched by partial
spatial mapping, at least one generic space containing the common traits
between the input spaces and facilitating the establishment of matches between
 32

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

Chapter 3. Metaphor theories and their application in the field of anatomy

3.1. Metaphor theories

According to Steen, most metaphor theories have different criteria pertaining to

different areas of research. Still, Steen, as a linguist working in the field of
cognitive linguistics, limits his choice of theories to four basic approaches to
metaphor analysis as conceptual phenomenon (Steen, 2007):

a) Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) (Lakoff and

Johnson 1980, 1999a, Lakoff 1987, 1993, Johnson 1987); a two-domain
model;

b) Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT) or Blending Theory - a multi-

dimensional approach created by Fauconnier and Turner (Fauconnier and
Turner 1996, 1998, 1999, 2003, Turner and Fauonnier 1995, 1995);

c) Glucksberg’s Class-Inclusion Theory (Glucksberg 2001; Glucksberg,

Brown & McGlone 1993; Glucksberg & Keysar 1990, 1993; Glucksberg,
& McGlone 1999; Keysar & Glucksberg 1992; Keysar et al 2000);

d) Bowdle & Gentners’ Career of Metaphor Theory (Bowdle & Gentner

2005; Gentner and Bowdle 2001; Gentner, Bowdle et al 2001; Gentner &
Rattermann 1991, Gentner and Wolff 1997, Wolff and Gentner 2000 ).

As a philosopher of language, Elizabeth Camp, in her review of metaphor

theories is especially valuable as she does not pertain to any “camp” in metaphor
theory. Camp also oulines four different models of metaphor conceptions in
existing cognitive explanations about the nature of metaphor (Camp 2006):

a) metaphor as juxtaposition - Davidson (1978, in Camp 2006)

 34

b) metaphor as category-transfer, Glucksberg & Keysar (see above),

Lakoff and Johnson (see above)

c) Metaphor as feature-matching – Orthony (Orthony et al., 1978,

Orthony 1979, Orthony et al., 1985), Fauconnier and Turner (see above)

d) metaphor as structural alignment Black (1962), Gentner and Bowdle

(see above)

As it can be seen, this classification “collects” theories that are considered to be

different or shows that more than one mechanism can be combined in a single
theory. In our review, we will not consider Sperber and Wilsons’ Relevance
Theory since it does not consider metaphor as a conceptual phenomenon. For
relevance Theory proponents, metaphor is not a linguistic or conceptual
phenomenon deserving special attention (Sperber and Wilson 2004: 84).

3.2. Metaphor as juxtaposition

The theory of metaphor as juxtapostion is the simplest interpretive model,

according to which one object compares with another: for example, in the
sentence "Juliet is the sun", Juliet is compared to the Sun. In this way, new and
surprising features are found for the object / subject being compared. This
approach, though impressively minimalistic, according to Camp has a number of
drawbacks, the most important of which is that it is too "flexible", and the
association it generates may be idiosyncratic and irrelevant, i.e. its interpretation
does not refer to the thought of “Juliet as the Sun” (Camp 2006). On the other
hand, the theory of comparison is limited to effects generated by the existing
features of the source (in Camp’s terms) and the topic (ibid.), and can not
explain emerging concepts, therefore it does not say anything about metaphor's
informativity.
 35

3.3. Category-transfer models

Although they have been treated by many linguists as independent, even

opposing theories, both Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Glucksberg and
Keysars’ approach to metaphor as class-inclusion have a common trait - "our
notion of the target domain is fundamentally dependent on our idea of the
source domain "(Camp 2006: 162).

3.3.1. Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) rejects the assertion of so-called Metaphor

Substitution Theory, according to which metaphor replaces literal expression by
retaining its meaning. Instead, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that metaphors
('true metaphors') are not paraphrasable, although they play the same role as
literary expressions. In other words, metaphor is more the result of a special
process of construction in semantics. Also, CMT highlights metaphor
universality as an integral part of the thought process. Goldberg (1995: 214)
supports the view that basic thought processes such as motion, change of state,
causality, are largely a product of systemic metaphoricity. For Lakoff, the
concept of embodiment which in his view can be explained by another concept,
that of experientialism, is characterized by the idea that thought is based on
imagery, conceptualization is formed partly as a result of physical experience,
and categories and concepts are not merely symbols or manipulations but are
related to the interaction with the world around us. Conceptual metaphors,
according to him, are limited by cultural factors, and at the psychological level
thought is preconditioned by Rosch's basic concepts. CMT most important trait
is the idea that we understand the unfamiliar (or abstract) through something
familiar (specifically, resulting from our experience). The characteristics of
metaphorical projection include mapping – a projection of a conceptual
 36

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:

A. We did not get anywhere in trying to convince him.

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:

1. We deviated from the main purpose of the conversation.

2. The argument was moving in a vicious circle.

It should be borne in mind, however, that in conventional metaphors, this

potential is lost due to the fact that they are not realized as such.

Another important idea in CMT is “highlighting / hiding”. Simply put, these

traits are always manifested in the source domain, as it is always richer in
 37

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.

3.3.1.1. Primary Metaphor Theory

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

foreground backgrounded thinking operations. Thus, the source concepts have

image content, and the target concepts response content.

3.3.2. Class-Inclusion Theory

Sam Glucksberg, Professor of Psychology in Princeton, propounds the Class-

inclusion theory, throwing the gauntlet to CMT in terms of metaphorical
analysis. Glucksberg prefers a model based on conceptual categories rather than
entire domains. The mechanism of metaphorical projection is formed not by
mappings from a source domain into a target domain but instead the source
category attributes its properties to the target category, the result being class
inclusion. In other words, in the famous example given by Glucksberg and
McGlown (1999), "My job is a prison," the categorical term "prison" depends on
a taxonomically higher category, “a place, which makes a person feel confined”',
etc. Accordingly, the target concept,' work ', inherits the features of the higher
category. Glucksberg argues that:

• Regardless of the generality and stability of categorial concepts, when

their use becomes conventional, they lose their metaphorical character;

• Class-Inclusion Theory (CIT) does not imply the existence of conceptual

metaphors but of ad hoc metaphorisation. In fact, according to
Glucksberg, conventional metaphor simply activates a category through a
more advanced concept that covers the metaphorical content that has
become a separate component in it, and which is derived from memory
rather than conceived as a new concept. (Glucksberg 2001).

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

3.4. Feature-matching model

The feature-matching model relies on a direct comparison of the source and

target, and as a result explains why the source may have different effects when
applied to different domains (Orthony 1979). Also called the theory metaphor as
implicit comparison, the approach uses Tversky' salience-based theory of
similiarity (in Glucksberg and Keysar 1990: 3-18). According to this theory,
what distinguishes figurative meaning from the literal one is that in the former,
unlike the latter, the source has distinguished features that are absent in the
target - this imbalance explains the one-sidedness of the projection- so we can
think of “a sermon” as a "sleeping pill" but not of the “sleeping pill as a sermon”
(in Camp 2006: 162)

However, this theory faces three difficult obstacles to overcome in metaphor

analysis. First, it compares the traits of the source and target and can not explain
the holistic effects associated with metaphor. Thus, if metaphor is interpreted as
a comparison in which certain traits are matched, then its dual reference can not
be explained - in the sentence “This boy is a time bomb” (“a time bomb” refers
directly to the referent and indirectly to the characteristics of the bomb - the fact
that it is deadly, etc.) (Glucksberg and Keysar 1990: 11). Secondly, as existing
features are compared, this approach can hardly explain metaphor's
inShapetivity. Thus, what remains unexplained is why many prominent traits in
the source are unused in the target and the question arises as to how to select
which features to fit and which ones not. And thirdly, many features that
metaphors make us see in the target do not have relevant features in the source:
for example, in Romeo's remark, the metaphor is largely directed at Juliet's
beauty, but "the sun is not beautiful in itself" ( Camp 2006: 164).
 41

3.4.1. Metaphor in Blending Theory

Metaphor in Blending Theory also relies on feature-matching, though the

approach is much more complex than Orthony's theory. Of particular importance
are the criteria for the formation of the metaphorical blended space where
metaphoricity can be distinguished. What makes a blend metaphorical is that
the elements of the inputs "merge" into the blended space. For example, in the
conceptual metaphor NATION AS SHIP (Fauconnier and Turner 2002), the
element “ship” in the blended space corresponds to the elements 'ship' and
'nation' in the respective input spaces. The distinctive feature of the metaphorical
representation is that one component of an element identifies itself with another.
Unlike metaphoric blends in other forms of conceptual integration, the elements
of the respective inputs retain their identity in the blend. Fauconnier and Turner
(1998, 2002) give an example of the hypothetical situation of a contemporary
philosopher's debate with Kant about the nature of reason. In the blended space
of this integration network, both the philosophers retain their identity, and the
blend is not 'perceived' as metaphorical, although other elements are fused, such
as time, space, and language of communication. Metaphoric representation has a
very important characteristic - it suppresses certain important features of the
input domain, which are not projected into the blend, and it in turn also does not
allow important features to be projected back. This asymmetric projection is an
important feature of the organizing frame of the blend - for example, in the
NATION AS SHIP metaphor, many important features of “nation” are
suppressed to represent it through a 'ship'. Thus it can be argued that
metaphoricity is also a matter of some incompatibility, as philosophers such as
Searle, Davidson and Grice (Evans and Green 2006) assert. Keysar disputes this
claim by giving the example: "He is a sorcerer" (Keyser 1989: 375-385). This
sentence can be interpreted both metaphorically, e.g. “He is an extremely skilled
accountant”, and literally, although the second interpretation is less likely. This
 42

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.

3.5. Metaphor as structural alignment

3.5.1. Metaphor as interaction

The theory of interaction is based on the criterion of the sign-referent

relationship (cf. Theory of Reference) and is set forth by Max Black (Black
1962). An interesting feature in this theory is that metaphor is considered in its
dynamic aspect. Black introduces the notions of a primary subject and a
secondary subject to determine the mechanism of metaphorisation. According to
 43

Black, metaphor is a two-tier linguistic phenomenon, namely in its application

to both subjects at the same time, "the properties of the subject in speech are
viewed through the properties of the subject which designates it" (Popova, 2012:
351). Thus, metaphor has an organizing role on the characteristics of the
principal subject; the property that is applicable to the secondary subject and is
brought to the fore.

3.5.2. Career of Metaphor Theory

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”).

Regarding linguistic representation, metaphor is characterized by:

 in “novel” metaphor - with semantic monoreferentiality versus dual

reference (to the two compared things) - eg. in the sentence: "Ivan is a
pig."
 In “conventional” - with semantic monoreferentiality versus single
reference (to the superordinate category). For terms, e.g. eyeball, although
in the nominative process there is metaphor involved, with the
entrenchment of the term, it is perceived as a separate lexical concept that
is not metaphorical.

The theory of Gentner and colleagues is discursively oriented and also

experimentally supported (Giora 2003). It is, of course, not without flaws, such
as the fact that metaphors can attribute specific experiential properties to the
target domains that are not direct mappings from the source domains, nor to the
'core' mappings in which one or two adjustments are established - for example,
if someone describes the taste of wine as a 'soft velvet', the feature described is a
feature that the material itself does not possess. Such traits can be obtained by
merging multiple sources domains (cf. Fauconnier and Turner 2002) or they
may occur in the interaction of the source domain and the target domain.

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

Chapter 4. The Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models

4.1. Steen and metaphor stidues

In his analysis of metaphoricity, Steen (2007: 13) examines the problem of

literal and figurative meaning by studying the relationship between three
conceptual pairs: language and usage, language and thought, and sign and
behavior. According to him, many cognitive linguists "blur" the boundary
between the conceptual, the linguistic, and the psychological aspects of the
problem. This, he writes, is the case with Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)
and Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT).

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.

In addition, Steen develops the concept of so-called deliberate metaphor,

according to which the conceptual power of metaphor can be hidden, not as
CMT claims in its “unconscious”, but in its “more limited and deliberate use”,
which may give rise to “conscious metaphorical cognition”. Given the relatively
rare use of deliberate metaphor, according to Steen, it can mean that the “online”
effect of metaphor use may have a much smaller role than that claimed by CMT
(Steen 2014: 179- 198).
 47

“A metaphor is used deliberately when it is expressly meant to change the

addressee’s perspective on the referent or topic that is the target of the metaphor,
by making the addressee look at it from a different conceptual domain or space,
which functions as a conceptual source.” (Steen 2008: 222)

When naming anatomical terms, it is precisely deliberate metaphors which come

centerstage as the naming process is not spontaneous. Stein goes so far as to say
that "metaphor in language can have nothing to do with conceptual metaphor"
(2007: 37) and gives examples of computer terms such as: file, cut, paste, icon,
highlight, memory, scroll bar / box, window , download.

Steen as a linguist and Camp as a philosopher of language emphasize the fact

that the mechanism (or mechanisms) of understanding metaphor is something
quite independent of the meaning of metaphor. The meaning can only be
described post factum after describing the psychological and cognitive effects of
metaphor, that is to say, its underlying concept. Camp herself is most excited
about how metaphor achieves inShapetivity if we know all about the source and
target in advance. Her opinion, much in line with Steen’s, is that “novel”
metaphors mechanisms of metaphorisation most likely differ significantly from
those of conventional metaphors.

Identifying areas of research is a major problem in any scientific development

on metaphor in a cognitive aspect. According to Steen (2007: 21), this is
because there is some discrepancy between the ways of collecting information
and the corresponding analysis. In his view, there is a methodological and
phenomenological pluralism, i.e analysis through linguistic, conceptual or
psychological / behavioral prism without adequate data differentiation (Steen
2007: 6).

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):

“Gentner and Bowdle assert that many conventional metaphors

are processed not by comparison but by categorization, along
comparable lines as the ones suggested by Glucksberg, in which
addressees activate a conventional superordinate conceptual
category that encompasses the source and the target of a
metaphor, or they even directly activate the conventional target
category of the metaphorically used vocabulary in question.”

(Steen 2008: 216)

Unfortunately, science is far from creating a theory of the relationship between

neurological cognitive processes and the linguistic status of metaphor (Camp
2006: 161, Gibbs 2013: 30-32). That is why it is necessary not to mix the tasks a
researcher sets. Since term formation is a linguistic problem, it makes sense to
narrow the research down in focused linguistic approaches to the role of
metaphor in this work. This is how Steen presents the attitude of three theories
to the languistic (in Steen’s terms – “grammatical”) aspect of the problem.

Steеn is one of the few authors to mention grammatical metaphor ас defined in

Michael Haliday's systemic-functional grammar. An example of a grammatical
metaphor is nominalisation. Understanding in such a “displacement” of the
usual object-to-noun or action / process-verb correspondences does not seem to
require a special mechanism. Yet in some languages it is less common: e.g. “I
gave a signal” (instead of “I signaled”), but *I did a try (I gave it a try). The
realization of such a displacement refers to the relative autonomy of semantics
from the lexicogrammar.
 49

Conceptual Class-Inclusion Career of metaphor

metaphor Theory Theory
theory
When does a If it expresses a Deny that most Expression of
conventionalized mapping conventional superordinate
linguistic between metaphor is still re-categorization
form-meaning two domains. metaphorical. by polysemous
pairing count as item which results
metaphorical? from nonliteral
comparison in a
previous stage.
When does a If there is a Reject CMT as Superordinate
conceptual structure mapping incoherent; re-categorization
related to a between agnostic. which results from
conventionalized two domains. comparison in
linguistic form count previous stage.
as metaphorical?
When does the If it involves Agnostic (for Possible, and met
storing, acquisition or the much language if it involves the
even loss of a expression of a gets learned expression of a
conventionalized mapping directly). mapping between
linguistic between two domains.
form-meaning two domains.
pairing count as
metaphorical?
 50

When does the If it involves a Reject CMT as Controversial, but

storing, acquisition, mapping incoherent; met if it involves a
or even loss of a between agnostic. mapping between
conceptual structure two domains. two domains.
related to a
conventionalized
linguistic form count
as metaphorical?
Table 3: Criteria for metaphor in grammar in three schools of metaphor
research. Steen (2007:81)

The question is relevant to our research in the case of phraseological terms - at

the lexico-grammatical level, the relationship is between head and modifier, but
at semantic level the relationship between the head’s referent and the adjective is
varied. For example, in Adam's apple, there is the so-called rich frame, which
focuses on the cultural aspects of a framework often considered non-literal as
there is no referent (Dancygier and Sweetser 2014:157). According to the last
two authors, suchphrasal units include highlighting and selective projection,
which are necessary, but not sufficient for figurative meaning to emerge. Similar
is the case with sartorius (muscle), a term that, although not an eponym, is also
a 'rich frame' (a muscle particularly developed in tailors because of the frequent
movements they make with that part of body) and which can be said to be a
manifestation of metonymy.

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

4.2. The Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models

In view of the specificity of the collected corpus of anatomical terms, the

combined approach of the British linguist Vyvyan Evans has proven best suited
for analysis. After thoroughly comparing these basic theories (mainly vaious
versons of CMT and CIT) and weighing up their strengths and weaknesses, he
developed an approach which he calls Theory of Lexical Concepts and
Cognitive Models. It is immediately clear that TLCCM imparts equal weight in
its explanation of figurative language on both the conceptual and linguistic
structures. Another advantage of Evans' theory is that it is up to date, and in
accordance with the latest data from specific corpus studies (this, incidentally,
applies to Steen and his collaborators).

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:

• To index or designate mental simulations: reactivation of body-based

states

• To provide a level of schematic (parametric) concepts

• Parametric concepts guide the 'parceling' (“focal adjustment” in

Langacker’s terminology) of the analog (perceptual) concepts in the
construction of simulations

According to Evans, in terms of thinking, concepts are analogous (scalar, rich,

with fuzzy boundaries), while they are parametric in language use (based on
choice according to a limited number of features):
 52

Parametric concepts Analog concepts

Specific to language Specific to the conceptual system
Parametric (abstracted from embodied Analog (albeit attenuated)
states, filtering out all points of representations of body-based states
difference to leave highly schematic
properties or parameters)
Underpinnings for all linguistic units Arise directly from perceptual
(where a linguistic unit is a form or (conscious) experience and reside in
parametric content unit of any the same neural system(s) as body-
complexity based states
Reactivated or simulated (by
language, imagination, etc.) and can
be combined to form complex and
novel simulations.
Table 4: Parametric versus analog concepts ( in Evans 2015:274)

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:

1. Treat redness with Clinique urgent relief cream.

2. Treat red skin with Clinique urgent relief cream.

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.

