Cognitive, Structural, and Semantic Features of Professional Neologisms in Modern English

This article describes 180 modern English neologisms with a professional component. Their structural and semantic features reveal how native speakers perceive and conceptualize new words through spiritual and practical activities, thus adjusting their worldview to the changing reality. The research involved the methods of definitional analysis, word formation, semantic assay, and cognitive-discursive interpretation, as well as various standard linguistic and statistical methods. The material was classified according to the type of professional activity. These lexical and semantic groups were united by intralinguistic links based on interrelated and interdependent connotative shades of meaning. Many neologisms demonstrated a metaphorical basis, which served as a tool for creating expressive images. All the neological units were emotive and evaluative. The emotive content conveyed the thoughts and feelings of the speaker, while the evaluative content was associated with the pragmatic function and contained information about the speaker’s attitude to the denotation. Most professional neologisms were gender-neutral. The universal nature of the images behind the neologisms probably testifies to the current mental changes in a society that values gender equality. Interdiscursivity appeared to permeate all lexical and semantic fields of the English neological space. The heterogeneity reflected the complex activity the speaker performs in an attempt to comprehend a complex and multifaceted environment, which, in turn, gives the neological units an anthropocentric character. The relevance of the research is determined by the rapid development of various social spheres, which inevitably affects the modern communication and the linguistic worldview in general.

1. Ageev S. V., Antonenko N. V., Pushkarev E. A. Cognitive and pragmatic functions of neologisms in speech. Teoreticheskaya i prikladnaya lingvistika, 2020, 6(2): 5–7. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22250/2410-7190_2020_6_2_5_17

2. Alefirenko N. F. Issues of cognitive and semiological research in linguistics. Word, consciousness, and culture, comp. Zolotykh L. G. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2006, 31–41. (In Russ.)

3. Arnold I. V. Lexicology of modern English. 2nd ed. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2012, 376. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/sdqwyl

4. Baranov A. N., Dobrovolsky D. O. The principles of the semantic description of phraseology. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2009, (6): 21–34. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/lhjlzl

5. Bragina A. A. Neologisms in Russian. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1973, 224. (In Russ.)

6. Vereshchagin E. M., Kostomarov V. G. Linguistic and regional theory of the word. Moscow: Rus. iaz., 1980, 320. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/pgwrsr

7. Vladimirova E. M. Emotivity as an independent linguistic category. NovaInfo.Ru, 2019, 1(96): 156–159. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/yutudr

8. Vygotsky L. S. Collected works. Vol. 2. Problems of general psychology. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982, 504. (In Russ.)

9. Georginova N. Yu. Interdiscoursivity, intertextuality, polyphony: To the correlation of terms. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina, 2014, 1(1): 149–155. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/secesd

10. Dedinkin A. L. Legal discourse as a multi-dimensional integrative phenomenon and legal linguistics as a syncretic science. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2021, 23(1): 220–228. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-1-220-228

11. Zubareva A. V. Color vocabulary in modern linguistics. Language and law: current problems of interaction: III Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Rostov-on-Don, 15 Nov 2013. Rostov-on-Don: Donskoe kn. izd-vo, 2013, iss. 3, 107–114. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ucnurh

12. Zubkova O. S. Medical metaphor-term as a mental representation. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, 2010, (3): 41–48. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/mvgqvd

13. Zyryanova A. V. Semantics of borrowed neologisms in the media. Vestnik Cheliabinskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2006, (6-1): 156–154. (In Russ.)

14. Ivanova N. K. English neologisms-abbreviations: Peculiarities of formation and spelling. Vestnik Permskogo nauchnogo tsentra UrO RAN, 2013, (4): 52–60. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/rzccpx

15. Karaulov U. N. General and Russian ideography. Moscow: Nauka, 1976, 355. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/sdcmjz

16. Katermina V. V. Gender stereotype: formation and functioning in language and speech. Language: categories, functions, speech action: Proc. XI Intern. Sci. Conf., Moscow-Kolomna, 12–13 Apr 2018. Moscow: MPSU, 2018, iss. 11, pt. 1, 71–73. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/yzwshr

