CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
1
VOLUME:
Vol.06 Issue08 2025
Page: - 01-08
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Conceptualizing 'Property' in English Food Industry
Terminology: A Linguistic Analysis of Lexical Representation
Dr. Helen S. Whitaker
PhD, School of English and Applied Linguistics, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Dr. Eleanor J. Hawthorne
PhD, Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Received:
03 June 2025
Accepted:
02 July 2025
Published:
01 August 2025
INTRODUCTION
The global food industry is an expansive and critically
important sector, encompassing a vast array of activities
from
agricultural
production
and
processing
to
distribution, retail, and consumption. Its complexity
necessitates a highly specialized and precise terminology
to ensure effective communication, maintain quality
standards,
guarantee
food
safety,
and
facilitate
international trade and regulatory compliance [10, 11].
Within this intricate linguistic landscape, the conceptual
category of 'property' holds a paramount position.
'Property,' in a broad sense, refers to an inherent or
characteristic quality, attribute, or feature of something [7].
In the context of the food industry, this extends to a myriad
of characteristics of food products, raw materials,
ingredients, processing methods, and even packaging, all
of which are crucial for their identification, classification,
evaluation, and application.
The linguistic representation of 'property' in specialized
terminologies is a fascinating area of study, as it reveals
how a particular domain conceptualizes and categorizes the
attributes of its objects of study. For the food industry,
these properties can range from the tangible and
ABSTRACT
The food industry, a dynamic and multifaceted sector, relies heavily on a precise and standardized terminology to facilitate
communication across its diverse domains, from production and processing to quality control, safety, and consumer information.
Central to this specialized lexicon is the linguistic representation of the 'property' category, encompassing attributes,
characteristics, qualities, and inherent features of food products, ingredients, and related processes. This article undertakes a
comprehensive linguistic analysis of how the concept of 'property' is encoded and expressed within the English terminology of
the food industry. Drawing upon principles of cognitive linguistics, onomasiology, and specialized terminology, the study
identifies various subcategories of properties (e.g., sensory, physical, chemical, nutritional, functional, legal) and examin es the
lexical, morphological, and semantic mechanisms employed for their representation. The analysis highlights the critical role of
precision and unambiguous communication in ensuring food safety, quality, and regulatory compliance. By elucidating the
intricate linguistic structures that define 'property' in this specialized domain, this research offers valuable insights for
lexicographers, terminologists, translators, and industry professionals, contributing to enhanced clarity and effectiveness i n global
food communication.
Keywords:
Food industry, English terminology, Property category, Linguistic representation, Cognitive linguistics, Onomasiology, Lexical semantics,
Specialized vocabulary.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
2
measurable (e.g., moisture content, pH, viscosity) to the
sensory and subjective (e.g., taste, aroma, texture) or the
functional and legal (e.g., shelf-life, allergen status,
organic certification). The precise linguistic encoding of
these properties is vital for scientific research, product
development, quality control, consumer labeling, and
regulatory frameworks. Any ambiguity or imprecision in
describing
these
properties
can
have
significant
implications for product safety, consumer health, and
economic viability.
This article embarks on a comprehensive linguistic
analysis to explore how the concept of 'property' is
represented within the English terminology of the food
industry. The primary objective is to identify the various
dimensions and subcategories of 'property' as they are
lexically manifested, and to examine the linguistic
mechanisms (e.g., morphological structures, lexical
choices, semantic relations) employed to express these
attributes. By delving into the linguistic intricacies, this
research aims to:
•
Map the conceptual landscape: Understand how
the 'property' category is cognitively structured and
linguistically articulated within the specialized discourse
of the food industry.
•
Highlight terminological precision: Demonstrate
the imperative for exactness in defining and using terms
related to food properties, given their practical
implications.
•
Inform cross-linguistic endeavors: Provide insights
that
are
valuable
for
lexicography,
terminology
management, and translation in multilingual food industry
contexts, recognizing that linguistic differences can pose
significant challenges [6].
•
Contribute to applied linguistics: Offer a detailed
case study of semantic representation in a highly
specialized domain, enriching the broader understanding
of how language shapes and reflects expert knowledge.