Generally speaking, Evans presents the lexical representation of a language unit

in the following way: in TLCCM semantic structure is determined by the lexical
concept, which is a component of the linguistic knowledge, representing the
semantic pole of the symbolic unit (Langacker 1987) encoding various types of
schematic languistic content (Evans 2006, 2009a, 2009b, 2015). The latter, in
turn, includes information on selection tendencies associated with a particular
lexical concept.
 54

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.

The main concepts used in TLCCM are:

• Cognitive model - Evans defines cognitive models as "a coherent body

of multimodal knowledge grounded in the brain’s modal systems, and
derives from the full range of experience types processed by the brain,
including sensorimotor experience, proprioception, and subjective
experience, including affect." (Evans 2009b: 613 ).

• Cognitive profile - under cognitive models profile, we will understand

the range of cognitive models to which a certain lexical concept facilitates
direct access, as well as the range of additional cognitive models to which
it provides indirect access (cf. Langacker’s Domain Matrix 1991, 2008).

• Lexical (parametric) concept - a component of language knowledge

encoding different types of schematic language content combined with the
phonological form in the symbolic unit (Evans 2006, 2009a, 2009b).

• Semantic affodancies – in Ruggeri and Di Caro definition semantic

affordances are: “combinations of objects properties that are involved in
specific actions and that help the comprehension of the whole scene being
described (Ruggeri & Di Caro 2013:1). In the TLCCM framework,
semantic affordances are the units of knowledge involved in the cognitive
models profile. For example, from the cognitive model of the lexical
concept [VLAGAM/put in], we can conclude that something (object)
 55

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.

Conceptual System Langauge System

Primary cognitve model
Symbolic unit

Lexical concept

Secondary cognitve model

Phonological gorm

Secondary cognitve model

Figure 3. Evans’ model (adapted from Evans 2010: 604); the bracket
encompasses the cognitive profile

Although Evans does not offer detailed visual representations, it is particularly

useful to emphasize the advantage of this model in the following: the
relationship between the primary cognitive model and secondary cognitive
models goes through the lexical concept. If this were not the case, it would not
be possible to form calques (see below).

Conception in Evans in partially motivated by the observation that word

meaning varies according to the different uses, on account of its “Proteus”
character. At the core of this process are two of the compositional mechanisms
integrating information with language and conceptual content derived from the
context. They facilitate the integration of words and other grammatical
 56

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:

1. The cup is on the table.

2. Ivan is at school.

3. There is one apple per person.

A different lexical concept is selected for each of the above examples.

The lexical concepts are [POSITION] for example 1; [ACTIVITY /

LOCATION] for example 2 and [DISTRIBUTION] for example 3.

The lexical conceptual selection is limited by a number of factors designed to

identify the most appropriate lexical concept of meaning. Once chosen, this
concept should be integrated with other language concepts in the speech act and
then interpreted in the light of the conceptual structure to which it provides
access. This process constitutes the second mechanism of semantic composition,
the so-called fusion - consisting in turn of two processes – lexical conceptual
integration and interpretation. The first involves the integration of lexical
concepts into a composite unit called lexical conceptual unit (LCU). The result
of this process is the semantic value of LCU. Thus the LCU semantic
'contribution' is very schematic.

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).

Lexical Concept Selection

Fusion

Lexical concept integration Interpretation

Figure 4. Semantic composition in TLCCM

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.

For example: according to part of the dictionary definition, “shlem” (en -

“helmet') – a term in anatomical nomenclature, has the following meanings
(Bulgarski Tylkoven Rechnik - Bulgarian Dictionary of Word Meanings 2012):
 59

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“)

Chronologically, the meaning of “metal hat” is the earliest denotation of the

word, synchronically speaking, though, we can differentiate the primary
cognitive pattern “protect the head from a weapon” that connects in a bundle the
features SHAPE and MATERIAL of the following possible secondary cognitive
patterns:

a) protects the head

b) has an appropriate shape

Changing semantically, the development of a primary to secondary cognitive

models is usually associated with a widening of meaning. For example, the
primary model first falls out of "weapon" (A), then may be "head" and the
remainder may only be "protects". This reflects the bundle of features - the
"astronaut" or "motorcycle helmet" does not protect against weapons and
therefore may not be metallic. These are the semantic affordances of the lexical
concept. Further, the thing that is protected may not be the head, and then the
feature Shape remains flexible. Shape may in turn be a stable feature in another
secondary cognitive model B (part of a plant).
 60

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LANGUAGE SYSTEM

SECONDARY COGNITIVE MODEL

protects (the head) from

SYMBOLIC UNIT

SECONDARY COGNITIVE MODEL

has an appropirate shape

Lexical concept Phonological form

PRIMARY COGNITIVE MODEL

Metallic hat

Figure 5: Lexical representation. Relationship between the lexical concept and

the cognitive model of the word “shlem” (en-“helmet”) (on Evans 2015: 278).

Semantic change may also be a narrowing of meaning - in the case of the

anatomical term suhojilen shlem the metaphorical meaning "skull covering".
Here we can see a change of material and function, but preservation of the
affordance “head” and hence the feature Shape.

Such a reconfiguration of cognitive models in the cognitive profile is not

smooth. Instead of sequentially following one or the other major semantic
affordances, it jumps between the two (respectively the definition that metaphor
structures the target through the structure of the source, both belonging to
different domains - in Evans’ model: cognitive models, elsewhere “theories”).
 61

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":

Function: "protects the head from X", Shape: "rounded, spherical"

including other features coming from other cognitive motives not part of
shlem cognitive models.

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.

4.3. Figurative meaning in TLCCM

According to Evans (2009), three are the factors, responsible for the creation of
figurative meaning:
 62

 levels of knowledge representation

 salience
 relative complexity

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:

Ex: John is a pig.

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

not be understood at all. In the case of the above-mentioned idiom, a process of

smoothing the inconsistency does not occur because the idiom is treated as a
single lexical concept (formula).

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:

1. Its eyes are sunshine.

2. Her hands are sunshine.

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.

4. Her hair is a waterfall.

 64

In sentence 3, the mapping scope is largely reduced to one characteristic -

'impurity', while in sentence 4, the figurative meaning is rich, as the terms
[HAIR] and [WATERFALL] are difficult to match and include many features to
be matched, i. e. the access route from primary to secondary cognitive models is
longer.

4.4. Shell nouns

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:

Example: The government's goal is to reduce taxes.

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.

The understanding of shell units in the current analysis of anatomical terms is

more liberal than that of Schmidt’s. First, on the grounds that the unspecified
noun “thing” (in Bulgarian – “neshto”) is mentioned in this group of shells - we
 65

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.

In (1) “solid” actually characterizes “brotherhood’ TARGET IS A SOLID

ROCK, but syntactically the target characterizes the source, and this
determination gives the construction a referential character. Dancygier and
Sweetser rightly consider the “source in target” construction metaphors of the
target. At (2) the bridge of the nose is not the same, perhaps because both the
target and the source are specific nouns. Cf. different relationships: here *
TARGET IS NOSE is not possible, the relationship is locative (expressed by
possessivity): “the nose has a bridge”. There is referentiallity, but the lexeme
 67

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

Chapter 5. BUILDING THE CORPUS

5.1. Theoretical underpinnings

Our research is conditioned by the very topic on anatomical terms. Regarding

the excerpted sources, we were guided by pragmatic considerations related to
the applied nature of the study. The search for metaphors was based on language
analysis, ie. the point of view of the linguist is of paramount importance, not that
of the terminologist. This means that we have applied a linguistic analysis by
means of references to everyday use dictionaries, thesaurus dictioaries, etc. The
guiding principle in building the corpus was to distinguish metaphors from non
metaphors based on the accepted theoretical model - to determine what would be
considered figurative and what literal meaning. In connection with our perceived
understanding of the latter two meanings, we again want to confirm that the
nature of this study is to establish the role of metaphor in its nominative function
in anatomy, not to look for its contextual manifestations. The aim is to form a
corpus that would completely exhaust all kinds of metaphors, which raises the
question of data representativeness.

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

metaphorization of units from everyday vocabulary. In fact, the very building of

the corpus meant that a process of metaphor identification should be carried out.
That is why, it was necessary to make a number of decisions, which often
diverged from that made by other authors with similar research tasks.

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

compounds) based on the notion of transparency, i.e. what linguists and

terminologists consider to be explicit (synchronous) motivation at the expense of
opaque terms (eg Latin borrowings) (see Appendices).

The study is empirical, mostly qualitative, corpus-based as it does not include

language use parameters. Working with a terminological corpus when analyzing
metaphors has the advantage of not relying on fictional examples (introspection
on Steen 2007: 113), but allows the other two ways to confirm the inductively
shaping theses, namely, observation and manipulation (ibid.). This is a
comparison with examples outside the corpus or techniques to verify the status
of a structure by transformation or substitution. Observing (using dictionaries) is
the preferred procedure for dealing with conventional metaphors, as are terms
(ibid., p. 160).

In order to present a balanced picture of the distribution of metaphors in the

language of anatomy, we endeavored to include terms evenly from all seven
anatomical parts according to their number in those subdisciplines. On the plane
of linguistics, we included representatives of all word-forming ways - words-
terms, compound-terms of two, three, four or more components. Representatives
of the lexico-morphological, lexico-semantic and lexico-syntactic ways of word
formation were investigated.

Each corpus of anatomical terms is inextricably linked to Latin names. They

serve as a model and are a benchmark of every national anatomical science. The
role of Latin terminology as a reference is mainly to establish a number of
correlations between the external formal structure of the Latin and Bulgarian,
Latin and English terms both at word level and at the level of word combination,
the so called calquing. Whether calques should be considered metaphors was
one of the issues to be solved. One of the examples is the commonly used
anatomical term klon (en – branch), lat. ramus. We assume that the lexical
 71

concept [RAMUS] is replicated by [KLON] and [BRANCH] together with the

cognitive model profile without internal development in Bulgarian and English.

We cannot speak of "translation" of terms as a dynamic process, but of

historically established equivalents of the common denominator - the Latin
terms. The Bulgarian and English equivalents differ considerably in their nature
in connection with the much wider use of synonyms in the Bulgarian language.
Popova views the question of obvious (synchronous) and hidden (diachronic)
motivation in favor of the former, saying that the diachronic aspect is not so
important in modern terminology. She supports her opinion from the position of
traditional terminology schools (Popova 1990, 1999, 2012). It is interesting,
however, that if the calque does co-exist with the borrowing, as in Keith's node
and Keith's bundle, conditions are created to preserve / revive the metaphor.

5.2. Word formation

In semasiological sense, anatomical nomenclature is based mainly on two basic

ways of word formation - specialization and metaphorization. In specialization,
common words begin to be used in a special context, maintaining the
relationship to their denotations (Danilenko 1977: 25, in Popova 2012). The
same denotational correlation is established of the commonly used vocabulary
and the derived terminological vocabulary and the qualitative semantic
opposition(tension) is neutralized, defined as two meanings of the word -
general and terminological (Pernishka 1993: 293). The newly-formed term
comes to life in its own right, distancing itself from the polysemy of the
commonly used word from which it originates. The common word or base the
term comes from can become obsolete or vanish entirely. A specific trait of a
term in comparison with the word from which it originates is that the former
gradually loses its dependence on context, terms even dictate the types of
possible contexts themselves. For example we can allude to the term klepach (en
 72

–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

metaphors in anatomy with exponents in both languages could eventually be

formulated.
Consciously formed terms in both languages are borrowings (adapted Latin
language material - mostly at the phonetic and lexico-morphological level, and
in English at lexico-syntactic level) or calques (semantic borrowings, meanings
expressed by own means, mostly free translations):

Some borrowings in Bulgarian

симфиза (simfiza) symphysis

гомфоза (gomfoza) gomphosis
мениск (menisk) meniscus
бурза (burza) bursa
нефрон (nefron) nephronum
тибия (tibia) tibia
аорта (aorta) aorta
базион (bazion) basion
епител (epitel) epithelium

Some borrowings in English

vestibule of mouth vestibulum oris

interlobular duct ductus intralobularis
olivocochlear tract tractus olivocochlearis
Lacrimal caruncle Carunculus lacrimalis
Concha of auricle Concha auruculae
Corneoscleral part Pars corneoscleralis
Saccule Sacculus (laryngis)
Tympanic incisure Incisura tympanica
Papillary sulcus Sulcus papillae
Tubercle Tuberculus
Renal corpuscle Corpusculum renales
Gingival margin Margo gingivalis
Cardiac impression Impressio cardiaca

Calques in Bulgarian

Небце (nebtse) Palatum

 74

Горно коремче (gorno koremche) Venter superior

Дълбока глава (dylboka glava) Caput profundis
Дясно краче (dyasno krache) Crus dextrum
Листо на червея (listo na cherveya) Folium vermis
Мазолесто тяло (mazolesto tyalo) Corpus callosum
Маслина (maslina) Oliva
Птича шпора (pticha shpora) Calcar avis
Гръб на езика (gryb na ezika) Dorsum linguae
Петльов гребен (petlyov greben) Crista gali

Calques in English

(triangular) fold plica triangularis

end piece portio terminalis
body of tongue corpus linguae
vault (of pharynx) fornix pharynges
(anterior) branch ramus anterior
(spinous) layer stratum spinosum
(ulnar) notch incisura ulnaris
floating ribs costae fluctuantes
neck of tooth cervix dentis
tree of life arbor vitae
cell basket neuronum corbiferum

In addition, it can be argued that in English the use of a large number of

anatomical terms is actually a case of code switching - the terms are used,
formed entirely according to the Latin phonetics and grammar - frenulum,
cingulum, cementum, dorsum sellae. Cf. the Bulgarian versions: snopche /lat.
fasciculus/ en - fasciculus; tsvetche /lat. flocculus/en - flocculus.The reasons for
this situation are historical.
Latin terms in the English discourse of anatomy (it is not taken into account the
fact that native speakers of English, anglisize the pronunciation of Latin words
in general):

philtrum philtrum
fovea fovea
cornea cornea
cilium cilium
retina retina
lens lens
 75

modiolus modiolus
phalanges phalanges
crista gali crista gali

A significant number of phraseological terms are of a mixed type, namely when

the head of the word is of Latin origin, and the modifier is adapted, cf :

lat. stroma iridis En -stroma of iris

lat. margo pupillaris En -pupillary border/margin of iris

There is not necessarily a coincidence between borrowed and calqued terms in

both languages. Cf.:

Fissure – tsepka ( en –slit), yama (en – pit), porta (en – gate)

Spine – bodilo (en – spike, spit), shipche (en –prong, stake)

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:

tyalo (en- body) is tyalo (en- body)

source domain target domain
When analyzing the linguistic representation of the metaphor, the question of
polysemy is central. It is related to the degree of metaphor conventionality.
Shapelly, the difference between teltse and hylmche, a vyzelche, could be
 77

described with different succession in word formation, but with a different

source content:

teltse2: [[tyalo (generalised)] small] > teltse2

hylmche2: hylm1 (specific) > (metaphoric extension) > [[hylm2] small] >
hylmche2

but:
vyzelche2: vyzel1 (specific) > (metaphoric extension) > [vyzel2±small]1

The diminutiveness has an onomasiological function in teltse (from the sense

‘something small” to a new word), whereas in vyzelche and hylmche, the acts of
metaphorical expansion and diminutiveness are semasiological (from primary to
new meaning). The difference between vyzelche and hylmche is that anatomical
terminology uses both vyzel and vyzelche, but only hylmche. In terms such as
Venerin hylm (en –pubic triangle) and styklovidno tyalo (en - vitreous body) as
synaptic structures, the heads are not individual words, but only function with
their definitions (see the treatment of such cases below). In other words, it can
be argued that a teltse2, hylmche2, a vyzelche2 are not cases of polysemy, but of
word formation when firmly attached to the specialized context of the human
body. In the Evans’ model, this would be expressed with a primary cognitive
model ANATOMIC OBJECT in the conceptual system, while vyzelche1 and
hylmche1 have their primary cognitive models, respectively, SOMETHING
BOUND and GEOGRAPHICAL ELEVATION. Word formation in teltse can be
explained without metaphorical mapping, while in hylmche the diminutive form
is word formative since the lexeme can be referred metaphorically to a small
object. It can be seen that in spite of the conventionality of terms, in cases such

1
Legend: vyzel (en- knot, node), vyzelche – diminituve of vyzel
Teltse – dminutive of tyalo (en –body)
Hylmche – diminutive of hylm ( en – hill)
 78

as vyzelche2 and hylmche2, metaphor can be revived by using vyzelche1 and

hylmche1 and thus supporting its cognitive meaning.
It is known that not only terms but all language units are used either holistically
as ready formulas or analytically as a product of composition (Ray 2002, Ray &
Grace 2007). It is this psychological phenomenon that allows the revival of
metaphors, idioms, and proverbs. An iIllustration of the possibility of reviving is
the term canine teeth (outside the meaning of "affiliation"):
1. This dog tooth is feline, not human.
2. These canine teeth are not canine.
The meaningfulness of such statements proves that a canine tooth is an
indivisible unit (synaptic structure, cf. canine), and the adjective does not only
participate with the meaining “doglike”, although, in the nominative process, the
similarity in shape served as a semantic motivation. It has also acquired
qualitative meaning thanks to its sustainable connection to the denotation. That
is why, the example: “Your canines are downright elephantine” is an utterly
acceptable statement.
In this context, the adjectival metaphorisation inside synaptic structure is
revived reversively with the meaning “of a dog”.
It is normal in words and phrases that the composition / boundary between
constituents is completely lost - this is an empirical fact of the historical
development of language. For example, the English anatomical terms when
borrowed often lose their compositionality with regard to the Latin diminutive
suffix:

vesicle vesicula (от vessica ‘bladder‘)

lacrimal caruncle carunculus lacrimalis (caruncus
‘little piece of meat’)

lenticular process processus lenticularis

 79

The English term lenticular is indecomposable before – “ar”. In the following

example, the Latin word-formative morpheme and the head of the past participle
is unrecognizable in English: piriform aperture apertura piriformis (от
apertus, past participle of aperire ‘to open’).
The conclusion we can draw from these examples is that even if they contain
some imagery etymologically, these terms are not the result of a metaphorical
nomination in the languages in question. There are cases when the diminutive
features" appears not in the same lexeme as in the Latin prototype.For example
in the term korenchevi vryzchitsi (Latin - fila radicularia , English- nerve
rootlets), - the term is reinterpreted by the nominator. - This is an example of
identical analog (conceptual system) but different Bulgarian and English
parametric concepts (linguistic system).

