Metaphorical terms as a source of enrichment of the veterinary terminology system in German

Khakimova Giulnara Ansarovna PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign and Russian languages, Moscow State Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology named after K. I. Skryabin 109472, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Akad. Skryabina, 23 g.khakimowa@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Zaharova Svetlana Alekseevna PhD in Philology Associate Professor; Department of Foreign and Russian Languages; Moscow State Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology - MBA named after K. I. Scriabin 109472, Russia, Moscow, Akademika Scriabin str., 23 s.zakharova77@gmail.com

The present study is devoted to the consideration of conceptual metaphors of zoomorphic properties as models of figurative transfer. Metaphor is a complex phenomenon that has not been fully studied. This universal speech tool permeates all spheres of human life. Metaphorization refers to the semantic method of word formation and involves the expansion of the semantic volume of a word due to the emergence of figurative meanings and the strengthening of its expressive properties. We turned to the problem of metaphorical nomination in order to comprehend and systematize the processes of metaphorization in veterinary discourse based on determining its potential as a source of enrichment of the veterinary terminological system in the German language, identifying thematic groups of metaphorical terms in the field of veterinary medicine, types of metaphorical transfer, the most productive types of metaphorical terms in structural, morphological and etymological relations.

The object of our research is the metaphor terms used in modern German in the field of veterinary medicine. The corpus of metaphorical veterinary terms totaled 1,426 nominations. The main research methods determined by its purpose are semantic, structural and functional, the method of linguistic observation and description, in addition, elements of quantitative analysis are used. Russian Russian Veterinary Dictionary (with an index of Russian terms) by V. A. Beskhlebnov (M., 1996) ^[1], as well as the veterinary lexicon in German (Wiesner E., Ribbeck R. Lexikon der Veterin?rmedizin. 4., v?llig neu bearb) served as the material for the analysis.. Aufl. Stuttgart: Enke im Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 2000) ^[2].

The theoretical and methodological basis of the research is the publications of domestic and foreign linguists. The research of the relationship between language and thinking in metaphor and "conceptual metaphors" is devoted to the works of J. Lakoff and D. Johnson. Attempts to typologize metaphorical models have been made in the works of a number of scientists (V. G. Gak, G. N. Sklyarevskaya, N. D. Arutyunova, V. N. Telia, S. S. Gusev, V. I. Shuvalov, V. K. Prikhodko, L. G. Yusupova). The description of the theory of cognitive metaphor and its functions is given by V. K. Kharchenko. I. A. Sternin's work is devoted to the identification of the relationship between the concept as a key point connecting the cognitive sphere of a person and his linguistic activity, and words (or groups of words). N. A. Mishankin in his monograph highlights the fundamental principles of the cognitive-discursive approach to scientific metaphor, highlighting and substantiating the general patterns of metaphorical modeling of scientific discourse. The role of metaphorical modeling in scientific discourse is also highlighted in the works of N. M. Naer, E. O. Oparina, E. A. Lapin.

One of the most famous theories of metaphor in modern linguistics, called the cognitive theory of metaphor, was proposed by American researchers J. By Lakoff and M. Johnson. Scientists have put forward a position according to which particular linguistic expressions perceived as an allegory, i.e. a description of one sphere of experience in terms of another, are the product of a systemic correspondence between semantic fields (conceptual domains). They called complexes of such correspondences "conceptual metaphors" or "metaphorical concepts" (conceptual metaphor) ^{[3, p. 28]}. The essence of the metaphor, according to J. Lakoff and M. Johnson, is "understanding and experiencing the essence of one species in terms of the essence of another species" ^{[3, p. 27]}. Scientists distinguish three main groups of conceptual metaphors: orientational, based on archetypal spatial oppositions, ontological, which represent events, activities, emotions, thoughts, etc. in terms of physical entities, and structural, which represent the projection of the cognitive structure of one entity onto another ^{[3, pp. 35, 49, 97]}.

V. G. Gak suggests distinguishing two types of metaphor from the point of view of the ratio of form and meaning: full, in which the formation of a figurative meaning is not associated with any changes in the structure of the word, and partial, when the formation of a new meaning is associated with a morphological change in the word, with the addition of affixes to the base used in the figurative meaning. In terms of content, the typology of metaphors includes, according to V. G. Gak, two aspects: a) the degree of metaphoricity and structural and semantic types of units; b) types of metaphorical transfers ^{[4, pp. 13-14]}. On the issue of typologizing metaphors, the scientist makes the remark that "when metaphorizing, one should not necessarily look for common schemes inherent in the dictionary definitions of two words. Here we are talking rather about general associations, which are often difficult to define, because the metaphor originates on the basis of vague concepts that the human subconscious operates with" ^{[4, p. 15]}.

N. D. Arutyunova identifies a predicate and identifying metaphor. In the case of an identifying metaphor, the semantic process boils down to replacing one descriptive (multi-sign) meaning with another. Metaphorical transfer in this case is usually based on the similarity of objects in some external, obvious way. As for the process of metaphorization of predicate meaning, according to N. D. Arutyunova, it boils down to assigning "alien" features to objects, i.e. features, properties and states belonging to another class of objects or related to another aspect of this class. The scientist distinguishes between nominative, figurative, cognitive and generalizing metaphors ^{[5, pp. 333, 335, 340]}.