The study draws upon theoretical insights from cognitive
linguistics, which views language as deeply intertwined
with human cognition and conceptualization [14, 15], and
onomasiology, which investigates how concepts are named
and lexicalized [16]. It also leverages principles of
specialized terminology, emphasizing the systematic
nature and standardization efforts within professional
fields. The food industry, with its rich history and
continuous innovation, provides a dynamic context for this
linguistic inquiry, reflecting both established practices and
emerging trends in food science and technology [8].
Understanding the linguistic representation of 'property' is
not merely an academic exercise; it is fundamental to
ensuring
clear,
unambiguous
communication
that
underpins the safety, quality, and global exchange of food
products.
METHODS
This article employs a qualitative, analytical, and
descriptive linguistic methodology to investigate the
representation of the 'property' category within the English
terminology of the food industry. As a theoretical and
conceptual review, it primarily synthesizes insights from
established
linguistic
theories
and
specialized
lexicographical
resources,
rather
than
conducting
empirical data collection or statistical analysis of large
corpora. The approach is inherently interdisciplinary,
drawing upon principles from linguistics, food science, and
industry
standards
to
provide
a
comprehensive
understanding of the phenomenon.
Theoretical Framework
The analysis is firmly rooted in several key theoretical
perspectives from cognitive and specialized linguistics:
•
Cognitive Linguistics: This framework is central to
understanding how human cognition, conceptualization,
and experience shape linguistic structures [14, 15]. It posits
that language is not merely an arbitrary system of symbols
but reflects underlying cognitive processes, including
categorization, metaphor, and metonymy. In the context of
'property,' cognitive linguistics helps explain how abstract
attributes are conceptualized and then encoded into
concrete linguistic forms. Lakoff's work on the
contemporary theory of metaphor [14] and Kittay's insights
into metaphor's cognitive force [12] are particularly
relevant, as food properties might sometimes be expressed
metaphorically (e.g., "robust flavor"). Rudzka-Ostyn's
work on cognitive linguistics also provides foundational
understanding [15].
•
Onomasiology:
This
linguistic
discipline
investigates the process of naming, studying how concepts
are lexicalized in a language [16]. In the context of the
'property' category, onomasiology helps to trace the
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
3
various
linguistic
expressions
(words,
phrases,
compounds) that are used to denote specific attributes of
food. It moves from concept to name, providing a
systematic way to identify the range of lexical units
representing different properties. Selivanova's work on
cognitive onomasiology [16] offers a direct theoretical lens
for this aspect.
•
Terminology and Lexicology of Specialized
Fields: This perspective focuses on the systematic study of
terms
within
specialized
domains.
Specialized
terminology, such as that of the food industry, is
characterized by its precision, monosemy (ideally one
meaning per term), and systematic organization [2]. It aims
to reduce ambiguity and facilitate clear communication
among experts. This framework helps in understanding the
efforts towards standardization and the unique features of
terms in the food industry. The work by Narushevich-
Vasilyeva on Ukrainian food industry terminology [3, 4, 5]
provides a comparative backdrop, highlighting the
universal principles of specialized terminology while
acknowledging language-specific manifestations.
•
Lexical Semantics: This area of linguistics studies
the meaning of words and lexical relations. It is crucial for
analyzing how different terms relate to the 'property'
category, identifying synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and
hypernyms, and understanding the semantic fields
associated with food attributes.
Data Sources and Selection
The "data" for this conceptual review are primarily drawn
from authoritative and representative English-language
resources pertinent to the food industry and general
linguistics. These sources include:
•
General English Dictionaries: Used to establish the
foundational understanding of 'property' and its various
senses in common language [7].
•
Specialized
Food
Industry
Glossaries
and
Dictionaries: These are crucial for identifying terms
specific to the food sector. Examples include the Food
Industry Glossary [10] and the comprehensive The Oxford
Companion to Food [8], which provide definitions and
contextual usage of food-related terms.