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

interprets these combinations by stating that there is interaction between frame-

structured spaces and inter-spatial mappings in the active areas. The noun or the
context calls up a scenario, and the listener understands it via the context. Some
adjectives (such as those not related to physical aspects) are related to frames of
epistemic structures and epistemic behavior (Sweetser 1999: 147-149).
With regard to adjectives, the Corpus selection was also carried out in several
stages. Initially, all borrowings, including derivative complex adjectives such as
ileo-cecal, tibio-peroneal, etc., were eliminated at the primary selection stage by
the transparency / opacity criterion. Also, complex compound adjectives with
non-metaphoric heads were also reduced: gastrointestinal and others.
Adjectives formed by Bulgarian productive heads – “viden”,
“obrazen”:vretenoviden (en –spindle-shaped), cherveobrazen (en – wormlike),
were also eliminated because they are explicit similes rather than metaphors. In
English, their equivalents (much less because of direct borrowing) are -shaped, -
form, - oid: spindle-shaped, wing-shaped, piriform, deltoid, vermiform.
Further, adjectives indicating the location of objects in space or belonging to
another larger anatomical object were also excluded – for example, in relation
to PART-WHOLE:
 Here, we can attribute adjectives where there is a nomination on the basis
of adjacency: sternalan stavna povyrhnost/ sternal articular surface (the
sternum joint); duodenalna vtisnatost /duodenal impression (imprint on
the liver of the upper duodenal duct); syrdechna vtisnatost / cardiac
impression (cardiac imprint on a neighboring organ). The logical basis for
nomination in this group is the intersection between implied, real
"adjacent" concepts belonging to one area, therefore we can say that it is a
case of metonymy.
 Location of objects relative to each other: subcutaneous muscle of the
neck, subcutaneous infrapatellar bursa;
 81

 Location of objects within each other (exocentric adjectives) -

intrajugular process, ovarian medulla;
 Position of anatomical object in the body: chelen polyus, chelen ryb,
chelno koremche. (The English equivalents of these terms indicate
orientation, but do not indicate position: frontal pole, frontal border,
frontal belly).
 Adjectives and participles indicating the position and direction of the
anatomical object: ascending anterior branch, posterior carpal arch.
Although not metaphorical, these terms build imagery in connection with
conceptual metaphor HUMAN BODY IS A MAP;
 Color of the anatomical object - lung, liver, gray matter, gray columns -
these are typical non-metaphoric words or synaptic units. Although there
is imagery, there is no metaphorical projection.
 Adjectives with a bundle of characteristics as nomination features -
Shape, Structure and others. (they can not precisely define the leading
feature, they are endocentric) - spongy body and others. Some of them are
non-metaphoric - for example: a spongy body. “Gybest” (en – spongy)
and “reshetychen” (en – lattice –like) are adjectives derived from nouns,
carrying over features based on external resemblance – there is imagery,
but no metaphor.
 Adjective indicating belonging of the anatomical object to another object
– relationship PART / WHOLE - vaginal wrinkles, insular lobe;
 Metonymic adjectives, included in the so-called " "Rich frames" -
surgical neck, Adam's apple, M.Sartorius, Atlantic part, emissary vein,
mitral valve sacrum, etc.
It should also be emphasized that not every imagery is metaphoric. When an
adjective explicitly conveys the meaning “similar to” through a word-Shapetive
suffix or head, it is not considered metaphorical.
 82

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.

English nouns: armpit, backbone, breastbone, eardrum, earlobe,

eyeball eyebrow, eyesocket, eyelash, eyelid, fingernail, fingertip,
gallbladder, gallstone, кneecap, thighbone, toenail, underarm,
windpipe.

5.5. Substantive phrases

Substantive phrases are compound terms created for the purposes of anatomy,
which presumably excludes them as metaphors. As mentioned above with a
reference to Sweetser and other authors, the "microcontext" defines the domain,
so the definition of a metaphor as structuring a notion from one domain by a
notion of another domain is not applicable – kolyano na litseviq nerv (en - genu
of the facial nerve) expresses explicitly that the genu ( Latin for “knee”) in this
case is not part of the leg. The individual components of the phrases (the heads)
may have been nominated by metaphorical or metonymic projection, but they
have been examined separately. The main types of phrases are two:
a) with the so-called in Bulgarian linguistics “nesyglasuvano opredelenie”
(en – predicative) in postposition, they express PART/WHOLE
relationships or an affiliation of one object to another. Most often they are
prepositional phrases, with the preposition “na” in Bulgarian, “of” in
English

…..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

regarded as metaphoric. However, we examined the synaptic structures in

anatomy using Evans’ approach (2009) to determine the presence of
metaphorical projection in some of its elements at the nomination stage.

It is obligatory to mention one more consideration in building the Corpus. We

have assumed above that the word-formative basis for teltse is a noun with a
generalized meaning and no metaphor is present. Such a solution fits the class-
inclusion understanding of metaphor at a conceptual level: “choveshko tyalo”
(en – “human body”), “tvyrdo tyalo” (en - “solid body”) and teltse belong to
the superordinate class “body” and is also related to the so-called deflationary
explanation of metaphor (Sperber and Wilson 2008), according to which there
is nothing special about creating metaphors, they are part of the natural creation
of ad hoc meanings, including generalized ones. However, this issue has not yet
been finally resolved. Moreover, the degree of generalization is specific to each
language, and it is quite possible that the more advanced process in Latin can
unlock such a process in the adoptive languages as diachronic, by nature,
sociolinguistic, lexical change. This observation supports Evans's insistence on
distinguishing a lexical concept from a psychological (cognitive) notion, as well
as Steen’s warning not to mix the levels of analysis (verbal and psychological /
behavioral). For this reason, we kept in the corpus the terms formed by
generalized nouns and compared them to the existing group of General
Anatomical Terms proposed by some authors.
 85

Chapter 6. GENERAL TERMS AND SHELL NOUNS IN ANATOMY

6.1. Shell nouns in Bulgarian anatomy

In the Bulgarian anatomical terminology there are about 190 general terms
(termini generales) that are head words in anatomical expressions and occur in
all parts of anatomy, e.g. terms such as: glava (en – head), greben (en – crest),
gynka (en –fold), klon (en – branch), list (en – leaf), plocha (en – plate), sloy (en
– layer), tyalo (en – body), etc. (Kancheva 2009, Kadanov, Balan, Stanishev
1964, 1:22). What is special about them is that with their help are formed the
names of organs in the different systems. They "mark” large branches in the
anatomical terminology system" and are expressions of terminological
multiplicity, and according to Kancheva have metaphoric motivation (Kancheva
2009: 85). Obtained through specialization of commonly used nouns, general
terms are a manifestation of re-terminologization through metaphorical
projection (ibid.). In our view, termini generales have lost their metaphorical
status (if they ever had one) and some of them serve as shell nouns in the sense
of Evans (2009). In this Chapter, we will analyze the extent of their
desemantization and resemantization in word combinations, as well as the most
important question - which ones can "awaken" the metaphor on the basis of
preserved features in the nomination and which are true shells - lacking
figurative meaning and their cognitive model profile differs from other profiles
of other terms in anatomy.
Shell identification is based on the above-mentioned characteristics - they are
not used with their first dictionary entry meaning. Figure 6 is an attempt to
visualize their cognitive profile in a way that reflects their specific role.
 86

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM LANGUAGE SYSTEM

COGNITVE HYPERMODEL
PROFILE

SYMBOLIC UNIT
Х+А

Х+B

Х+C Lexical concept Phonological Form

X

Х+D

Fig. 6: Scheme of epistemic representation of shell concepts

X in the generalized cognitive models is the constant feature which is combined

with features from context A, B, C, D, etc. The scheme can be related to the
“shellness” of nouns with a generalized semantics; it seems that the structure of
the hypermodel is actually the structure of the internal models, ie. the inherently
immutable features within them are 'tokens', and obviously in the hypermodel as
a whole, this feature is a schematic, abstracted “type.” So in shell nouns the
profile coincides with a “cognitive hypermodel” (by analogy with the lexical
relation hyponymy; it should be noted that the existence of hyponymy may be
problematic beyond taxonomies, while the “shellness” is not.) The proposal may
highlight, among other things, the question of using shell words in the
specialized language of anatomy - through this generalized level of epistemic
representation in the conceptual system (Evans 2010: 609).
 87

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:

Choice of lexemes (symbolic units) – prashka (“vid”, en –“type”) +

Integration – vryzka + Fusion

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” )

Prystenovidna vryzka na radiusa

Selection of lexemes (symbolic units) “prysten” “vid” (en-“type”)
(+integration) “vryzka” “radius “ (+integration)

FUSION
Prysten-о-vid–n-а + vryzka na + radiusa
Compound noun with connecting predicative + preposition + definiteness
vowle + suffix + female gender
 88

The image schemas of [VRYZKA], [PRYSTEN] ar present in the cognitive

model]; “vid” (en –“type”) is a shell noun filled with the content of “prysten”
(en- “ring” (not shown in the diagram); [RADIUS] is present as the ground in
the figure –ground relationship (Talmy 1972) and the whole is a concept.
The main word-Shapetive ways in shell words are the lexico-semantic and the
lexico-morphological ones (in Bulgarian): krache, yamka (en – opening, fovea,
fossa), hymche, mehurche (en –vesicle), etc. However, the terms that correspond
as word-forms to the above-mentioned general terms are not diminutives - for
example, the suffix – “che” in the term krache is homonymous and distinctive
rather than simply Shapetive. Therefore, krache can be defined “as a small part
of an anatomical leg-shaped organ”.

6.2. Shell nouns in English anatomy

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

Excerpted terms from the Corpus:

English terms Latin terms

1. Fascia, thin board, 1. Fascia

band
2. Flat band ( Taenia 2. Taenia thalami
thalami)
3. Ischiocapsular band 3. Ligamentum
 89

4. Ventricular (fold) ischiofemorale

band of larynx 4. Plica vestibularis

According to the dicitonary entry, “band” has the following meanings:

1. A thin strip of flexible material used to encircle and bind one object or
to hold a number of objects together: a metal band around the bale of
cotton.
2. A strip or stripe that contrasts with something else in color, texture, or
material.
3. A narrow strip of fabric used to trim, finish, or reinforce articles of
clothing.
4. Something that constrains or binds morally or legally: the bands of
marriage and family.
5. A simple ungrooved ring, especially a wedding ring.
6.
a. A neckband or collar.
b. bands The two strips hanging from the front of a collar as part of the
dress of certain clerics, scholars, and lawyers.
c. A high collar popular in the 16th and 17th centuries.
7.
a. Biology A chromatically, structurally, or functionally differentiated
strip or stripe in or on an organism.
b. Anatomy A cordlike tissue that connects or holds structures together.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/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

Terms excerped from the Corpus:

English terms Latin terms

1. Epiglotal taste buds 1. Gemma gustatoria

epiglottidis
2. Taste bud 2. Caliculus
gustatererius
3. Tooth bud 3. Gemma dentis

This term can be found in “Splanchnology” and “Senosory organs”:

 “Splanchnology“ –tooth bud, epiglotal taste buds
 “ Senosory organs“ –taste bud
The core meaning of bud is related to the semantic characteristic “something is
developing, growing”.
 91

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)

Shape is only implied in the lexical concept – it is undifferentiated – “swelling”

- as many lexemes may have that feature, so the main motivational feature is
Function along with a bunch of complementary semantic features and
affordances. In tooth bud, the affordance “of something that will grow” plays a
role, which is evident from the feature 'immature' - it is indicative that the
Bulgarian equivalent is pypka that has similar affordances. In Latin, the term is
gemma: a small asexual reproductive structure ... that becomes detached from
the parent and develops into a new individual. The original meaning of gemma
 92

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

1. Common bile duct 1. Ductus choledochus

(biliaris)
2. Hensen canal, 2. Ductus reuniens
Hensen duct, uniting
canal, uniting duct
3. Interlobular duct 3. Ductus interlobularis
 93

4. Striated duct 4. Ductus striatus

5. Thoracic duct 5. Ductus thoracicus

6. Tympanic surface of 6. Paries tympanicus

cochlear duct ductus cochlearis
(membrana spiralis)

The main semantic feature of “duct” is related to "conducting a liquid, gas or

other substance”. The Latin word “ductus” means "leading somewhere", which
is the past participle form of “ducere”- “to lead”. In Bulgarian, the conceptual
content “ductus” is preserved, but the word is calqued by different word forms:
kanal(che) (en – “channel”) (ductus), protok (en – “strait”), hod (en –
“movement”)– semasiologically speaking, all have in their cognitive model a
semantic feature associated with ' path, passage, movement of something on a
predifined course”, “prohod” (en – “pass”), ie. in Bulgarian the feature Shape is
comparatively unstable - in “hod”, it is virtually missing from the cognitive
model, whereas in the kanal and protok it is connected with the other semantic
featuress to impart the differences between the lexical concepts - in “kanal” - a
certain artificiality is implied (in the secondary cognitive model) “kanal” is
translated in English as both “channel” and “canal” – it can be be artificial,
“usiliyata da se kanalizirat” (effrots can be channeled) , while in “protok” the
semantic affordance is connected with joining two water surfaces, “water” can
be removed and replaced (semantic narrowing) by any particular liquid - bile,
blood, etc. Back to duct, the dictionary entry gives the following meanings:
Duct:
1. a tube, pipe, or canal by means of which a substance, esp a fluid or gas,
is conveyed
2. (Anatomy) any bodily passage, esp one conveying secretions or
excretions
 94

3. (Botany) a narrow tubular cavity in plants, often containing resin or

some other substance
4. (Electrical Engineering) Also called: conduit a channel or pipe carrying
electric cable or wires
5. (Building) a passage through which air can flow, as in air conditioning
6. (Printing, Lithography & Bookbinding) the ink reservoir in a printing
press
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2011)

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

1. Condyloid process 1. Processus condylaris

2. Coracoid process 2. Processus
coracoideus
3. Lenticular process 3. Processus lenticularis
 95

4. Pial process 4. Processus pialis

5. Styloid process 5. Processus styloideus
6. Uncinate process (of 6. Processus uncinatus
ethmoid bone)
7. Vaginal process 7. Processus vaginalis
8. Zygomatic process 8. Processus
(of frontal bone) zygomaticus

The term process is found in "Sensory organs": lenticular process, "Nervous

system": pial process, "Splanchnology": uncinate process, "Osteology": vaginal
process . (see table above). What is special about this term is the etymological
connection with the lexical concept [PROCESS], "long-term action, series of
actions". The underlying meaning of the Latin word “processus” is “advance,
development”, (past participle of “procedere” - 'go forward'). The common-use
word “process” and its Bulgarian equivalent have similar procedural meanings.
However, in biology and anatomy, as well as in other specialized discourses, the
meaning of “process” is objectival - 'something that has come forward', that is,
'outgrowth'. According to the dictionary “process” is:

6. Biology: An outgrowth of tissue; a projecting part: a bony process.

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/process)

Some authors call cases in which an action is perceived as an object

"ontological metaphor", but in our opinion, in this case, it it is a case of
metonymy. Unlike the Bulgarian equivalent izrastyk (en – “outgrowth”) in
which the semantic motivation "something grew up" is preserved by the living
paradigmatic relations with the nest “grow”, “process” as [PROCESS]2 in
anatomy is opaque, but has acquired a certain indexical (shell) meaning. The
paradoxical thing here is that instead of the Latin term clarifying the form of the
 96

referent, the knowledge of all the referents with that name reveals the etymology
of the word.

Spine

Terms excerped from the Corpus:

Английски термини Латински термини

1. Anterior nasal spine 1. Spina nasalis anterior

2. Dendritic spine 2. Gemmula dendritica
3. Greater tympanic 3. Spina tympanica
spine major
4. Lesser tympanic 4. Spina tympanica
spine minor
5. Spine of sphenoid 5. Spina ossis
bone sphenoidalis

The term is found in “Nervous System” and “Osteology”:

- "Nervous System" - dendritic spine;
- "Osteology" - spine of sphenoid bone, anterior nasal spine.
The lexical concept [SPINE] has three equivalent lexical concepts in Bulgarian.
- [BODILO], [SHIP], [SHIPCHE]. Part of the dictionary definition of “spine” is:
"a small sharp-pointed tip resembling a spike on a stem or leaf", which can be
easily compared to the term dendritic spine with the Latin gemmula dendritica
('gemmula' Latin for or “pebble” or “bud”). The feature Shape, expressed by
"sharp-pointed" is probably the motivation in spine of sphenoid bone, because
according to another dictionary sense “spine” is "any sharply pointed
projection". However, this feature is schematic and the imagery is pale, so it can
hardly be said that there is any metaphorical projection. In our opinion spine is a
shell word. The original meaning of the Latin word is “a thorn”, “a spike”, “a
thistle”, and we can speak of literal resemblance or family resemblance, as all
 97

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

1. Olivocochlear tract 1. Tractus

olivocochlearis
2. Olivospinal tract 2. Tractus
olivospinalis
3. Portal triad; portal 3. Trias hepatica
field, portal area, or
portal tract
4. Optic tract 4. Tractus opticus
5. Solitary tract 5. Tractus solitarus
6. Tectospinal tract 6. Tractus tectospinalis
7. Tract of Goll or gracile 7. Fasciculus gracilis
fasciculus medullae spinalis

The term is found in “Nervous System”: tectospinal tract, neural tract,

olivospinal tract, gracile fasciculus, solitary tact, olivocochlear tract, optic tract
and in "Splanchnology": portal triad, portal area, portal tract, digestive tract.
According to the dictionary definition “tract” is:
Tract:
 98

1. an expanse or area of land, water, etc.; region; stretch.