17. Katermina V. V. Neologisms of the English discourse as a reflection of the values of modern society. Iazyk i kultura v epokhu integratsii nauchnogo znaniia i professionalizatsii obrazovaniia, 2022, (3-1): 27–33. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ryrqso

18. Katermina V. V. Nomination of a person: National and cultural aspect (based on the Russian and English languages). Moscow: Flinta, 2016, 222. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/whizpr

19. Kubryakova E. S. Nominative aspect of speech activity. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2012, 156. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/sapkvp

20. Lenko G. N. Emotivity category and related to it. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina, 2015, 1(1): 84–91. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/uaorsf

21. Lipilina L. A. The cognitive role of linguistic analogy in generating novel metaphors in English. Vestnik Baltiiskogo federalnogo universiteta im. I. Kanta, 2007, (2): 91–98. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/hysbgn

22. Lipiridi S. Kh. Eologisms in the business discourse of the modern english language. Gumanitarnyye issledovaniya, 2023, (3): 74–79. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qokfpr

23. Milyavskaya N. B. Cognitive basis of meaning development of metaphtonymic neologisms (based on the modern English language). Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University, 2009, (571-2): 70–84. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/zbterz

24. Nashkhoeva M. R. Linguistic concept of emotions and emotivity of the text. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Linguistics, 2011, (1): 95–98. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ofpslb

25. Pastuchov A. G. Issues of interdiscursivity and news selection. Discourse of modern mass media in the perspective of theory, social practice and education; Topical issues of modern media linguistics and media criticism in Russia and abroad: II Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Belgorod, 5–7 Oct 2016. Belgorod: ID "Belgorod", 2016, 57–68. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/yhscun

26. Pervova A. V. Interdiscursivity as a form of heterogeneity of the text and a method of violation of its structure. Vestnik TvGU. Series: Philology, 2015, (4): 152–158. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/vkeurr

27. Pêcheux M. Capital truths. Linguistics, semantics, and philosophy. The quadrature of meaning: The French school of discourse analysis, ed. Sériot P. Moscow: Progress, 1999, 225–290. (In Russ.)

28. Romanovich M. Yu. Cognitive basis for metaphoric nomination in English neology. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 2021, (4): 165–175. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.52070/2542-2197_2021_4_846_165

29. Savchenko A. N. Figurative-emotional function of speech and poetic speech. Rostov-on-Don: Rostov University, 1978, 128. (In Russ.)

30. Teliya V. N. Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic worldview. The role of the human factor in language. Language and worldview, ed. Serebrennikov B. A. Moscow: Vyssh. shk., 1988, 173–203. (In Russ.)

31. Terentii L. M. Diplomatic discourse as a specific form of political communication. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, 2010, (1): 47–56. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/mvdfbr

32. Tretiakova L. N. Military metaphor and phraseology in modern Russian language. Relevant issues of the Russian language and methods of teaching Russian: traditions and innovations: Proc. XVII All-Russian Sci.-Prac. Conf. with Intern. Participation, Moscow, 13 Apr 2018. Moscow: PFUR, 2018, 42–55. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/vpbihw

33. Husnullina Yu. A. Dynamics of English neologisms development. Modern Studies of Social Issues, 2022, 14(1): 217–227. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.12731/2077-1770-2022-14-1-214-227

34. Shakhovsky V. I. Categorization of emotions in the lexical semantical system of language. 3rd ed. Moscow: URSS, 2009, 206. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/qubucf

35. Yusupova L. G., Kazykhanova G. Kh. Professional vocabulary vs. terms. Dostizheniia vuzovskoi nauki, 2016, (21): 175–178. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/vsbinn

36. Cottingham M. D. Neo-emotions: An interdisciplinary research agenda. Emotion Review, 2024, 16(1): 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739231198636

37. Gracia B. M. Metapragmatic neology in digital discourse: Solid groundwork for morphopragmatics and construction morphology. Language under Discussion, 2021, 6(1): 38–42. https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.6.1.255

38. Huang J. Semantic construction of internet neologisms under conceptual integration theory. Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2023, 3(8): 109–115. https://doi.org/10.54691/fhss.v3i8.5546

39. Lafoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, 242.

40. Tomaszewicz E. Novel words with final combining forms in English. A case for blends in word formation. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2008, 44(3): 363–378. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-008-0018-7