•
Official Documents and Standards: Publications
from regulatory bodies like the Food Standards Agency
(UK) [9] offer insights into the standardized and legally
defined terminology used in official contexts, particularly
concerning food safety, quality, and labeling.
•
Linguistic and Terminological Studies: Academic
papers
and
monographs
that
discuss
language,
terminology, and communication in specialized fields,
including the food industry [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17]. These sources provide theoretical insights into
lexical development, semantic shifts, and the role of
language in interdisciplinary contexts. The work of
Syrotina and Lashkul on conceptual categories in English
food industry terms [17] and Lashkul's on object
categorization [13] are particularly relevant as they directly
address the structure of this lexicon.
The selection of these sources is based on their direct
relevance to the linguistic and terminological aspects of the
topic, ensuring a robust foundation for analysis.
Analytical Approach
The analytical approach involves a multi-layered
examination of English food industry terms to identify and
categorize the linguistic representation of 'property':
•
Identification of 'Property' Terms: Initial scanning
of specialized food industry glossaries and relevant
academic texts to identify terms that explicitly or implicitly
denote characteristics, attributes, qualities, or features of
food products, ingredients, or processes. This includes
nouns (e.g., texture, flavor, acidity), adjectives (e.g.,
crispy, sweet, organic), and compound terms/phrases (e.g.,
shelf-life, moisture content, nutritional value).
•
Categorization of Property Types: The identified
terms will be grouped into distinct conceptual
subcategories of 'property' based on the nature of the
attribute they describe. These categories will emerge from
the data but are anticipated to include:
o
Sensory Properties: Related to taste, smell, touch,
sight, and sound (e.g., aroma, bitterness, crunchiness,
color, mouthfeel).
o
Physical
Properties:
Measurable
physical
characteristics (e.g., density, viscosity, elasticity, hardness,
moisture content).
o
Chemical
Properties:
Related
to
chemical
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
4
composition and reactions (e.g., pH, acidity, alkalinity,
oxidation, fat content).
o
Nutritional Properties: Related to nutrient content
(e.g., protein content, vitamin enrichment, calorie count,
fiber).
o
Functional Properties: Related to how a food
behaves during processing or consumption (e.g.,
emulsifying capacity, gelling ability, solubility, heat
stability).
o
Legal/Regulatory Properties: Related to standards,
certifications, and compliance (e.g., organic, halal, kosher,
allergen-free, GMO-free, best-before date).
o
Quality/Safety Properties: Related to standards of
excellence and absence of harm (e.g., freshness, purity,
contamination, spoilage, pathogen-free).
•
Linguistic Mechanisms of Representation: For
each category, the specific linguistic mechanisms used to
express these properties will be analyzed. This includes:
o
Lexical Units: Single words (nouns, adjectives,
verbs used nominally).
o
Morphological Structures: Prefixes, suffixes,
compounding (e.g., -ness, -ity, -able, hydro-, fat-free).
o
Syntactic Structures: Phrases, collocations (e.g.,
high in fiber, rich in antioxidants).
o
Semantic Relations: How terms within a category
relate to each other (e.g., hyponymy, meronymy).
•
Comparative Insights (Implicit): While the
primary focus is English, the understanding of
terminological
development
in
other
languages,
particularly Ukrainian food industry terminology as
researched by Narushevich-Vasilyeva [3, 4, 5] and Reyda
[6], will provide an implicit comparative lens, highlighting
universal principles of specialized language and potential
areas of cross-linguistic challenge in translation [6].
This analytical approach, grounded in robust linguistic
theories and drawing from authoritative sources, aims to
provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of how the
'property' category is linguistically represented in the
English terminology of the food industry. The insights
derived are intended to be valuable for both theoretical
linguistics and practical applications within the food
sector.
RESULTS
The systematic analysis of English food industry
terminology, guided by principles of cognitive linguistics
and onomasiology, reveals a rich and multifaceted
linguistic representation of the 'property' category. The
findings demonstrate how various linguistic mechanisms
are employed to encode the diverse attributes,
characteristics, and qualities inherent to food products,
ingredients, and processes. This section categorizes these
properties and illustrates their linguistic manifestations,
drawing upon the conceptual frameworks identified in the
methods.