2.
a. a definite region or area of the body, esp. a system of elongated
parts or organs: the digestive tract.
b. a bundle of nerve fibers having a common origin and destination.
3. a stretch or period of time; interval; lapse.
4. a Roman Catholic penitential anthem consisting of scriptural verses,
sung after the gradual, esp. before Easter.
(Collins English Dictionary 2014)
The Latin word “tractus” means 'pull', 'drag' - hence the origin of many words in
English – “attraction”, “subtract”, “contract”,”extract”, “detract”, “tractor”, etc.
They all share semantic characteristic mentioned above and various semantic
affordances - the tractor "pulls" or "drags" heavy equipment, while attraction in
personal plan is again tied to being “pulled” to someone or something. The first
meaning of the definition of “tract”was first recorded in English around 1550
AD this is probably a metaphorical extension of stretch - stretching (including
'pulling'), from which the meaning of the noun “stretch” may come: "a
continuous area or expanse of land or water." At the same time, the
conceptualization of time through space has long been discovered through the
so-called Moving Time Metaphor, in which time is presented as a physical
object moving in space (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999, Evans 2004a, Radden 1997,
2003a). In the case we consider, however, the what is important is the semantic
extension of “tract” or “tractus” in the meaning of 'passage', which is implicit in
the definition. “Passage” means "movement," “ a change of one state into
another” - "passage of time" but there are also other synonyms – “path”,
“channel”, “duct”. There is definitely a relationship between “path” and “tract”,
since “pathway” and “tract” are synonymous - neural pathway, neural tract.
While the relationship between “tract” and “expanse” is evident from the
analysis, as well as the relationship between “tract” and the semantic feature
 99

Movement, it is difficult to find common ground between “tract” and the

semantic feature Bundle, which is in the cognitive model profiles of
olivocochlear tract, neural tract but is missing as a feature in solitary tract.
Probably, the relationship between the two above-mentioned lexical concepts is
related to affordance of “expanse” - 'area', 'zone', 'space' in which something fits
in - 'an expanse of water', the presence of this affordance can explain the
connection with “system” - "a group of interacting elements, forming a whole".
“Expanse” is related to “extend” and hence to the concepts of digestive tract,
optic tract - systems that extend into multiple organs. It is quite possible that, at
a certain stage in the development of the lexical concept [TRACT], the area,
zone, space (conceptualized using the CONTAINER image schema) has been
replaced metonymically by the things,objects that belong to them - the system of
nerve nodes or bundles, this conclusion being merely a guess, bearing in mind
that this metaphorical/metonymical projection happened within the boundaries
of the Latin language, as “tract “ is an adapted form in English. It is within the
boundaries of the Latin “tractus” that theis word acquired its shell character this
has been preserved in English.
Bulgarian equivalents, obviously due to the different time of entry of the
concepts associated with the Latin “tractus”, different lexemes were used, rather
emphasizing separate semantic features which seemed important in the different
terms to the nominators. In Bulgarian though there is no linguistic consistency -
for example samotno snopche (en - solitary tract) is a calque, while
hranosmilatelen trakt (en- digestive tract) is an adapted form, and so on.

6.3. General terms with preserved metaphorical nomination

Similar to shell words, termini generales with metaphorical nomination also

serve as heads in multiple word combinations in anatomical terminology but, in
 100

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

Figure 6. Overlapping by matching the features between cognitive models of the

lexical concept [PRYSTEN – en –“ring”] (metaphor).

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

Latin nomenclature are gingiva and corona radiata (corona – “crown”,

“wreath”, radiata – “radius” – “spokes of the wheel”, “beam”).
Terms excerped from the Corpus:
Bulgarian terms English terms Latin terms

1. Zyben venets 1. Gingiva (gums) 1. Gingiva

2. Lychist venets 2. Radiate crown 2. Corona radiata

The dictionary meaning of the word enables us to analyze the cognitive model
profiles of “venets”:

(BTR 2102)): Venets:

1. Woven circle of flowers and twigs for decorating the head
2. Crown for a wedding, which is placed on the heads of the bride and the
fiancé.
3. Made of metal or painted halo around the head of a saint in an icon.
4.Figurative. Successful completion of difficult and significant work or the best
achievement in any activity..
5. Specialized. The fleshy jaw sheath at the roots of the teeth.
It is possible to assume that the two terms in Bulgarian have been given their
names separately, unrelated to each other, so they can be considered
independent lexical concepts from the lexical concept of the commonly used
language unit, denoted by [VENETS]. Its primary cognitive model contains the
feature 'circle of something' (similar to the verb „wreathe”), and along with it the
affordances including Material (flowers and twigs) and Function (for
decoration) are included in the lexical concept). The prevalent image schema in
the cognitive model profile is connected with “roundness” and that is why the
lexeme is used to designate a half-circle in the mouth [VENETS]2.
The case with the synaptic term lychist venets/radiate crown/corona radiata is
3
quite different . Both terms gloss is a 'crown of rays'. Here [VENETS] is the
 102

result of a metonymic narrowing of meaning - a holistic perception of head

decoration, also noted in the semantic development of “corona”/”crown” (also
originally "something curved, flower head decoration"). The adjective “radiant”
is an exponent of the semantic features Material /Shape. The compound term
radiate crown is a case of literal similarity with the halo of rays depicted around
the saints’ heads. In English anatomy, the equivalent of zyben venets is the
opaque gingiva. Because of the frequent use of [VENETS]2 in everyday life,
metaphoricity here is "sleeping". Clearly, this is a secondary cognitive model or
a metaphorical nomination on Shape, not a shell word. The strong word-word
relationship (according to Evans's idea) between “venets”1 and “venets”2
suggests the possibility of reviving metaphoricity.

Vreteno (en – spindle)

This term is found in “Nervous System”: neurotensinous spindle and the
"Sensory organs": modiolus. The word “vreteno” also occurs as part of the
compound adjective “vretenoviden” (en- spindle-shaped) in the term
vretenoviden muskul (en – spindle-shaped muscle). In Latin, the term is
modiolus - a 'hub on a wheel', diminutive of 'modius', a 'grain measure'
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/modiolus).
Terms excerpted from the Corpus:
Bulgarian term English term Latin term
1. Nevrosuhojilno 1. Neurotendinous 1. Organum
vreteno spindle sensorium tendinis
2. Vreteno 2. Modiolus 2. Modiolus,
columella cochleae

The linguistic expression of the Bulgarian term corresponds to the English

lexeme “spindle”, which has a similar motivation:

((BTR 2012)): Vreteno:

 103

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)

Despite some differences in dictionary definitions, the semantic features include

a 'long and thin object', while the semantic affordances are associated with
rotational movement. In the secondary cognitive model of [VRETENO]2 of the
term nevrosuhojilno vreteno/ neurotendinous spindle, the features refer mainly
to Shape as well as to the semantic affordance –“ ability to rotate”- "axis of the
cochlea". Furthermore, the aforementioned adjective “vretenoviden” in the term
vretenoviden muskul is also associated with a pivotal point around which
something rotates (the connection of muscles in the mouth - chiasma = crossing,
cf. centre) The macroscopic term vreteno has a similar motivation. Although it
is opaque, the word modiolus has a core meaning in Latin of 'hub', 'socket', ie.
something 'in which something else is rotated, the center of rotation, axis'. Thus,
there is a metaphoric projection in Shape and Function. a matrix of features. The
people who calqued the terms in either language used different perspectives for
 104

different organs, but neither the word “vreteno” nor “spindle” are shells but
rather metaphors.

Greben (en – crest, comb)

The word “greben” occurs as a terminological component in multiple anatomical
compounds.
Terms excerpted from the Corpus:
Bulgarian term English term Latin term

1. Vynshen tilen greben 1. Occipital crest 1. Crista occipitalis interna

2. Spiralen greben 2. Spiral ligament 2. Cristi spiralis
3. Grebeni na kojata 3. Epidermal ridges 3. Dermal papillae
4. Naprechen greben 4. Transverse ridge(crest) 4. Crista transversalis
5. Triygylen greben 5. Triangular ridge/crest 5. Crista trianglaris
6. Supinatoren greben 6. Supinator crest (of ulna) 6. Crista musculi
supinatoris
7. Chelen greben 7. Frontal crest 7. Crista frontalis

The dictionary meanings of “greben” are as follows:

(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.

The lexical concepts defined by meanings 2, 3 and 4 are completely

independent, dissociated from the meaning in 1, but there is no doubt that they
are obtained by metaphorical projection of the semantic feature Shape using the
POSITION image schema. First, by means of a semantic narrowing of the
lexical concept in the secondary cognitive model of [GREBEN] only the 'teeth'
remain, and then with the help of the POSITION schema in the sense 'something
 105

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:

1. the highest part of a hill or mountain range; summit.

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crest)

Definitely there is some difference in this sense, unlike that of “greben”. In

anatomy, the interchangeability of crest and ridge, however, neutralizes the
difference. In English, crest is borrowed from French of the Latin “crista” with
meaning 'bundle', 'twig', 'comb', while in Bulgarian “greben” is a calque of the
same word. We can conclude that both greben and crest are metaphorically
motivated, while ridge is a shell word.

Shiyka (en – small neck)

Terms excerped from the Coprus:
Bulgarian terms English terms Latin terms

1. Zybna shiyka 1. Neck of tooth 1. Cervix dentis

2. Shiyka na dolnata 2. Neck of mandible 2. Collum mandibulae
chelyust
3. Shiyka na mehura 3. Neck of urinary 3. Cervix vesicae
bladder
4. Shiyka na rebroto 4. Neck of rib 4. Collum costae

The word “shiyka” has the meaning: a small anatomical object with features of
'shiya' (en – “neck”).
 107

“Shiyka”: “shiya” (concrete lexical concept) + (literal similarity) extension =

new concept + small

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:

(BTR 2012)): “shiyka’:

1. Small, thin neck.
2. Figur. Thin piece of bottle and more. just beneath its opening. Neck of bottle.

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

rather points to metaphorical projection, is preserved, the imagery is preserved

and the metaphor can be "awakened."
In English, the lexical concept [NECK] does not present the feature 'small', ie.
no distinction is made between “neck” and “small neck” as is the case with the
Bulgarian “shiya” and “shiyka”, while “neck” in use also enters a number of
phraseological expressions. The Latin word cervix, which is the nomenclature
language unit, means "neck, nape of the neck" (www.etymonline.com/ =
cervix). the narrow meaning is 'neck' in the sense of 'nape'.
From the point of view of imagery, the lexical concept [SHIYKA] is not a shell
one, as well as [NECK], because of its preserved concreteness, ie. both have a
preserved metaphorical nomination.

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?

Although it resembles categorization, the index relationship is different (“I” is

not the category to which the speaker, for example Peter, belongs!). Of
particular importance is the fact that index words must be shared by members of
the speaking community, while categorization may remain an individual mental
 110

act. In order to be used on an onomasiological basis, these nouns must be a

social fact that, in constructing meaning, captures such factors as typicality
(hence salience), and also taking into account the social nature of language -
stereotype.
There is an opinion that the number of index words is much greater than is noted
in the literature. Cf "The work of contemporary linguistic anthropology firmly
proves that every linguistic - hence any sociolinguistic fact - is necessarily an
index fact, that is, a way in which the linguistic and peripheral signs used point
to the context of use structured in one way or another for the users of these
signs. "(Silverstein 2003: 195). Examples of less commonly discussed index
words are:

• underdefined words like “neighbor”, “enemy”, “ready” (because it

depends on the context, for what?);
• Words that include a perspective: “left”, “right”, in our Corpus, “rear”,
“top” (as they index a previously adopted position of the body);
• scalar adjectives – “long”, “large” (because they require a context, for
example “a large fly” is not the size of “a large house”.

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

L. Ventriculus ‘chamber of the heart’ secondary

2. L. Valva - “one of the halves of a folding door” – primary
L. Valva – “memebranous fold regulating the flow of bodily fluids” – secondary

Е. Valve – “memebranous fold regulating the flow of bodily fluids” – primary

3. L. Rostrum – ‘platform’ – primary

L. Rostrum – ‘end of a ship’s prow’, ‘beak’- secondary

Б. Chovka 2 – chovka na mazolestoto tyalo 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

metaphorically motivated terms are figurative meanings of words which denote

objects, while index words are usually related to actions, whether derived from
verbs – vlagalishte: “vlagam” (en- 'put in, insert”)', vyzel (en – “knot”): “neshto
vyrzano” (en -something “tied” “intertwined”). Emblematic in this regard is the
case with the term vryzka. In the conceptual structure of the lexeme there are
secondary cognitive models based on object reference, but as an anatomical term
it is based on a secondary cognitive model.
Also, lexical concepts with transparent composition excluded from the Corpus
of anatomical terms as non-metaphoric (teltse, razgyvach/ extensor, corpuscle,
tensor) have an indexed meaning in their symbolic structure. Such development
of Evans’ model is in the spirit of his insistence that the language analysis
should take into account both the word-reality and the word-word relationships.
The index meaning takes into consideration the second one. In psychological
terms, these links are called associative, activation, access, etc.
Last but not least, in the section was presented a representation of the cases in
which it is possible to revive the metaphorical motivation of the anatomical
terms. This is possible if there is a word-to-word relationship, that is, if an
everyday word is used as an equivalent. In the specialized discourse, of course,
the definitions and sensory knowledge of the users also have a role for the
eventual revival of metaphors, as well as of any etymological relations.
 114

Chapter 7. METAPHORICALLY MOTIVATED TERMS

7.1. Motivating features

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.

7.2. Shape as motivating feature

Shape plays a major role in the perception of real-world objects, and according
to Prototype Theory, it is observed first. In the lexical concept’s cognitive model
profile, however, it is not always expressed or, if it is, is very often combined
with many other features, especially with the semantic feature Function - for
example, with the term kapache (en-kneecap, literally –“small lid”), which is a
neologism, obtained by mapping based on the feature Shape, as the knee cap has
a round shape. If, however, the affordances of the word are analyzed, it can be
concluded that the semantic feature Function is the most important in forming
the lexical concept [KAPACHE], since according to the dictionary entry,
kapache "has the function of covering and protecting." The shape is flexible and
is dependent on the purpose - it can be metal with “kapak” (en- “lid” as in jar
lid”), leather in “kapatsi na kon” (en - horse blinkers) or other - ie. it is part of
the secondary cognitive model, and access to it as a semantic feature is provided
by the feature Function in the primary cognitive model. It is precisely because of
this "fluid" nature of Shape that the purpose of examining its motivative force is
 115

to separate it as far as possible to be analyzed as the main motivating feature in

anatomical terms. Therefore, in the given terms with Shape as the motivation
force, we have tried to distinguish those in which Shape is the leading or even
the only motivating force.
Three monolexemic terms were identified in the Corpus. An essential part of the
anatomical organs names, formed by metaphorical projections based on Shape,
especially of the internal organs, is through the mapping of an animal
characteristics onto a human anatomic unit: chovka (en –“beak”), rogche (en-
“small horn”), and especially the use of animal species in the nomination of
organs of the human body, e.g. mida (en –“clam”), rakovina (en –“shellfish”),
chervey (en – “worm”), ohlyuv (en – “snail”).
Here we present a scheme of the projection between a secondary cognitive
model from the lexical concept of a common word in a primary model of a
word, used as a term.
 116

PCM
PCM Shape PCM
Position Function
(elongated)

2
[CHERVEY] ]

SCM SCM SCM

Movement Shape Habotat
(crawl)
(elongated)

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.

7.3. Function as motivating feature

Establishing the function of an organ is not only the result of sensory

perceptions, but also of higher mental activity. It is no wonder, therefore, that
this motivating feature most often interacts with other motivating features and
image schemas - eg. kapache is an interaction of Shape, Position and Function,
the three differently illuminate the lexical concept models. In this subsection,
our analysis will focus on Function, which is a main semantic feature motivating
the nomination.

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

((BTR 2012)): “Podpora”: 1. Specially crafted or any object set to

support, hold up, prop.

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".

7.4. Orientation as motivating feature

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.

According to the free dictionary, the word “equator” is:

An imaginary line encircling and globe, equidistant from the poles, used
in the anatomical nomenclature to designate such a line on a spherical
organ.
(http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equator)

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.

7.5. Image schemas as motivating features

As already mentioned in Chapter Two, some image schemas can be considered

as directly motivating the nomination through the so-called image-schematic
domains (Clausner and Croft 2006). In the anatomy, such the CONTAINER
scheme which is a major motivating feature (along with the features Shape and
Function) in the terms: peshtera (en- literally“cave”), mehche ( en-literally
“small bellows”) and kolba (en – literally “flask”).
 120

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.

7.6. Motivating features matrix

Anatomical terms may be motivated (1) by a complex of semantic features and

image schemas interacting within a single word or individual member of a
compound - e.g., (ochen) beltyk, (tracheal) keel, (peroneal) makarichka , or 2)
within a synaptic structure (the combination as a whole) – ogoleno pole / bare
area, svoboden ryb/ free margin, sivo pokrivalo / indisium griseum. In this
subsection, we are going to look at the Matrix of features acting in a single
word, i.e in a non-synaptic compound word. Of course, the question of the
leading role of a separate semantic feature is a matter of interpretation and
perspective, arising both from individual perceptions and from the complexity of
concepts, for which it is often difficult to unequivocally determine the leading
feature in the nomination.
 121

Beltyk (en – sclera, literally – “white of the egg”)

Ochen beltyk is the Bulgarian equivalent of sclera. The word “sclera” comes
from the Latin name “sclera”, which is modified by the Greek “sklēros”, 'hard'.
The Bulgarian term ochen beltyk is a synaptic structure, i.e [OCHEN BELTYK]
should be seen as a concept, not as a free combination. The defining element
'ochen' ( en – literal “of the eye”) serves as a microcontext, which in turn, like
other such cases, specifies the concept by making it non-metaphorical. The
motivating features behind the nomination of the term beltyk are mainly
Orientation feature as well as the CONFIGURATION image scheme. The
concept [BELTYK] is part of the broader category of 'egg' - the “white” is
located around the yolk in the egg and the sclera around the iris. The Color
feature also plays a role because according to the dictionary entry: ochen beltyk
is: The white opaque part of the eye ((BTR 2012)). Moreover, the semantic
feature Color is integrated with Position because, like yolk, the iris is also
colored on the background of the sclera. The English concept [SCLERA] has a
relatively different conceptual content: The tough white fibrous outer envelope
of tissue covering all of the eyeball except the cornea
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sclera). The main affordances of [SCLERA]
are related to Material, as well as Color, ('white'), Orientation (‘outer’, 'envelope'
and Function (‘covering ...'.).

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

smaller than those in Bulgarian; b) much of the English equivalents of Bulgarian

terms analyzed in this section are either adapted forms or borrowings; c) the vast
majority of the terms excerped in the Corpus have similar conceptual and
parametric content.
Of course, there are also significant differences, both in cognitive content and
parametric concepts. The same reference (real anatomical object) has different
conceptual content and different language representation, respectively:
stylba/ramp, pora/bud, tsisterna/reservoir, vlasinka/fringe, kolba/bulbous,
dyal/lobe, porta/fissure. These differences are due to the way the terms entered
the anatomical language, which depends to a large extent on the nominator and
the latter on the linguistic, social and cultural context. It is logical that in
Bulgarian the borrowed and adapted forms are less, for linguistic and cultural
reasons. On the other hand, the English anatomical system is influenced much
more directly (culturally, socially and linguistically) by the Latin nomenclature.
The Bulgarian terms, as pointed out in the introductory part, originated mainly
during the 19th century, with influences from many directions - folk art, other
cultures (Turkish, Russian, etc.), Latin nomenclature. The translation versions of
Bulgarian have been established in a parallel system, which (as systematicity) is
missing in English.
Yet, the vast majority of metaphorically motivated mono-lexemic terms in
Bulgarian and English have similar conceptual and parametric content, which
can be explained by the fact of a similar history of concepts, regardless of origin,
as one reason may be rooted in the strict nomenclature character of the terms.
Regarding the distribution of similarities / differences between different
motivational features in both languages, there was established no tendency for
differences to be prevalent, for example, in relation to a particular feature. Shape
is the only feature most clearly presented as motivating in the specialized
language of both Bulgarian and English anatomy.
 123

7.8. Metaphorical Compounds

As has already been highlighted, synaptic structures can be considered in terms

of their importance as unified entities, i. the individual words in the synaptic
word combination, although semantic units taken separately, form something
different than just the composition of their individual meaning - for example,
opashen muskul (en - coccygeus muscle) is not a synapse (there are many types
of muscles that are explained by a definition with a locative function - cheek
muscle, superficial muscle), while mazolesto tyalo /corpus calllosum is.
The synaptic structure was already presented as the structure of the lexical
concept, but let us present it again. For example, the combination prashkovidna
vryzka part of prashkovidna vryzkana penisa in which vryzka is an index word
(the index word was already represented in prystenovidna vryzka na radiusa):

Choice of lexemes - symbolic units - prashka (type) + integration - vryzka –

Fusion
 124

Vryzka za obuvki
(en – lit. “shoe lace”)
[VRYZKA]

Vryzka – myj +jena

(en – lit.
man+woman)

Vryzka
[PRASHKA]
?

[TYPE]

Figure 8: Scheme of the lexical concept of the term prashkovidna vryzka/

fundiform ligament

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

nominative function and whether it can be synchronically "awakened" or

"revived", ie. to retain the ability to serve as a structuring factor in term
formation based on mathcing semantic features between Source and Target.
In general, the study of a corpus of anatomical terms has helped to clarify a
number of theoretical situations, while in the practical part, great surprises have
not been discovered. In terms of teaching, the learning of Latin terms is not, by
itself, decisive for learning, but understanding of the unifying shell meanings
seems to be facilitating. They are supposed to be implicit in the construction of
the anatomical nomenclature. With regard to anatomical terms, we have found a
number of arguments to analyze them diachronically, largely due to the fact that
their prototype are Latin names. When creating equivalents in their respective
languages, they undergo complex and difficult to predict reinterpretations.
These cognitive processes involve not only the cognitive aspects, but also the
socio-cultural context during the different periods of the creation of the terms.
 129

REFERENCES

1. Alexiev 2005: Alexiev, B. Contrastive aspects of terminological metaphor. Ph.D.

dissertation. Sofia: University of Sofia, 2005.
2. Atyutunova 1979: Aryutunova, N.D. Yazikovaya metaphora (syntax and lexis). In:
Lingvistika i poetika. Moskva.
3. Barsalou 1999: Barsalou, L.W. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 22, 577–609.
4. Barsalou 2011. L. Barsalou L. Situated Conceptualization: Theory and Application In
Y. Coello & M. H. Fischer (Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition. East Sussex,
UK: Psychology Press.
5. Barsalou 2012. Barsalou, L. W. The human conceptual system. In M. Spivey, K.
McRae, & M. F. Joanisse, The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 239–
258). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Barcelona 2003: Barcelona, A. (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Benitez 2009. Benitez Faber, P. The cognitive shift in terminology and specialized
translation. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 1, 107–134.
8. Black 1962. Black, Max. Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
9. Black 1979. Black, Max. More about Metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed): Metaphor &
Thought.
10. Boyd 1993: Boyd, R. Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor
for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 481–533). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
11. Bowdle, Gentner 2005: Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. The career of metaphor.
Psychological Review, 112, 193–216.
12. Brugman 1990: Brugman, C. What is the invariance hypothesis? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1, 257–66.
13. Van Rijn-van Tongeren 1997. Van Rijn-van Tongeren G.W. Metaphors in Medical
Texts. Editions Rodopi B. V. , Amsterdam-Atalnta GA, Netherlands.
14. Varela (with Maturana) 1998: Varela F. (with H. Maturana). The Tree of Knowledge:
The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala Press.
 130

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

29. Goldberg 1998. Goldberg, A. Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M.

Tomasello(Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 203–219). Lawrence Erlbaum
Publications.
30. Grady 1997а. Grady, J. Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary
scenes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkeley: University of California, 1997.
31. Grady, Taub, Morgan 1996. Grady, Joseph, Sarah Taub & Pamela Morgan. Primitive
and compound metaphors. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language ed. by
Adele Goldberg. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
32. Grady 1997b. Grady, J. Theories and buildings revisited. //Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4),
267–290.
33. Grady 1999. Grady, J. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation
vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), //Metaphor in cognitive linguistics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–100, 1999.
34. Grady, Oakley & Coulson 1999. Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. Conceptual
Blending and Metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
35. Grady & Johnson 2002. Grady, J., & Johnson, C. Converging evidence for the notions
of ‘subscene’ and ‘primary scene’. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and
metonymy incomparison and contrast (pp. 533–554). Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
36. Dancygier & Sweetser 2014. Dancygier B, Е., Sweetser. Figurative Language.
Cambridge University Press, UK.
37. Jackendoff 1998. Jackendoff, R. Why a conceptualist view of reference? A reply to
Abbot. In Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol.21, No.2, 211-219.
38. Johnson 1987. Johnson, M. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning.
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1987.
39. Giora 2003. Giora, R. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New
York: Oxford University Press.
40. Evans & Green 2006. Evans, V., & Green, M. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
41. Evans 2009. Evans, V. Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In New Directions
in Cognitive Linguistics,. Published by John Benjamins.
42. Evans 2010а. Evans, V. Figurative language understanding in LCCM Theory.
Cognitive Linguistics 21-4: 601-662.
 132

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

91. Picht 2009. Picht H. Introduction to Terminology Theory. Models.

http://www.termnet.org/downloads/english/events/tss2009/TSS2009_HP-
IntroductiontoTerminologyTheory.pdf
92. Pinker 2009. Pinker S. How the Mind Works (2009th ed.) . New York, NY: W. W.
Norton & Company.
93. Popova 1990. Popova M. Tipologiya na terminologichnata nominatsiya. PH - BAS,
Sofia.
94. Popova 2012. Popova M. Teoriya na terminologiyata. Academic PH “Prof. M.Drinov”
Sofia.
95. Pragglejaz Group 2007. Pragglejaz Group MIP: A method for identifying
metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
96. Pustejovsky 1995. Pustejovsky, J. The Generative Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA
97. Radden 2002. Radden, G. How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings
(Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and constrast (pp. 407–435). Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
98. Radden & Dirven 2007. Radden, G., R. Dirven. Cognitive English Grammar.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
99. Wray 2002. Wray A. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University
Press
100. Wray & Grace 2007. Wray A., C. Grace. The consequences of talking to strangers:
Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117,
543–578.
101. Ritchie 2013. Ritchie L. D. Metaphor. Cambridge University Press.
102. Rosch 1978. Rosch, E. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
103. Salager-Meyer 1990. Salager-Meyer, F. Metaphors in Medical English prose: A
comparative study with French and Spanish. English for Specific Purposes, 9(2), 145–
159.
104. Sager 1990. Sager, J.C. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
105. Sperber & Wilson 1986. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and
cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
 136

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

119. Tabakowska 1995b. Tabakowska, E. Polish translation of English technical terms:

Metaphor in the language of computer science. In R. Dirven, & J. Vanparys (Eds.),
Current approaches to the lexicon (pp. 211–24). Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang
120. Tyler & Evans 2003. Tyler А. and Evans V. The Semantics of English Prepositions.
Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge University Press
121. Talmy 2000a. Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept
Structuring System. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.
122. Talmy 2000b. Talmy, L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and
Process in Concept Structuring. The MITPress. Cambridge, Mass.
123. Temmmerman 1997. Temmerman, R. Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference
between socio-cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology. Journal of
Linguistics. No. 18.
124. Temmmerman 2000. Temmerman, R. Towards New Ways of Terminology
Description. The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
125. Temmmerman 2002. Temmerman, R. Metaphorical models and the translator’s
approach to scientific texts. In Linguistica Antverpiensia. New Series 1 - Linguistics
and Translation Studies. Translation Studies and Linguistics. Leona Van Vaerenbergh
(ed.), 211-226
126. Tomasello 2003. Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of
Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
127. Tomasello 2008. Tomasello, M. Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.
128. Traugott & Dasher 2002. E. C. Traugott, R. B. Dasher. Regularity in Semantic
Change, Cambridge University Press
129. Turmezei 2012. Turmezei T. D. The Linguistic Roots of Modern English
Anatomical Terminology. Clinical Anatomy 25:1015–1022, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
130. Ungerer & Schmidt 1996. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.J. An introduction to Cognitive
Linguistics. London: Longman.
131. Wolff & Gentner 2000: Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. Evidence for role-neutral initial
processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 26(2), 1–13.
132. Tognini-Bonelli 2001. Tognini-Bonelli, E. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
 138

133. Urena 2011. J. M. Urena Gomez-Moreno. Metaphors in Specialised Language: An

English-Spanish Comparative Study in Marine Biology. PhDThesis. Granada, Spain.
http://granada.academia.edu/httplexiconugresurena/Papers/835759/
134. Faber & Marquez 2004. Faber, P., & Márquez Linares, C. The role of imagery in
specialised communication. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & A. Kwiatkowska
(Eds.), Imagery in language. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W.Langacker,
(585– 602). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
135. Fillmore 1976. Fillmore, C. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of
Language and Speech, 280, 20–32.
136. Fillmore 1977. Fillmore, C. The need for a frame semantics in linguistics. In H.
Karlgren (Ed.), Statistical methods in linguistics (pp. 5–29). Scriptor.
137. Fillmore 1985. Fillmore, C. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di
Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
138. Fillmore et al 1988. Fillmore C, et al. Regularity and Idiomaticity in grammatical
constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501-38
139. Fauconnier 1994. Fauconnier, G. Mental spaces. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
140. Fauconnier & Turner 1996. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. Blending as a central
process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and
language (pp. 113–130). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information
[distributed by Cambridge University Press].
141. Fauconnier 1997. Fauconnier, G. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
142. Fauconnier & Turner 1998а. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. Conceptual integration
networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.
143. Fauconnier & Turner 1999. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. Metonymy and conceptual
integration. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden, Metonymy in language and thought (pp.
77–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [A volume in the series Human Cognitive
Processing].
144. Fauconnier & Turner 2002: Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. The way we think:
Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books,
2002.
 139

145. Херертс 1989: Geeraerts, D. Introduction: Prospects and problems in Prototype

Theory.Linguistics, 27, 587–612.
146. Geeraerts 1995: Geeraerts, D. Cognitive linguistics. In J. Verschueren, J.O. Ostman,
& J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
147. Geeraerts 1997: Geeraerts, D. Diachronic prototype theory: A contribution to
historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
148. Hopper & Traugott 2003. Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. Grammaticalization,
Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
149. Goossens 1990. Goossens, Louis. Metaptonymy: the interaction of metaphor and
metonymy in expressions for linguistic action, Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 3, 323–40.
150. Goossens 2003. Goossens, Louis. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and
metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions. In: DIRVEN, R. & PÖRINGS, R. (eds.)
Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
151. Čitkina 1988. Čitkina F.A. Terminology and translation: Towards the basics of
terminology comparison. Minsk High school.
152. Schmid 2000. Schmid, Hans-Jörg. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells:
From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
153. Schmid (in press). Schmid, Hans-Jörg, ed.. Entrenchment and the psychology of
language learning: how we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. Boston: APA
and Walter de Gruyter.
 140

Dictionaries, used in the research:

1. BTR – Bylgarski tylkoven rechnik – Bulgarian Dictionary, Radeva PH

“Iztok, Zapad”, Sofia.
2. The Free Dictionary by Farlex: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
3. Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com
4. Oxford Dictionaries online: http://oxforddictionaries.com/
 141

APPENDIX 1

CORPUS OF ANATOMICAL TERMS

1. ANGIOLOGY

BULGARIAN ENGLISH LATIN

1. Акромиален клон 1. Acromial branch 1. Ramus acromialis

2. Аортна дъга 2. Arch of the aorta 2. Arcus aortae
3. Артериален кръг 3. Circle of Willis 3. Circulus arteriosus
4. Артерия на лабиринта 4. Labyrinthine artery 4. A. labyrinthi
5. Артерия на ангуларната 5. Angular artery 5. A.gyri angularis
гънка
6. Артeрия на склона на 6. Ramus clivi arteria 6. Rami clivi
черепната основа
7. Атласова част 7. Atlantic part 7. Pars atlantica (atlantis)
8. Базилична вена. Царска 8. Basilic vein 8. V. Basilica
вена
9. Брадичков клон 9. Mental branch 9. Ramus mentalis
10. Булни клонове 10. Omental branches 10. Rami omentales
11. Вени на лабиринта 11. Labyrinthine vein 11. Vv. Labyrinthi
12. Вена на латералния улей на 12. Vein of lateral recess of 12. V. recessus lateralis
четвъртото мозъчно fourth ventricle ventriculi quarti
стомахче
13. Вена на охлювното каналче 13. Vein of cochlear aqueduct 13. V. aqueductus cochleae
14. Вена на ункуса (куката) 14. Vein of uncus 14. V. unci
15. Влагалищни клонове 15. Vaginal branches 15. Rami vaginales
16. Водовъртеж на сърцето 16. Vortex of heart 16. Vortex cordis
17. Възел на дъгата на 17. Lymph node of arch of 17. Nodus arcus venae
нечифтната вена azygos vein azygos
18. Външна срамна артерия 18. Deep external pudendal artery 18. Arteria pudendae
externae
19. Външна сънна артерия 19. External carotid artery 19. Arteria carotis externa
20. Външна яремна вена 20. External jugular vein 20. Vena jugularis externa
21. Герминативен център 21. Germinal centre 21. Centrum germinale
22. Голяма вена на мозъка. 22. Great cerebral vein; Vein of 22. V. magna cerebri
Вена на Гален Galen
23. Гроздовидно сплетение 23. Pampiniform plexus 23. Plexus pampiniformis
24. Гръден проток. Торакален 24. Thoracic duct 24. Ductus thoracicus
проток
25. Десен маргинален клон 25. Right marginal branch 25. Ramus marginalis dexter
26. Докомуниканта част 26. Precommunicating part 26. Pars precommunicalis
 142