Categorization of 'Property' in English Food Industry
Terminology
The analysis yielded several distinct, yet often
interconnected, conceptual subcategories of 'property' that
are prominently represented in the English food industry
lexicon. These categories reflect the critical aspects
evaluated and communicated within the sector:
•
Sensory Properties: These relate to attributes
perceived through the human senses (taste, smell, touch,
sight, sound). They are fundamental to consumer
acceptance and product development.
o
Examples: flavor, aroma, taste, sweetness,
bitterness, sourness, saltiness, umami, texture, crispness,
chewiness, viscosity, mouthfeel, color, appearance, sheen,
crunch, crackle.
o
Linguistic
Representation:
Often
expressed
through direct nouns (flavor, taste, texture), adjectives
derived from sensory experiences (sweet, bitter, crunchy,
creamy, vibrant), or compound nouns (mouthfeel,
aftertaste, color intensity).
•
Physical Properties: These encompass measurable
physical characteristics of food materials, crucial for
processing, handling, and quality control.
o
Examples: density, viscosity, elasticity, hardness,
firmness, plasticity, solubility, water activity, moisture
content, melting point, freezing point, boiling point,
specific gravity, particle size, flowability, turbidity.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
5
o
Linguistic Representation: Predominantly nouns
(density, viscosity, hardness), often combined with
quantifying adjectives (high density, low viscosity) or
forming compound nouns (moisture content, melting
point). Terms often derive from scientific or engineering
vocabulary.
•
Chemical Properties: These relate to the chemical
composition, reactions, and stability of food components,
vital for food science, preservation, and nutritional
analysis.
o
Examples: pH, acidity, alkalinity, oxidation,
rancidity, fat content, protein content, carbohydrate
content, ash content, vitamin content, mineral content,
enzyme activity, antioxidant capacity, volatile compounds.
o
Linguistic Representation: Frequently nouns (pH,
acidity, oxidation), often followed by "content" or "level"
(fat content, protein level), or expressed as compound
nouns (antioxidant capacity, volatile compounds).
Scientific prefixes and suffixes are common (e.g.,
hydrophilic, lipophilic).
•
Nutritional Properties: These describe the presence
and quantity of nutrients and other beneficial or
detrimental components, central to public health and
dietary guidelines.
o
Examples: calorie count, energy value, fat-free,
low-sodium, high-fiber, vitamin-enriched, fortified, sugar-
reduced, gluten-free, cholesterol-free, trans-fat.
o
Linguistic Representation: Often adjectives or
compound adjectives (fat-free, low-sodium), participles
(enriched, fortified), or nouns followed by "content" or
"value" (protein content, energy value). These terms are
frequently used in labeling and health claims.
•
Functional Properties: These refer to how food
ingredients or products behave during processing, storage,
or consumption, influencing their application and
performance.
o
Examples: emulsifying capacity, gelling ability,
foaming ability, water-holding capacity, binding strength,
heat stability, cold stability, shelf-life, dispersibility,
crispness retention, textural stability.
o
Linguistic Representation: Typically compound
nouns combining a process or state with "capacity,"
"ability," "strength," or "stability" (emulsifying capacity,
gelling ability, shelf-life). Verbs converted to nouns are
also common (binding, foaming).
•
Legal/Regulatory Properties: These pertain to
attributes that must comply with specific laws, standards,
or certifications, ensuring safety, authenticity, and fair
trade.
o
Examples: organic, halal, kosher, GMO-free,
allergen-free, fair trade, certified, traceable, best-before
date, expiry date, country of origin, grade (e.g., Grade A
eggs).
o
Linguistic
Representation:
Often
adjectives
(organic, halal, certified), compound adjectives (GMO-
free, allergen-free), or specific nouns/phrases related to
labeling and dating (best-before date, country of origin).
These terms are highly standardized due to legal
implications.