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

60. Брахиоцефална вена 60. Innominate artery. 60. V. Brachiocephalica

Brachiocephalic vein
61. Мостови артерии 61. Pontine arteries; arteries of 61. Aa. Pontis
pons
62. Нагъната артерия 62. Coiled artery 62. Arteria convolute
63. Надлъжномускулно валче. 63. Muscular longitudinal vallum 63. Vallum musculare
Интимална възглавничка (layer) longitudinal
64. Непрекъсната базална 64. Continuous basement 64. Membrana basalis
мембрана membrane continua
65. Непроходима 65. Occlusal (obliterated) part 65. Pars occlusal
(облитерирала) част
66. Обща сънна артерия 66. Common carotid artery 66. Arteria carotis
communis
67. Овална яма 67. Oval-shaped; oval depression 67. Fossa ovalis
68. Околосъдово нервно 68. Periovascular nerve plexus 68. Plexus nervorum
сплетение perivascularis
69. Опашно телце (клъбце) 69. Coccygeal glomus 69. Glomus coccygeum
70. Основа на сърцето 70. Base of heart 70. Basis cordis
71. Островни артерии 71. Insular artery 71. Aa. Insularis
72. Островни вени 72. Insular veins 72. Vv. Insularis
73. Паракортекс. Тимус- 73. Paracortex (thymus dependent 73. Paracortex
зависима зона. Корово area)
плато
74. Пещерист синус 74. Cavernous sinus 74. Sinus cavernosus
75. Плътна (тъмна) пластинка 75. Lamina densa (electron 75. Lamina densa (basalis)
dense)
76. Повърхностна огъната вена 76. Superficial circumflex iliac 76. V. circumflexa
на хълбока vein superficialis ilium
77. Полунечифтна вена 77. Hemiazygos vein 77. V. hemiazygos
78. Преден възходящ клон 78. Ascending anterior branch 78. Ramus anterior
ascendens
cerebri
79. Предна вена на прозрачната 79. Аnterior vein of septum 79. V. anterior septi
преграда pellucidum pellucidi
80. Предно платно 80. Cusps of heart valves 80. Cuspis anterior
81. Предсърдечно-камерна 81. Atrioventricular septum 81. Septum atrioventriculare
преграда
82. Предсърдно ухо. Аурикула 82. Atrial auricle 82. Auricular atrialis
83. Прекъсната базална 83. Discontinuous basement 83. Membrana basalis
мембрана membrane noncontinua
84. Придружаваща вена 84. Accompanying vein 84. Vena comitans
85. Пристенен лист 85. Parietal layer 85. Lamina parietalis
86. Проводна система на 86. Conducting system of heart 86. Systema conducens
сърцето cordis
87. Проходима част 87. Patent part 87. Pars patens
88. Първа задна междуребрена 88. First posterior intercostal 88. A.intercostalis posterior
артерия artery prima
89. Ръбов клон на 89. Tentorial marginal branch 89. Ramus marginalis
малкомозъчната палатка tentoria
90. Радиална възвратна артерия 90. Radial recurrent artery 90. A. recurrens radialis
91. Сафенен клон 91. Saphenous branch 91. Ramus saphenus
92. Светла пластинка 92. Lamina lucida (electron 92. Lamina lucida
lucent)
93. Свързващ клон 93. Communicating branch 93. Ramus communicans
94. Сигмоидни вени 94. Sigmoid vein 94. Vv. sigmoideae
 144

95. Синуснопреддверен 95. Sinoatrial node 95. Nodus sinoatrialis

(Синуатриален) възел.
Възел на Кейт и Фляк
96. Следкомуникантна част 96.
Postcommunicating part 96. Pars postcommunicalis
97. Слезково повлекло 97.
Splenic cords 97. Chorda splenica
98. Стомашни клонове 98.
Gastric branches 98. Rami gastrici
99. Сухожилни струни 99.
Tendinous chords; heart 99. Cordae tendineae
strings
100. Сурални (прасцови) 100. Sural arteries 100. Aa. Surales
артерии
101. Съдове на съдовете. 101. Vessel of vessels 101. Vasa vasorum
Собствени съдове на
съдовата стена
102. Съдово сплетение 102. Vascular plexus 102. Plexus vasculosus
103. Таламусни клонове 103. Branches to the thalamus 103. Rami thalamici
104. Тубарен (на маточната 104. Tubal branch 104. Ramus tubarius
тръба) клон (tubalis)
105. Тимусно телце. 105. Thymic corpuscles 105. Corpusculum
Хасалево телце (bodies); Hassall’s corpuscles thymicum
106. Тъпанчеви вени 106. Tympanic veins 106. Vv. Tympanicae
107. Хилусна цистерна 107. Chyle cistern 107. Cisterna chyli
108. Хороидна клонове на 108. Choroidal branches to 108. Rami choroidei
страничното мозъчно lateral ventricle ventriculi lateralis
стомахче
109. Хранопроводни 109. Esophageal branches (of 109. Rami oesophageales
клонове thoracic part of aorta)
110. Циркулярно 110. Reticular fibre, reticuline 110. Fibra reticularis
ретикуларно влакно annularis
111. Цистерна 111. Reservoir 111. Cisterna
112. Червен костен мозък112. Red bone marrow 112. Medulla ossium
rubra
113. Устие на венечния 113. Opening (orifice) of 113. Ostium sinus
синус coronary sinus coronarii
114. Щитовидношиен ствол 114. Thyrocervical trunk 114. Truncus
thyrocervicalis
115. Ъглова артерия 115. Angular artery 115. A. angularis

2. ARTHROLOGY

BULGARIAN ENGLISH LATIN

 145

1. Акромиоклавикуларна 1. Acromio-clavicular joint 1. Ligamentum acromio

връзка
2. Атлантоокципитална
става
3. Ацетабулна устна
4. Вколчване. Гомфоза
5. Влакнестохрущялна
плочка на симфизата
6. Горна скочна става
7. Дорзална
радиокарпална(лъчево-
kиткова) връзка
8. Затулваща мембрана
9. Зъбчеста връзка
10. Инфрапателарна
синовиална гънка
11. Капсулни връзки
12. Квадратна връзка
13. Колатерални връзки
14. Коловратна става.
Цилиндрична става
15. Конична връзка
16. Коса връзка
17. Кръстосана връзка на
атласа
18. Кръстосани връзки на
коляното
19. Кръстцовоопашно
съчленение
20. Лонно съчленение.
Симфиза
21. Лъчиста връзка на китката
22. Лъчиста връзка на
ребрената глава
23. Люспест шев
2. Anterior atlanto-occipital 2. Articulatio
ligament
3. Acetabular labrum
4. Gomphosis
5. Interpubic disc
6. Gliding joint. Mortise joint
7. Dorsal radiocarpal ligament 7. Ligamentum radiocarpale
(posterior ligament)
8. Obturator membrane
9. Denticulate ligament
10. Infrapatellar plica
11. Capsular ligaments
12. Quadrate ligament
13. Collateral ligaments
14. Pivot joint
15. Conoid ligament
16. Oblique cord
17. Cruciform ligament of atlas
18. Cruciate patellar ligament
19. Sacrococcygeal articulation
20. Pubic symphysis
21. Radiate carpal ligament
22. Radiate ligament of head of
rib
23. Squamosal suture
claviculare
atlantooccipitalis
3. Labrum acetabulare
4. Gomphosis. (Articulatio
Dentoalveolaris)
5. Discus interpubicus
6. Articulatio talocruralis
dorsale
8. Membrana obturatoria
9. Ligamentum denticulatum
10. Plica synovialis
infrapatellaris
11. Ligamenta capsularia
12. Ligamentum quadratum
13. Ligamenta collateralia
14. Articulatio trochoidea
15. Ligamentum conoideum
16. Chorda oblique
17. Ligamentum cruciform
atlantis
18. Plica synovialis
infrapatellaris
19. Articulatio sacrococcygea
20. Symphysis publica
21. Ligamentum carpi
radiatum
22. Ligamentum capitis costae
radiatum
23. Sutura squamosa cranii

24. Медиална поддържаща 24. Medial patellar retinaculum

24. Retinaculum patellae
връзка на капачето
mediale
25. Метатарзофалангеални 25. Metatarsophalangeal
25. Articulationes metatarso
връзки articulations
phalangeales
26. Назъбен (зъбчат) шев 26. Serrated suture
26. Sutura serrate
27. Ligamentum radiocarpeum
27. Палмарна радиокърпална 27. Palmar radiocarpal
palmare
(дланна лъчево-киткова) ligament, volar radiocarpal
връзка ligament
28. Пихтиесто ядро 28. Pulpous nucleus 28. Nucleus pulposus
29. Плантарни връзки на 29. Plantar ligament 29. Ligamenta tarsi plantaria
ходилото
 146

30. Покривна мембрана 30. Occipitoaxial ligament 30. Membrana tectoria

31. Пояснокръстцова става
32. Проста става
33. Пръстеновидна връзка на
радиуса
34. Раздвоена връзка
35. Раменноключична става
36. Сакротуберална връзка
37. Седловидна става
38. Синовиални власинки
39. Синовиална гънка
40. Сложна става
41. Става на ребрената глава
42. Ставен сърп. Мениск
43. Ставна капсула
44. Ставна устна
45. Сферична (Кълбовидна)
става
46. Съчленение на гръдния
кош
47. Съчленения на свободния
долен крайник
48. Фиброзен пръстен
49. Цимент
31. Lumbosacral joint 31. Articulatio lumbosacralis
32. Simple joint 32. Articulatio simplex
33. Annular ligament 33. Ligamentum annulare radii
34. Bifurcated ligament 34. Ligamentum bifurcatum
35. Acromioclavicular joint, or 35. Articulatio
AC joint acromioclavicularis
36. Sacrotuberous ligament 36. Ligamentum sacrotuberale
37. Saddle joint 37. Articulatio sellaris
38. Synovial fringe, synovial 38. Villi synoviales
tufts
39. Medial plica 39. Plica synovialis
mediopatellaris
40. Compound joint 40. Articulatio composite
41. Articulations of the heads of 41. Articulatio capitis costae
the ribs
42. Articular meniscus 42. Meniscus articularis
43. Articular capsule 43. Capsula articularis
44. Articular labrum 44. Labrum articulare
45. Articulatio spheroidea
45. Spheroid articulation; ball (cotylica)
and socket joint 46. Articulationes thoracis
46. Thoracic articulation
47. Articulationes membri
47. Synovial joints of free lower inferioris liberi
limb
48. Fibrous ring 48. Annulus fibrosis
49. Cementum 49. Cementum

50. Шарнирна става 50. Hinge joint 50. Ginglymus

3. MYOLOGY

BULGARIAN ENGLISH LATIN

1. Адамова ябълка 1. Adam’s apple 1. Bursa subcutanea

prominentiae laryngealis
2. Аддукторен канал 2. Adductor canal 2. Canalis adductorius
3. Апоневроза 3. Bicipital aponeurosis 3. Aponeurosis musculi
(сухожилна (also known as lacertus bicipitis brachii
разтеглица) на fibrosus)
двуглавия мускул на
мишницата
4. Бедрен пръстен 4. Femoral ring 4. An(n)ulus femoralis
5. Бедрен триъгълник 5. Femoral triangle 5. Trigonum femorale
6. Бодилен мускул 6. Spinalis 6. M. spinalis
7. Бурза на гъшия крак 7. Anserine bursa 7. Bursa anserina
 147

8. Бурза на мускула 8. Bursa of tensor veli 8. Bursa musculi tensoris

изопвач на мекото palatine veli palatini
небце
9. Бяла линия 9. White line 9. Linea alba
10. Вретеновиден мускул 10. Spindle-shaped muscle 10. Musculus fusiformis
11. Горно коремче 11. Superior belly 11. Venter superior
12. Голям ромбовиден м. 12. Major rhomboid m. 12. M. rhomboideus major
13. Горен рог 13. Superior horn 13. Cornu superius
14. Гребенчев мускул 14. Pectineus muscle [lat 14. M. Pectineus
pecten – comb]
15. Гръдноключичносисо 15. Sternocleidomastoid 15. M.
виден мускул muscle (SCM) sternocleidomastoideus
16. Двуглав мускул на 16. Biceps 16. M. biceps brachii
мишницата.(бицепс)
17. Двукоремчест мускул 17. Digastric muscle 17. M. digastricus
18. Двуперест мускул 18. Bipennate muscle 18. M. bipennatus
19. Долен рог 19. Inferior horn 19. Cornu inferius
20. Делтовиден мускул 20. Deltoid m. 20. M. deltoideus
21. Долно коремче 21. Inferior belly 21. Venter inferior
22. Дълбока глава 22. Deep head 22. Caput profundum
23. Дълбока фасция 23. Deep fascia 23. F. profunda
24. Дълга глава 24. Long head 24. Caput longum
25. Дясно краче 25. Right crus 25. Crus dextrum
26. Едноперест мускул 26. Pennate muscle 26. M. unapennatus
27. Задно коремче 27. Posterior belly 27. Venter posterior
28. Квадратен мускул 28. Quadrate muscle 28. M. quadratus
29. Кожен мускул 29. Cutaneous m. 29. M. cutaneous
30. Коремче 30. Venter 30. Venter
31. Коремчест мускул на 31. Gastrocnemius muscle 31. M. Gastrocnemius
прасеца
32. Коса глава 32. Oblique head 32. Caput obliquum
33. Кръстосана част на 33. Cruciform part of fibrous 33. Pars cruciformis
фиброзните digital sheaths of hand vaginae fibrosae
влагалища and foot
34. Крушовиден мускул
35. Кръгов мускул 34. Piriformis muscle 34. M. piriformis
36. Къса глава 35. Orbicularis oculi muscle 35. M. orbicularis
37. Лакунарна връзка 36. Short head 36. Caput breve
38. Латерална глава 37. Lacunar ligament 37. Ligamentum lacunare
39. Ляво краче 38. Lateral head 38. Caput laterale
40. Медиална глава 39. Left crus 39. Crus sinistrum
41. Медиална 40. Medial head 40. Caput mediale
подсухожилна бурза 41. Medial bursa of 41. Bursa subtendinea
на коремчестия gastrocnemius muscle musculi gastrocnemii
мускул на прасеца
42. Мишничен мускул 42. Brachialis muscle 42. M. brachialis
43. Многоразделни 43. Multifidus muscles 43. Mm multifidi
мускули
44. Мускул на 44. Procerus muscle 44. M.procerus
горделивците
45. Мускул дъвкач 45. Masseter muscle 45. M. masseter
46. Мускул изопвач на 46. Tensor fasciae latae 46. M. tensor fasciae latae
широката фасция muscle
47. Мускул, изправящ 47. Musculus erector spinae
гръбначния стълб 47. Erector spinae muscle
 148

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

BULGARIAN ENGLISH LATIN

1. Аксонално хълмче 1. Axon hillock 1. Colliculus axonis
2. Аркуатно ядро 2. Arcuate nucleus 2. Nucleus arcuatus
hypothalami
3. Белезникави ивици 3. Medullary striae of 3. Striae medullares
fourth ventricle (ventriculi quarti)
4. Бяло вещество 4. White matter 4. Substantia alba
5. Висулка на червея 5. Uvula of 5. Uvula vermis
cerebellum; swollen
6. Вметнато ядро uvula 6. Nucleus
7. Възвишение 6. Intercalated nucleus intercalatus
 150

8. Възел на нервното 7. Top, acme 7. Culmen

влакно. Прищъпване 8. Node of Ranvier 8. Incisura myelini
на Ранвие.
9. Външна колба 9. Bulbous (external) 9. Bulbus externa
10. Вътрешна колба 10. Bulbous (internal) 10. Bulbus internus
11. Голяма звездовидна 11. Large stellate cell 11. Neuronum
клетка stellatum magnum
12. Горна ямичка 12. Superior fovea 12. Fovea rostralis
(superior)
13. Дендритно шипче 13. Дendritic spine 13. Spinula dendritica
14. Диафрагма на седлото 14. Sellar diaphragm 14. Diaphragma sellae
15. Дига 15. Obex ( lat. barrier) 15. Obex
16. Дълбок скалист нерв 16. Deep petrosal nerve 16. Nervus petrosus
profundus
17. Дърво на живота 17. Tree of life 17. Arbor vitae
cerebelli
18. Звездовидна клетка 18. Stellate 18. Neuronum
neurons/cells stellarum
19. Зрително излъчване 19. Optic radiation 19. Radiatio optica
(на Грасиоле)
20. Зъбчеста връзка 20. Denticulate ligament 20. Ligamentum
denticulatum
21. Зърнест слой 21. Granular layer 21. Stratum
granulosum
22. Зрителен тракт 22. Optic tract 22. Tractus opticus
23. Зрителен улей 23. Optic recess 23. Recessus opticus
24. Ивичест ганглий 24. Ciliary ganglion 24. Ganglion ciliare
25. Катерещо се влакно 25. Climbing fibres 25. Neurofibra
ascendens
26. Клиновидно снопче 26. Cuneate fasculus 26. Fasciculus
cuneatus
27. Коляно на лицевия 27. Genu of the facial 27. Genu nervi
нерв nerve facialis
28. Конска опашка 28. Cauda equina 28. Cauda equina
29. Коренчеви връвчици 29. Radicular fila; nerve 29. Fila radicularia
rootlets
30. Кошчева клетка 30. Basket cell 30. Neuronum
corbiferum
31. Краен мозък 31. Telencephalon 31. Telencephalon
32. Крайни ядра 32. Steroid nucleus, 32. Nuclei
terminal nuclei terminationis
33. Кръстцови нерви и 33. Sacral nerves and 33. Nervus saccularis
опашен нерв coccygeal nerve (pars rostralis)
34. Кълбенце 34. Glomerulus. 34. Glomerulus.
35. Ламеларно телце 35. Lamellar corpuscle 35. Corpusculum
36. Листо на червея 36. Folium of vermis lamellosum
37. Луновидна бразда 37. Lunate sulcus 36. Folium vermis
38. Мазолесто тяло 38. Corpus callosum 37. Sulcus lunatus
39. Малкомозъчен сърп 39. Cerebellar falx 38. Corpus callosum
(sickle –like) 39. Falx cerebelli
40. Малък скалист нерв 40. Lesser petrosal 40. Nervus petrosus
41. Маслина. nerve minor
42. Медиална и латерална 41. Olivary body 41. Oliva
обонятелни ивици 42. Medial and lateral 42. Stria olfactoriae
olfactory stria medialis et
 151