•
Quality and Safety Properties: These describe the
overall excellence, purity, and freedom from hazards in
food products, crucial for consumer trust and public health.
o
Examples:
freshness,
purity,
contamination,
spoilage, microbial load, pathogen-free, adulteration,
integrity, wholesomeness, hygiene, sanitation, traceability.
o
Linguistic Representation: Nouns (freshness,
purity,
contamination),
adjectives
(fresh,
pure,
contaminated, spoiled, hygienic), and compound terms
(pathogen-free, microbial load). These terms are directly
linked to food safety management systems.
Linguistic Mechanisms of Representation
The analysis reveals a diverse array of linguistic
mechanisms used to represent these 'property' categories,
reflecting the need for both precision and efficiency in
specialized communication:
•
Nouns and Noun Phrases: Many properties are
directly lexicalized as nouns (e.g., flavor, texture, acidity,
density). Complex properties are often expressed through
noun phrases, frequently involving compound nouns (e.g.,
moisture content, shelf-life, water activity), which allow
for concise and specific denotation. The use of "content,"
"level," "value," "capacity," and "ability" as head nouns in
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
6
these phrases is highly productive.
•
Adjectives: Adjectives are fundamental for
describing qualities (e.g., sweet, bitter, crispy, firm, stable,
organic, fresh). They often derive from nouns (e.g., acidic
from acid) or verbs (e.g., cooked, frozen). Compound
adjectives (e.g., fat-free, low-sodium, heat-stable) are
particularly common for expressing nutritional or
functional properties.
•
Suffixation
and
Prefixation:
Morphological
processes, particularly suffixation, are extensively used to
form nouns denoting properties from adjectives or other
nouns (e.g., crisp-ness, fresh-ness, elastic-ity, visco-sity,
solubil-ity). Prefixes (e.g., un-, non-, anti-, hydro-) are also
used to modify or negate properties (e.g., unstable, non-
GMO, antioxidant, hydrophilic).
•
Verbs and Participles: While properties are
typically static attributes, their manifestation or change can
be described using verbs or participles. For instance,
processes like oxidation (verb: oxidize) or states like
cooked (participle of cook) describe properties resulting
from transformation. Functional properties often implicitly
refer to actions or behaviors (e.g., emulsifying ability,
gelling capacity).
•
Collocations and Fixed Expressions: Many
property terms appear in fixed collocations or idiomatic
expressions that convey specific meanings within the food
industry (e.g., organoleptic properties, nutritional facts,
sensory profile, cold chain integrity). These collocations
contribute to the specialized register and often carry
precise technical meanings.
•
Conceptual Metaphor and Metonymy: While less
pervasive than in general language, conceptual metaphors
can occasionally be observed, particularly in sensory
descriptions (e.g., a "bright" flavor, a "heavy" texture).
Metonymy is more common, where a property stands for
the product itself (e.g., "the organic" refers to organic
products). These linguistic devices, as discussed by Lakoff
[14] and Kittay [12], demonstrate the cognitive
underpinnings of linguistic representation.
The findings align with Syrotina and Lashkul's
observations on the conceptual categories represented by
English food industry terms [17], confirming the
systematic nature of this specialized vocabulary. Lashkul's
work on object categorization further supports the
structured way in which food properties are classified and
named [13]. The precision achieved through these diverse
linguistic mechanisms is paramount for effective
communication in a sector where accuracy directly impacts
safety, quality, and economic value.
DISCUSSION
The linguistic analysis of the 'property' category within
English food industry terminology reveals a highly
structured, precise, and dynamic lexical fund that is deeply
intertwined with the scientific, technological, and
regulatory demands of the sector. The findings underscore
that the representation of 'property' is not arbitrary but is
systematically organized through various linguistic
mechanisms to meet the imperative for clarity and
unambiguous communication.
The comprehensive categorization of properties into
sensory, physical, chemical, nutritional, functional,
legal/regulatory, and quality/safety dimensions reflects the
holistic approach required in the food industry. Each
category
serves
distinct
purposes,
from
product
development and consumer appeal (sensory properties) to
scientific analysis and quality assurance (physical,
chemical, nutritional properties), and finally to market
compliance and consumer protection (functional, legal,
quality/safety properties). The linguistic mechanisms
employed for each category are often tailored to the nature
of the property. For instance, physical and chemical
properties frequently rely on scientific nomenclature and
compound nouns for precise quantification, while sensory
properties might use more descriptive adjectives or terms
derived
from
human
perception.
This
linguistic
specialization is crucial for ensuring that professionals
across the food supply chain, from food scientists and
engineers to quality control specialists and marketers,
share a common understanding of product attributes.
The extensive use of nouns, noun phrases, and specialized
adjectives, often enhanced by productive suffixation (e.g.,
-ness, -ity) and compounding, highlights the drive for
terminological precision and conciseness. This precision is
not merely a stylistic choice but a functional necessity. In
a sector where product specifications, safety parameters,
and legal compliance are paramount, ambiguity can lead to
significant economic losses, product recalls, or even public
health crises. For example, the distinction between "best-
before date" and "expiry date" carries profound legal and
safety implications for consumers. The standardization
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
7
efforts in terminology, as implicitly supported by the
existence of official glossaries [10] and regulatory bodies
[9], are therefore critical for ensuring consistent
interpretation across different contexts and jurisdictions.
The insights from cognitive linguistics, particularly
onomasiology [16], provide a valuable lens through which
to understand how these properties are conceptualized and
named. The process of lexicalization reflects the cognitive
salience of certain attributes within the food domain. For
instance, the proliferation of terms for 'texture' (e.g.,
crispness, chewiness, viscosity, mouthfeel) indicates the
high importance placed on this sensory property in food
product development and consumer experience. The
systematic categorization observed in the results aligns
with broader cognitive principles of how humans organize
knowledge into conceptual categories [17].
The challenges of translating food industry terminology
across languages are also implicitly highlighted by this
analysis. While the underlying scientific concepts of food
properties
might
be
universal,
their
linguistic
representation can vary significantly across European
languages, as evidenced by studies on Ukrainian food
terminology [3, 4, 5]. Reyda's work on translation
problems in this field [6] underscores that direct word-for-
word translation is often insufficient; a deep understanding
of the specialized semantic nuances and cultural contexts
is
required
to
ensure
accurate
and
equivalent
communication. This is particularly true for sensory terms,
which can be highly culture-specific, or legal terms, which
are bound by national regulations. The globalization of the
food industry necessitates robust terminology management
systems and highly skilled translators and interpreters to
bridge these linguistic gaps.
Furthermore, the dynamic nature of the food industry,
driven
by
scientific
advancements,
technological
innovations,
and
evolving
consumer
demands,
continuously shapes its terminology. New properties
emerge (e.g., related to novel ingredients, processing
techniques, or sustainability), requiring new terms or the
re-semanticization of existing ones. This constant
evolution underscores the importance of lifelong learning
for professionals in the field [10], including continuous
engagement with linguistic and terminological updates.
Limitations of the Current Review:
While this review provides a comprehensive conceptual
and linguistic analysis, it is important to acknowledge
certain limitations. Firstly, as a theoretical review, it does
not involve a large-scale empirical corpus analysis of food
industry texts. The examples provided are illustrative,
drawn from general knowledge of the field and the
implications of the provided references, rather than being
derived from quantitative frequency counts or detailed
contextual analyses of vast amounts of specialized
discourse. Secondly, the focus is primarily on English
terminology, and while comparisons to other European
languages are implicitly considered through the theoretical
framework, a detailed contrastive analysis would require
dedicated research beyond the scope of this article.
Thirdly, the review does not delve into the historical
evolution of specific terms within the English food
industry in great detail, focusing more on their current
representation. Finally, the practical application of these
terms in specific industry contexts (e.g., marketing,
consumer perception, regulatory enforcement) is discussed
conceptually but not through direct case studies or user
perception surveys.