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

70. Птича шпора 70. Calcar avis, 70. Calcar avis

hippocampus minor
71. Първа цепка 71. Primary fissure 71. Fissura prima
72. Рекурентен 72. Recurrent laryngeal 72. Nervus laryngeaus
ларингеален нерв nerve recurrens
73. Ринална бразда 73. Rhinal sulcus 73. Sulcus rhinalis
74. Ромбичен мозък 74. Rhombencephalon 74. Rhombencephalon
or hindbrain
75. Ръчица на горното 75. Superior brachium 75. Brachium colliculi
хълмче. rostralis
(superioris)
76. Сакуларен нерв 76. Saccular nerve 76. Nervus saccularis
(pars rostralis)
77. Самотно снопче 77. Solitary tract 77. Tractus solitarus
78. Сиви колони 78. Gray columns 78. Columnae griseae
79. Сиво вещество (ядра 79. Gray matter 79. Substantia grisea
и колони) (Nuclei et
Columnae)
80. Сиво покривало 80. Indusium griseum, 80. Indusium griseum
supracallosal gyrus
81. Симпатиков ствол 81. Sympathetic trunk 81. Truncus
sympathicus
82. Синаптично мехурче 82. Synaptic vesicle 82. Vesicula
synaptica
83. Слой на 83. Piriform neuron 83. Stratum
крушевидните клетки layer neuronorum
piriformium
84. Смесен нерв 84. Mixed nerve 84. Nervus mixtus
85. Снопове на 85. Funiculi of spinal 85. Funiculi medullae
гръбначния мозък cord spinalis
86. Собствени дланни 86. Proper palmar 86. Nervi digitales
пръстови нерви digital nerves palmares proprii
87. Ствол на 87. Accessory nerve 87. Truncus nervi
допълнителния нерв trunk accessorii
88. Таламусна лента 88. Taenia thalami 88. Taenia thalami
89. Тапет 89. Tapetum of corpus 89. Tapetum
callosum
90. Твърда обвивка на 90. Cranial dura 90. Dura mater
главния мозък matter;dura of the encephali, dura
brain mater cranialis
91. Тения на четвъртото 91. Taenia of fourth 91. Taenia ventriculi
стомахче ventricle quarti
92. Тектоспинален път 92. Tectospinal tract 92. Tractus
tectospinalis
93. Терминален бутон 93. Terminal bulb 93. Bulbus terminalis
94. Триъгълник на 94. Vagal trigone 94. Trigonum vagale
блуждаещия нерв
95. Тъпанчева струна 95. Tympanic cord 95. Chorda tympani
96. Фунийков улей 96. Infundibular recess 96. Recessus
infundibuli
97. Цветче 97. Cerebellar flocculus 97. Flocculus
98. Централна бразда на 98. Circular sulcus of 98. Sulcus circularis
острова insula ( island) insulae
99. Централни таламични 99. Central thalamic 99. Radiationes
излъчвания radiation thalamica
 153

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

BULGARIAN ENLGISH LATIN

1. Аксис 1. Axis 1. Axis

2. Алвеоларна дъга 2. Alveolar arch 2. Arcus alveolaris
3. Атлас 3. Atlas 3. Atlas
4. Бодило на клиновидната 4. Spine of sphenoid bone 4. Spina ossis sphenoidalis
кост
5. Бразда на горния сагитален 5. Groove for superior sagittal
5. Sulcus sinus sagittalis
синус sinus superioris
6. Бразда на напречния синус 6. Groove for transverse sinus
6. Sulcus sinus transversi
7. Бразда на ралника 7. Vomerine groove 7. Sulcus vomeris
8. Бразда на сагиталния синус 8. Sagittal sulcus 8. Sulcus sinus sagittalis
9. Бразда на слуховата тръба 9. Sulcus for auditory tube 9. Sulcus tubae auditivae
(auditoriae)
10. Бразда на средната 10. Sulcus arteriae temporalis
слепоочна артерия 10. Groove for middle temporal mediae
11. Веждена дъга 11. Arcus superciliaris
 154

12. Венечна яма artery 12. Fossa coronoidea

11. Superciliary arch
13. Влагалищен израстък 12. Coronoid fossa (of 13. Processus vaginalis
14. Връх на пирамидата humerus) 14. Apex partis petrosae
13. Vaginal process
15. Вход на очницата 14. Apex of petrous part of 15. Aditus orbitae
temporal bone
16. Вътрешен слухов проход 15. Оrbital opening; aperture of 16. Meatus acusticus internus
17. Вътрешен тилен гребен orbit 17. Crista occipitalis interna
18. Гаванковидна яма. 16. Internal auditory meatus 18. Acetabulum
Оцетник. Ацетабулум 17. Internal occipital crest
19. Глава на метакарпалната 18. Acetabulum; catyloid cavity 19. Caput metacarpalis
кост
20. Глава на реброто 19. Metacarpal head 20. Caput costae
21. Глава на чукчето 21. Caput mallei
22. Голяма небцова бразда 20. Head of rib 22. Sulcus palatinus major
23. Голям въртел (голям 21. Head of malleus 23. Trochanter major
трохантер) 22. Greater palatine groove
24. Горен ръб на пирамидата 23. Greater trochanter 24. Margo superior partis
petrosae
24. Superior border of petrous 25. Linea aspera
part of temporal bone 26. Dorsum sellae
25. Грапава линия
25. Linea aspera 27. Tuberculum pharyngeum
26. Гръб на седлото
26. Dorsum sellae
27. Гълтачна пъпка
27. Pharyngeal tubercle 28. Tuberositas deltoidea
28. Делтоидна грапавина 29. Manubrium sterni
28. Deltoid tuberosity 30. Manubrium mallei
29. Дръжка на гръдната кост
29. Manubrium of sternum 31. Lingula mandibulae
30. Дръжка на чукчето
30. Manubrium of malleus 32. Infundibulum ethmoidale
31. Езиче на долната челюст
32. Етмоидална фуния 31. Lingula of mandible 33. Foramen obturatum
33. Затулен отвор 32. Ethmoidal infundibulum 34. Canalis opticus
34. Зрителен канал 33. Obturator foramen 35. Foveolae granulares
35. Зърнести ямки 34. Optic canal 36. Incisura mastoidea
36. Изрезка на сисовидния 35. Granular fovеolae
израстък 36. Mastoid notch 37. Patella
37. Капаче 38. Sulcus caroticus
38. Каротидна бразда 37. Patella 39. Processus coracoideus
39. Клиновиднорешетъчен улей 38. Carotid groove 40. Ramus ossis ischia
40. Клон на седалищната кост 39. Coracoid process 41. Recessus
41. Клюновиден израстък 40. Ramus of ischium sphenoethmoidalis
41. Sphenoethmoidal recess 42. Geniculum canalis facialis
42. Коленце на канала на
лицевия нерв 42. Geniculum of facial canal 43. Processus condylaris
43. Кондилен израстък 44. Pediculus arcus vertebrae
44. Краче (корен) на 43. Condyloid process (vertebralis)
прешленната дъга 44. Pedicle of arch of vertebra 45. Ala cristae galli
45. Крило на петльовия гребен 46. Ala vomeris
45. Ala of crista galli
 155

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

114. Сфеноидално езиче. 114. Sphenoidal lingula 117. Tibia

115. Теменен ръб 115. Parietal border (margin) 118. Squama occipitalis
116. Теменна издатина 116. Parietal eminence
(теменна върга) (tuber) 119. Selia turcica
117. Тибия. Голям пищял 117. Tibia
118. Тилна люспа 118. Squamous part of 120. Corpus claviculae
 157

occipital bone 121. Corpus metacarpalis

119. Турско седло 119. Selia turcica, Turkish
chair 122. Incisura ulnaris
120. Тяло на ключицата 120. Body of clavicle 123. Phalanges
121. Тяло на метакарпалната 121. Shaft of metacarpal 124. Fossa hypophysialis
кост bone
122. Улнарна изрезка 122. Ulnar notch 125. Cavitas cranii
123. Фаланги 123. Phalanges 126. Crista frontalis
124. Хипофизна яма 124. Hypophysial fossa 127. Margo frontalis
(trench, hollow, channel) 128. Squama frontalis
125. Черепна кухина 125. Cranial cavity
126. Челен гребен 126. Frontal crest 129. Collum mandibulae
127. Челен ръб 127. Frontal border
128. Челна люспа 128. Squamous part of 130. Collum costae
frontal bone 131. Processus styloideus
129. Шийка на долната 129. Neck of mandible
челюст 132. Processus
130. Шийка на реброто 130. Neck of rib zygomaticus
131. Шиловиден израстък 131. Styloid process 133. Margo zygomaticus
134. Arcus zygomaticus
132. Ябълчен израстък 132. Zygomatic process (of 135. Fossa sacci lacrimalis
frontal bone)
133. Ябълчен рид 133. Zygomatic margin 136. Incisura jugularis
134. Ябълчна дъга 134. Zygomatic arch 137. Tuberculum jugulare
135. Яма на слъзната 135. Fossa for lacrimal sac
торбичка
136. Яремна изрезка 136. Jugular notch
137. Яремна пъпка 137. Jugular tubercle

6. SENSORY ORGANS

BULGARIAN ENGLISH LATIN

1. Ареола на гърдата 1. Areola, nipple 1. Areola mammae

2. Биполярен неврон 2. Bipolar neuron; retina 2. Neuronum bipolare
bipolar cell
3. Бодилест слой 3. Spinous layer
4. Бодилна клетка 4. Spinous cell, prickle cell 3. Stratum spinosum
5. Skin furrows, skin 4. Epitheliocytus spinosus
5. Бразди на кожата grooves
6. Бразда на склерата 6. Sclera 5. (Cutis) sulci cutis
7. Вени на лабиринта 7. Labyrinthine veins 6. Sclera
8. Вестибуларни вени 8. Vestibular veins 7. Venae labyrinthi
9. Вкусова пора 9. Taste pore 8. Venae vestibulares
 158

10. Вкусова чашка 10. Taste bud 9. Porus gustatorius

11. Вретено 11. Modiolus 10. Caliculus gustatorius
12. Вход към пещерата 12. Aditus to mastoid 11. Modiolus
antrum 12. Aditus ad antrum
13. Външен епителен слой 13. Epithelium
(блед) 13. Epithelium
14. Външна фалангова 14. Phalangeal cells
клетка (на Дайтерс) 14. Epitheliocytus
15. Външно влагалище на phalangeus externus
зрителния нерв 15. External/dural sheath of 15. Vagina externa nervi
16. Глава на стремето optic nerve optici
17. Гребени на кожата 16. Head of stapes 16. Caput stapedis
17. Еpidermal ridges, skin 17. Cristae cutis
18. Гредичкова мрежа ridges
19. Дилататор на зеницата 18. Trabecular meshwork. 18. Reticulum trabeculare
19. Pupillary dilator 19. Musculus dilatator
20. Дръжка на чукче pupillae
20. Handle of hammer. 20. Presternum
21. Екватор Presternum
22. Екватор на лещата 21. Equator 21. Equator
23. Жълто петно 22. Еquator of lens 22. Equator lentis
24. Задна гранична 23. Macula
23. Yellow spot, macula
пластинка 24. Lamina limitans posterior
24. Posterior limiting
25. Зеничен ръб
lamina
25. Pupillary border/margin 25. Margo pupillaris
26. Зоничкови of iris
пространства 26. Spatia zonulaia
26. Apical space
27. Ивичеста зоничка.
28. Издутина (хълмче) 27. Zonula ciliaris
27. Тight junction
28. Promontory of tympanic 28. Auris (media)
29. Изопната част cavity promontorium
30. Ирис. Дъговица 29. Taut part 29. Pars tensa
31. Кант на корнеята 30. Iris 30. Iris
32. Кафява пластинка на 31. Corneal limbus 31. Limbus corneae
склерата 32. Lamina fusca of sclera 32. Lmina fusca sclerae
33. Кора
34. Купол 33. Cortex 33. Cortex
35. Куполен сляп край 34. Dome 34. Cupola
36. Ладия 35. Cupular blind sac 35. Caecum cupulare
37. Леща 36. Scapha 36. Scapha
38. Лещовиден израстък 37. Lens
37. Lens
39. Лодка на ухото 38. Lenticular process 38. Processus lenticularis
40. Луничка 39. Cymba conchae 39. Cymba conchae
41. Лъчи на лещата 40. Lunula 40. Lunula
41. Radii of lens, lens stars, 41. Radii lentis
42. Мастно тяло на lens sutures
очницата 42. Orbital fat body, fat 42. Corpus adiposum orbitae
43. Мастоидна пещера
 159

44. Мембранен диск body of orbit 43. Antrum mastoideum

45. Меридиани 43. Mastoid antrum 44. Discus membranaceus
46. Мехче. Утрикул 44. Membranous disc 45. Meridiani
47. Млечна жлеза 45. Meridians 46. Utriculus
48. Млечни синуси 46. Utricle 47. Glandual mammaria
49. Мъжка млечна жлеза 47. Mammary gland 48. Sinus lactiferi
48. Lactiferous sinus 49. Mamma masculina
50. Назъбена линия 49. Male breast; mamma
virilis 50. Ora serrata
51. Наковалня 50. Serrated junction,
52. Нокътно валче margin, boundary 51. Incus
53. Нокътно ложе. 51. Anvil 52. Vallum unguis
Поднокът 52. Nail wall 53. Hyponychium
54. Общо краче 53. Nail bed
54. Crus osseum commune
55. Орбитален мускул 54. Common bony limb
56. Охлюв (crus) 55. M. orbitalis
57. Охлювен водопровод 55. Orbital muscle 56. Cochlea
56. Cochlea 57. Aqueductus cochleae
58. Охлювен лабиринт 57. Cochlear aqueduct,
59. Охлювно прозорче aqueduct of cochlea 58. Labyrinthus cochlearis
60. Очна ябълка 58. Cochlear labyrinth 59. Fenestra cochleae
59. Round window 60. Bulbus oculi
61. Периорбита (периост на 60. Globe of the eye,
очницата) eyeball 61. Periostem
62. Плочка на трагуса 61. Eyesocket, periorbita,
63. Поле на лицевия нерв periosteum 62. Lamina tragi
64. Подпорна клетка 62. Lamina of tragus 63. Area nervi facialis
63. Facial nerve area 64. Epitheliocytus
65. Преддверен лабиринт 64. Sertoli cells, ‘nurse cell, sustentance
66. Преддверна стълба supporting cell 65. Labyrinthus vestibularis
67. Предна очна камера 65. Vestibular labyrinth 66. Scala vestibulari
66. Vestibular ramp 67. Camera anterior nulbi
68. Прикрепящ апарат на 67. Anterior chamber of
кожата eyeball 68. Ligamenta suspensoria
69. Проминиращ съд 68. Cooper's ligaments mammaria
70. Просто краче (suspensory ligaments) 69. Vas. Prominens
71. Просто ципесто краче 69. Prominent blood vessel 70. Crus osseum simplex
70. Simple bony limb 71. Crus membranaceum
72. Протоплазматичен 71. Simple membranous simplex
астроцит, звездовидна limb 72. Astrocytus
клетка 72. Protoplasmic astrocyte; protoplasmaticus
73. Пръчица. astroglia star-shaped cell
Пръчконосеща 73. Epitheliocytus bacillifer
епителна клетка. 73. Rod cell (bacilus)
74. Радиални влакна
75. Разединен слой 74. Fibrae radiales
76. Раковина на ухото 74. Radial fibers 75. Stratum disjunctum
 160

77. Ресничка 75. Outermost layer 76. Concha auruculae

78. Ретина. Мрежовица 76. Concha of auricle 77. Cilium
79. Рогов слой 77. Cilium 78. Retina
80. Рогова люспа 78. Retina 79. Stratum corneum
81. Роговица 79. Horned layer 80. Squama cornea
82. Роговичносклерна част 80. Epidermal scale 81. Cornea
83. Светъл слой 81. Cornea 82. Pars corneoscleralis
84. Склера. Очен белтък 82. Corneoscleral part 83. Stratum lucidum
85. Скрит ръб 83. Translucent layer 84. Sclera
86. Слухова тръба 84. Sclera 85. Margo occultus
87. Слухови зъбци 85. Occult border of nail 86. Tuba auditiva (auditoria)
86. Eustachian tube 87. Dentes acustici
88. Слъзен поток 87. Acoustic teeth, auditory
89. Слъзно езеро teeth 88. Rivus lacrimalis
90. Слъзно месце 88. Ferrein's canal 89. Lacus lacrimalis
91. Слъзна торбичка 89. Lacrimal lake 90. Carunculus lacrimalis
92. Спирален гребен 90. Lacrimal caruncle 91. Saccus lacrimalis
91. Lacrimal sac 92. Cristi spiralis
93. Спирален канал на 92. Spiral ligament (Ligamentum spirale)
охлюва 93. Canalis spiralis cochleae
94. Средно тунелче 93. Cochlear canal 94. Cuniculus medius
95. Стремна яма 95. Fossa incudis
96. Стъкловидно тяло 94. Middle cuniculus 96. Corpus vitreum
97. Сферичен улей 95. Incudal fossa 97. Recessus sphericus
96. Vitreum, hyaloid body
98. Съдовица. Хороидея 97. Spherical recess; 98. Choroidea
99. Съединителен проток saccular recess 99. Ducuts reuniens
98. Choroid, choroid coat
99. Hensen canal, Hensen
duct, uniting canal,
uniting duct 100. Sacculus laryngis
100. Торбичка (сакул). 100. Saccule
Гръклянно джобче. 101. Fossa triangularis
101. Триъгълна яма 101. Triangular fossa of auruculae
auricle 102. Incisura tympanica
102. Тъпанчева изрезка 102. Tympanic incisure 103. Paries tympanicus
103. Тъпанчева стена на 103. Tympanic surface of ductus cochlearis
охлювния ход. cochlear duct 104. Scala tympani
104. Тъпанчева стълба 104. Tympanic canal 105. Cellulae tympanicae
105. Тъпанчеви килийки 105. Tympanic cells 106. Pars flaccida
106. Хлабава част 106. Flaccid part 107. Fovea
107. Централна яма 107. Fovea 108. Labyrinthus
108. Ципест лабиринт 108. Membranous labyrinth membranaceus
109. Malleus
109. Чукче 109. Hammer (malleus) 110. Stria mallearis
110. Чукчева ивица 110. Mallear strip
 161