Future Research Directions:
Building upon this foundational understanding, several
promising avenues for future research emerge. A large-
scale corpus-based linguistic analysis of diverse English
food industry texts (e.g., scientific journals, industry
reports, product specifications, regulatory documents)
would provide empirical data on the frequency,
collocations, and contextual usage of property terms. This
could reveal more subtle patterns of linguistic
representation. Secondly, contrastive linguistic studies
focusing on the 'property' category across multiple
European languages (e.g., English, French, German,
Polish, Ukrainian) would provide valuable insights into
cross-linguistic
similarities
and
differences
in
conceptualization and lexicalization, which are crucial for
improving translation quality in the food sector. Thirdly,
cognitive experimental studies could explore how industry
professionals and consumers interpret and categorize food
properties, potentially revealing cognitive biases or
discrepancies in understanding. Fourthly, research could
investigate the impact of emerging technologies (e.g., AI
in food processing, novel food ingredients, sustainable
food systems) on the evolution of food industry
terminology, particularly concerning new properties and
their linguistic encoding. Finally, applied terminological
research focusing on developing standardized multilingual
glossaries and ontological representations of food
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
8
properties would be highly beneficial for international
collaboration, regulatory harmonization, and automated
translation systems in the global food industry.
REFERENCES
Busel, V. T. (2005). Velykyy tlumachnyy slovnyk
suchasnoyi ukrayinsʹkoyi movy [Big Explanatory
Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv,
Irpin: Perun.
Martynyuk, A. P. (2011). Slovnyk osnovnykh terminiv
kohnityvno-dyskursyvnoyi linhvistyky [Dictionary of
basic terms of cognitive-discursive linguistics]. Kharkiv:
KHNU imeni V. N. Karazina.
Narushevich-Vasilyeva, O. V. (2017a). Semantyko-
tematychna ta katehoriyno-ponyattyeva orhanizatsiya
ukrayinsʹkoyi terminolohiyi kharchovoyi promyslovosti.
[Semantic-thematic
and
categorical-conceptual
organization of the Ukrainian terminology of the food
industry]. Slovenian terminology today, 567-576.
Narushevich-Vasilyeva,
O.
V.
(2017b).
Ekstralinhvistychni
ta
linhvistychni
chynnyky
vynyknennya y formuvannya ukrayinsʹkoyi terminolohiyi
kharchovoyi promyslovosti. [Extralinguistic and linguistic
factors of the emergence and formation of the Ukrainian
terminology of the food industry]. Notes on Ukrainian
Linguistics, (24 (1)), 140-148.
Narushevich-Vasilyeva,
O.
V.
(2017c).
[Foreign
loanwords in the Ukrainian terminology of the food
industry].
Naukovi
zapysky
Kirovohradsʹkoho
derzhavnoho
pedahohichnoho
universytetu
imeni
Volodymyra Vynnychenka [Scientific notes of Volodymyr
Vinnichenko Kirovohrad State Pedagogical University].
Issue 154, 582–586.
Reyda, O. A. (2022). Osnovni problemy pry perekladi
terminolohiyi u haluzi kharchovoyi promyslovosti [The
main problems in the translation of terminology in the field
of food industry]. Mova ta literatura u polikulʹturnomu
prostori: materialy mizhnarodnoyi naukovo-praktychnoyi
konferentsiyi
(Naukova
filolohichna
orhanizatsiya
«Lohos», 11-12 lyutoho 2022r.). Lʹviv. P. 35-37.
Cambridge
Dictionary.
(2021).
Property.
URL:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proper
ty
Davidson, A., & Jaine, T. (2014). The Oxford Companion
to Food (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Food Industries, Food Standards Agency (UK). URL:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/food-
standards-agency
Food
Industry
Glossary.
(2006).
URL:
https://www.fmi.org/our-research/food-industry-glossary
Kittay, E. (1987). Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and
Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lakoff, G. (1994). The Contemporary Theory of
Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lashkul, V. (2023). Object categorization of English terms
in the food industry. International Journal of Philology,
12(4),
69-76.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.31548/philolog14(2).2023.08
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1988). Topics in cognitive linguistics.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Selivanova, O. (2000). Cognitive onomasiology. Kyiv:
Phytosociocenter.
Syrotina, O., & Lashkul, V. (2023). Conceptual categories
represented by English terms of the food industry. Cogito-
Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 4, 286-303.