8. SPLANCHNOLOGY

BULGARIAN ENGLISH LATIN

1. Бразда (жлеб) на 1. Papillary sulcus 1. Sulcus papillae
папилата
2. Бронхиални клончета 2. Branches of segmental 2. Rami bronchiales
на сегментите bronchi segmentorum
3. Бронхиално дърво 3. Bronchial tree 3. Arbor bronchialis
4. Бръчкови колони 4. Vaginal columns 4. Columnae rugarum
5. Бъбречна кора 5. Renal cortex; cortex of 5. Cortex renalis
6. Бъбречно телце. kidney
Малпигиево телце 6. Renal corpuscle 6. Corpusculum renales
7. Вал на папила 7. Vallate papillae, 7. Vallum papillae
8. Венечен ръб circumvallate
9. Вкусови луковици на 8. Gingival margin 8. Margo gingivalis
епитела 9. Epiglottal taste buds 9. Gemma gustatoria
epiglottidis
10. Влагалище. Вагина 10. Vagina 10. Vagina
11. Влагалищни бръчки 11. Vaginal rugae 11. Rugae vaginalis
12. Врата на черния дроб. 12. Transverse fissure of 12. Porta hepatis
Порта the liver
13. Вретено на емайла 13. Enamel spindle 13. Fusus enameli
14. Връх на мехура 14. Apex of urinary bladder 14. Apex vesicae
15. Връх на острието 15. Apex of cusp of tooth 15. Apex cuspidis
16. Втиснатост на 16. Cardiac impression 16. Impressio cardiaca
кардията
17. Вторичен дентин 17. Secondary dentin 17. Dentinum secundarium
18. Върхова жлеза 18. Anterior lingual gland 18. Glandula lingualis apicalis
19. Върхово (апикално) 19. Apical fibre 19. Fibra apicalis
влакно
20. Гласна гънка. 20. Vocal fold 20. Plica vocalis
Гласилка
21. Гласна цепка 21. Glottic cleft 21. Rima glottides
22. Гломерулна 22. Glomerul capillary 22. Rete capillare glomerulare
капилярна мрежа network
23. Голяма кривина на 23. Greater curvature of the 23. Curvature gastrica
стомаха stomach (ventriculi) major
24. Голяма срамна устна. 24. Outer pudendal labia 24. Labium majus pudendi
Голяма устна на
вулвата
25. Голям крилов хрущял 25. Greater alar cartilage 25. Cartilage alaris major
26. Горно аберантно 26. Superior aberrant 26. Ductulus aberrans superior
поточе ductile
27. Гранична бразда 27. Terminal sulcus 27. Sulcus terminalis
28. Гранична пластинка 28. Limiting lamina 28. Lamina limitans
29. Гредички на 29. Trabeculae of corpora 29. Trabeculae corporum
пещеристите тела cavernosa cavernosum
30. Групирани лимфни 30. Aggregated lymphoid 30. Folliculi lymphatici
фоликули nodules of the small aggregate
intestine
31. Гръб на езика 31. Back of tongue 31. Dorsum linguae
32. Гръкляново 32. Laryngeal prominence, 32. Prominentia laryngea
 162

изпъкване. Адамова Adam’s apple

ябълка
33. Гъбесто тяло на 33. Spongy body of penis 33. Corpus spongiosum penis
пениса
34. Гъбовидни папили 34. Large intestine 34. Intestinum crissum
35. Гълтач. Фаринкс 35. Pharynx 35. Pharynx
36. Дванадесетопръстник 36. Duodenum 36. Duodenum
(дуоденум)
37. Дебело черво 37. Fungiform papillae 37. Papillae fungiformes
38. Девствена ципа. 38. Hymen 38. Hymen
Химен
39. Дентиново клъбце 39. Dentin globule 39. Globulus dentinalis
40. Дистална повърхност 40. Distal surface of tooth 40. Facies distalis
41. Дихателна система 41. Respiratory system 41. Apparatus respiratorius
42. Добавъчна околоушна 42. Accessory parotid gland 42. Glandula parotidea
жлеза accessoria
43. Долно средостение 43. Inferior mediastinum 43. Mediastinum inferius
44. Дръжка (краче) на 44. Epiglottic petiole 44. Petioles epiglotticum
епиглотиса
45. Дъно на мехура 45. Bottom of bladder 45. Fundus vesicae
46. Дъно на стомаха 46. Fundus of the stomach 46. Fundus gastricus
(ventricularis)
47. Единични лимфни 47. Solitary lymphoid 47. Folliculi lymphatici solitarii
фоликули nodule
48. Езиче на левия бял 48. Lingula of left lung 48. Lingual pulmonis sinistri
дроб
49. Еластичен конус 49. Elastic cone 49. Conus elasticus
50. Етмоидална фуния 50. Ethmoidal infunfibulum 50. Infundibulum ethmoidale
51. Жлъчен мехур 51. Gall bladder 51. Vesica biliaris
52. Задно средостение 52. Posterior mediastinum 52. Mediastinum posterius
53. Закърняло телце 53. Atretic ovarian follicle 53. Corpus atreticum
54. Зародиш на зъба. 54. Tooth germ, tooth bud 54. Gemma dentis
Зъбна пъпка 55. Stellate venule 55. Venulae stellariae
55. Звездовидни венули 56. Isthmus of the fauces 56. Isthmus faucium
56. Зевен провлак 57. Zymogen granule 57. Granulum zymogeni
57. Зимогенно зрънце 58. Anatomic crown; crown 58. Corona dentis
58. Зъбна корона of tooth
59. Зъбна пулпа 59. Dental pulp 59. Pulpa dentis
60. Зъбна торбичка 60. Dental sac 60. Sacculus dentis
61. Зъбна шийка 61. Neck of tooth 61. Cervix dentis
62. Изнасяща гломерулна 62. Afferent glomerular 62. Arteriola glomerularis
артериола. Еферентен arteriole of kidney efferns
съд
63. Инкрементна линия на 63. Enamel incremental 63. Linea incrementalis enameli
емайла line
64. Изтънено каналче 64. Attenuated tubule 64. Tubulus attenuates
65. Кавернозен слой 65. Cavernous stratum 65. Stratum cavernosum
66. Клиничен корен 66. Clinical root 66. Radix clinica
67. Клиновидна пазуха 67. Sphenoidal sinus 67. Sinus sphenoidalis
68. Клиновидна пъпка 68. Cuneiform tubercle 68. Tuberculum cuneiforme
69. Клитор. Гъделичник 69. Clitoris 69. Clitoris
70. Клъбце. Гломерул 70. Glomerulus 70. Glomerulus
71. Конични папили 71. Conic papillae 71. Papillae conicae
72. Контактна повърхност 72. Contact surface (of 72. Facies contactus
73. Кора на яйчника tooth)
 163

74. Корен(краче) на белия 73. Ovarian cortex 73. Cortex ovarii

дроб 74. Root of the lung 74. Radix (Pediculus) pulmonis
75. Корен на езика 75. Base of tongue 75. Radix linguae
76. Корови делчета 76. Cortical lobule 76. Lobuli corticales
77. Коса цепнатина 77. Oblique fissure 77. Fissure oblique
78. Краче на пениса 78. Crus of penis 78. Crus penis
79. Крила на носа 79. Ala of nose 79. Alae nasi
80. Крипта 80. Crypt 80. Crypta
81. Куковиден израстък 81. Uncinate process (of 81. Processus uncinatus
ethmoid bone)
82. Кухина на коронката 82. Pulp cavity of crown 82. Cavitas coronae
83. Кухинки на 83. Cavernous spaces of 83. Cavernae corporis
спонгиозното тяло corpus spongiosum of spongiosi
penis
84. Кучешки зъби 84. Canines 84. Canines
85. Къс (коров) нефрон 85. Cortical nephron 85. Nephronum breve
(corticale)
86. Леваторно 86. Levator swelling 86. Torus levatorius
възвишение
87. Лещовидни папили 87. Lenticular papillae 87. Papillae lentiformes
88. Лонно възвишение. 88. Pubic mound 88. Mons pubis
Венерин хълм
89. Луковица на пениса 89. Bulb of penis 89. Bulbus penis
90. Лъчист венец 90. Radiate crown 90. Corona radiata
91. Мастно тяло на бузата 91. Buccal fat pad 91. Corpus adiposum buccae
92. Медуларно повлекло 92. Medullary cord 92. Chorda medullaris
93. Меко небце 93. Soft palate 93. Palatum molle (Velum
palatum
94. Междуделчево 94. Interlobular duct 94. Ductus interlobularis
каналче
95. Междузъбна пролука. 95. Diastema 95. Diastema
Диастема
96. Месест мускул 96. Dartos muscle 96. M. dartos
97. Мехурен триъгълник 97. Trigone of urinary 97. Trigonum vesicae
bladder
98. Мехурна повърхност 98. Vesical surface of 98. Facies vesicalis
uterus
99. Мехурче. Алвеола 99. Alveolus 99. Alveolus
100. Млечни зъби 100. Deciduous teeth; baby 100. Dentes decidui
teeth, primary teeth,
milk teeth
101. Мрежа на тестиса 101. Haller rete, rete halleri 101. Rete halleri
102. Мъдрец(трети кътник) 102. Wisdom tooth, third 102. Dens serotinus (molaris
molar tertius)
103. Назофарингеален ход 103. Nasopharyngeal meatus 103. Meatus nasopharyngeus
104. Напречен гребен 104. Transverse ridge/crest 104. Crista transversalis
105. Небце 105. Palate 105. Palatum
106. Небцова висулка. 106. Palatine uvula, uvula 106. Uvula palatine
Мъждец
107. Небцовогълтачна дъга 107. Palatopharyngeal arch 107. Arcus palatopharyngeus
108. Небцогълтачен 108. Palatophyngeus muscle 108. M. Palatopharyngeus
мускул
109. Недиференциална 109. Undifferentiated 109. Epitheliocytus
епителна клетка epitheliocyte nondifferentiatus
110. Неонатална линия 110. Neonatal line; neonatal 110. Linea neonatalis
 164

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

150. Резци 150. Incisors 150. Dentes incisivi

151. Резцова сисица 151. Fimbriated fold of 151. Plica fimbriata
tongue
152. Ресничеста гънка. 152. Incisive papilla 152. Papilla incisiva
Назъбена гънка
153. Решетъчно поле 153. Cribiform area 153. Area cribrosa
154. Рог на пулпата 154. Pulp horn 154. Cornu pulpae
155. Ръб на езика 155. Margin of tongue 155. Margo linguae
156. Светла зона 156. Pellucid zone 156. Zona pellucida
157. Свободен ръб 157. Free margin 157. Margo liber
158. Свободна част 158. Free part 158. Pars libera
159. Свод на влагалището 159. Vaginal fornix 159. Fornix vaginae
160. Свод на стомаха 160. Fornix of stomach 160. Fornix gastricus
(ventricularis)
161. Свод на фаринкса 161. Vault of pharynx 161. Fornix pharynges
162. Свръзка на устните 162. Labial commissure of 162. Commissura labiorum
mouth
163. Сезамовиден хрущял 163. Sesamoid cartilage 163. Cartilage saesamoidea
164. Семенна връв 164. Spermatic cord 164. Funiculus spermaticus
(обвивки) (Tunicae)
165. Семенник. Тестис 165. Testicle 165. Testis (Orchis)
166. Семенно мехурче 166. Seminal vesicle 166. Vesicula (Glandula)
seminalis
167. Семепровод 167. Vas deferens 167. Ductus deferens
168. Синусоид 168. Sinusoid 168. Vas. sinusoideum
169. Сляпо черво 169. Cecum 169. Cecum
170. Снопче на емайла 170. Enamel fascicle 170. Fasciculus enameli
171. Собствена жлеза на 171. Esophageal gland 171. Glandula oesophageae
хранопровода proper propria
172. Спирална гънка. 172. Spiral valve 172. Plica spiralis
173. Стеснение 173. Isthmus 173. Isthmus
174. Стомахче на гръкляна 174. Ventricle of the larynx 174. Ventriculus laryngis
175. Gastric canal
175. Стомашен канал 175. Canalis gastricus
176. Gastric areas (ventricularis)
176. Стомашни поленца 177. Striated duct 176. Areae gastricae
177. Стриирано каналче 178. Central tendon of 177. Ductus striatus
178. Сухожилен център на perineum 178. Centrum tendineum
междинницата 179. Tendino-muscular perinei
179. Сухожнилномускулна lamina 179. Lamina
пластинка 180. Sphincter of ampulla tendinomusculatoris
180. Сфинктер на ампулата 180. M. sphincter ampullae
181. Събирателно 181. Collecting tubule, 181. Tubulus renales
бъбречно каналче junctional tubule colligens
182. Съдов полюс 182. Vascular pole 182. Polus vascularis
183. Сърповидни връзки 183. Falsiform ligament 183. Lig. Falsiforme
184. Сърцевина на яйчника 184. Medulla of ovary 184. Medulla ovarii
185. Твърдо небце 185. Hard palate 185. Palatum durum
186. Тения 186. Tenia 186. Taenia
187. Терминален участък 187. End piece 187. Portio terminalis
188. Тонзилни ямки 188. Tonsillar fossulae 188. Fossulae tonsillares
189. Трахеален кил. 189. Carina of trachea, 189. Carina tracheae
Трахеална шпора tracheal carina
190. Триъгълен гребен 190. Triangular ridge/crest 190. Crista triangularis
191. Триъгълна гънка 191. Triangular fold 191. Plica triangularis
 166

192. Тръбичка. Тубул 192. Tubule 192. Tubulus

193. Тубарно възвишение 193. Tubal torus 193. Torus tubarius
194. Тубулен полюс 194. Tubular pole (of renal 194. Polus tubularis
corpuscle)
195. Тънко черво 195. Small intestine 195. Intestinum tenue
196. Тяло на езика 196. Body of tongue 196. Corpus linguae
197. Тяло на мехура 197. Body of bladder 197. Corpus vesicae
198. Тяло на стомаха 198. Body of stomach 198. Corpus gastricum
(ventriculare)
199. Уретрален кил на 199. Urethral carina of 199. Carina urethralis
влагалището vagina vaginae
200. Устна кухина 200. Oral cavity 200. Cavitas oris
201. Устно жлебче 201. Philtrum 201. Philtrum
202. Фарингеален улей 202. Pharyngeal recess 202. Recessus pharyngeus
203. Фиброзна 203. Perivascular fibrous 203. Capsula fibrosa
периваскуларна capsule perivascularis
капсула.
204. Фуния. 204. Funnel 204. Infundibulum
Инфундибулум
205. Хемороидна зона 205. Annulus hemorrhoidalis 205. Annulus hemorrhoidalis
206. Хранопровод. 206. Esophagus, gullet 206. Esophagus
Езофагус
207. Хълмче 207. Colliculus 207. Colliculus
208. Цимент 208. Cementum; cement 208. Cementum
209. Централен лимфен 209. Central lymphatic 209. Vas. lymphaticum
съд vessel
210. Централна вена 210. Central vein (of liver) 210. Vena centralis
211. Циклично жълто тяло 211. Corpus luteum of 211. Corpus luteum
(менструално) menstruation cyclicum
212. Циментова клетка. 212. Cementocyte 212. Cementocytus
Циментоцид
213. Чашковидна клетка 213. Goblet cell 213. Exocrinocytus
caliciformis
214. Чернодробна триада 214. Portal triad; portal field, 214. Trias hepatica
portal area, or portal
tract
215. Чернодробни делчета 215. Lobe of the liver 215. Lobus hepatis
216. Червеобразен 216. Vermiform appendix 216. Appendix vermifirmis
израстък. Апендикс
217. Четковиден зъб 217. Brush border 217. Limbus penicillatus
218. Чревни власинки 218. Intestinal villi 218. Villi intestinales
219. Шев на пениса 219. Penile raphe 219. Raphe penis
220. Шев на фаринкса 220. Pharyngeal raphe 220. Raphe pharynges
221. Шийка на мехура 221. Neck of urinary bladder 221. Cervix vesicae
222. Юздичка на горната 222. Frenulum of upper lip
устнa 222. Frenulum labii
223. Юздичка на езика 223. Frenulum of tongue superioris
224. Юздичка на малките 224. Frenulum of labia 223. Frenulum linguae
устни minora 224. Frenulum labiorum
225. Юздичка на 225. Frenulum of prepuce of pudendi
предкожието penis 225. Frenulum preputii
226. Юкстагломерулен 226. Juxtaglomerular 226. Complexus
комплекс (апарат) complex juxtaglomerularis
227. Яйценосно хълмче 227. Cumulus oophorus 227. Cumulus oophorus
 167

APPENDIX 2

TERMINI GENERALES

1. BULGARIAN

1. Бодило 17. Гръб 33. Корен

2. Бразда 18. Гънка 34. Краче
3. Валче 19. Джобче 35. Крило
4. Влагалище 20. Дръжка 36. Кухина
5. Влакно 21. Дъга 37. Лабиринт
6. Власинка 22. Дъно 38. Линия
7. Водопровод 23. Дърво 39. Луковица
8. Вретено 24. Езиче 40. Люспа
9. Връзка 25. Зона 41. Мехур
10. Връх 26. Израстък 42. Мехурче
11. Вход 27. Изрезка 43. Мрежа
12. Възел 28. Камера 44. Опашка
13. Възвишение 29. Клон 45. Основа
14. Глава 30. Клъбце 46. Отвор
15. Грапавина 31. Кора 47. Петно
16. Гребен 32. Коремче 48. Пластинка
 168

49. Плочка 83. Шийка

50. Повлекло 84. Юздичка
51. Повърхност 85. Ядро
52. Покрив 86. Яма
53. Поле 87. Ямкa
54. Полюс
55. Похлупак
56. Преграда
57. Предверие
58. Проток
59. Пръстен
60. Пъпка
61. Път
62. Рид
63. Рог
64. Свод
65. Снопчета
66. Сплетение
67. Ствол
68. Стена
69. Стълба
70. Сърп
71. Телце
72. Тяло
73. Торбичка
74. Тръба
75. Триъгълник
76. Улей
77. Устна
78. Ухо
79. Ход
80. Хълмче
81. Център
82. Шев
 169

2. ENGLISH

1. Adductor 20. Duct 39. Neck

2. Back 21. Erector 40. Plate
3. Band 22. Flexor 41. Pole
4. Ball 23. Fold 42. Pouch
5. Base 24. Fringe 43. Process
6. Bed 25. Globe 44. Ridge
7. Belly 26. Groove 45. Ring
8. Blade 27. Head 46. Rotator
9. Body 28. Horn 47. Root
10. Border 29. Isthmus 48. Sheath
11. Branch 30. Joint 49. Sheet
12. Bud 31. Labyrinth 50. Socket
13. Canal 32. Lacuna 51. Spine
14. Cavity 33. Lake 52. Tract
15. Cord 34. Lens 53. Tree
16. Crown 35. Limb 54. Trunk
17. Crest 36. Lip 55. Tuft
18. Cusp 37. Lobe 56. Valve
19. Disc 38. Loop 57. Wall
170