V. N. Telia believes that metaphor, as one of the most productive means of forming secondary names, has the property of "imposing" a specific view of the world on speakers of a given language ^{[6, pp. 134-135]}. The scientist divides metaphors into identifying, conceptual and figurative ones. The specificity of identifying metaphors with a descriptive (specific) type of meaning is the similarity of their designated and that image, which becomes the etymological internal form of metaphorical meaning. Conceptual metaphors lead to the formation of an abstract meaning. By figurative metaphors, V. N. Telia understands evaluative and evaluative-expressive metaphors ^{[6, pp. 141-144]}.

To the three well-known metaphorical models of J. L. G. Yusupov adds an invariant-cluster model of metaphor formation based on potential semantic components, including those of an anthropomorphic nature. With their help, metaphorical conceptualization and categorization of the world and the person in it are carried out ^{[7, p. 112]}.

V. I. Shuvalov identifies three main categories of metaphors: innovative, conventional and lexicalized or latent. ^{[8, p. 14]}. In the first two cases, as a rule, relevant contextual information is required, immersion in discourse; on the contrary, for a latent metaphor, which is an independent and self-sufficient element of the vocabulary, context is not required. ^{[8, p. 168; 9, p. 150-151]}.

V. K. Prikhodko, basing the classification on the criterion of correlation between the norm and deviation from the norm, distinguishes between linguistic metaphors, i.e. "the usual meaning of a polysemous word fixed in explanatory dictionaries", and speech, i.e. "occasional meanings that have not yet entered into usage and may not subsequently become customary due to their fixation for in a specific context, as well as due to the lack of need for them in everyday communication." The scientist further divides speech metaphors into traditional poetic metaphors and individual authorial ones, among which the researcher identifies end-to-end (used in many works by the same author) and unique ^{[10, pp. 117-118]}.

V. K. Kharchenko offers a fairly detailed classification of the functions of metaphors: nominative, informative, mnemonic, style-forming, text-forming, genre-forming ^{[11, pp. 12-25]}. V. K. Kharchenko calls one of the functions of metaphor a heuristic one, which manifests itself in its use in scientific texts, since the scientific style of speech needs an artistic comparison, an image. The birth of the term, according to the researcher, begins with a metaphor ^{[11, p. 29]}. In addition, the researcher also identifies the explanatory, emotional-evaluative, ethical, auto-suggestive, conspiratorial, playful and ritual functions of metaphor ^{[11, p. 39, 64, 67, 74, 77]}.

Since our research is devoted to the study of metaphorization in veterinary terminology, we consider it advisable to trace the scientific discourse on the validity of using metaphorical nominations in special texts. The penetration of metaphor into scientific discourse often causes justified protests among linguists. N. A. Mishankina in the monograph debunks the biased attitude towards scientific metaphor, which was widespread until recently in linguistics. According to the researcher, metaphor occupies a central position in the system of cognitive models, as it is based on identifying models and participates in the formation of larger integrating models (mental spaces, worldviews). It is these properties that determine the importance of metaphorical models in the formation of scientific discourse ^{[12, p. 55]}. Scientific discourse is modeled through metaphorical conceptualization, which covers all levels of scientific activity, among other things, participates in terminology formation. Metaphorical terminology formation is active in terminological systems, and at the same time metaphorical terms that have been functioning in the system of a particular science for a long time lose their "living" metaphoricity, moving to the level of ontologized knowledge ^{[12, p. 229]}. The researcher concludes that metaphor, being a compact and at the same time information-intensive model of an integrating type, actively functions in the field of human cognition in general and scientific in particular ^{[12, p. 266]}.

S. S. Gusev points out the important property of the metaphorical model in scientific cognition to transfer the structures of existing knowledge and experience to new unknown fragments of reality, its epistemological value and heuristic character ^{[4, p. 125]}. Revealing the potential of metaphor in the language of science, the scientist writes that the metaphor creates a context "as if" the coincidence of the objects being compared, in which the main importance is to fix the specific features of the interaction of various ways of reflecting the objects being compared ^{[4, p. 123]}. In another work, the scientist points out the enormous potential of metaphors, saying that the use of metaphors is not explained by the intellectual impotence of a person, but by the fact that they have the ability to serve as a means of obtaining new knowledge, generating a powerful associative field using a limited range of means of expression, in particular images or symbols ^{[13, p. 11]}.

A.V. Superanskaya justifies the presence of metaphorization in scientific discourse, saying that imagery can be used in a terminological nomination to specifically motivate a term, to show its relationship with other terms, as well as named things with each other. Due to its clarity, the metaphor helps to understand and explain many facts that were not initially obvious, creating associations in shape, color, texture, size, etc. The metaphor gives a transfer of meaning by similarity, as a result of which two objects, completely different in their origin and purpose, come closer on the basis of some feature, usually external to in relation to both of them ^{[14, p. 93]}.

E. O. Oparina, paying tribute to the large number of cripples in the field of scientific metaphor due to their lack of connotations, explains the need for metaphor in the language of science, on the one hand, by a wide range of concepts and phenomena, and on the other hand, by the insufficient inventory of available linguistic means, which makes it necessary to fill gaps in entire directions in scientific research research. The scientist justifies the presence of metaphorization in scientific discourse by the most important property of metaphor in science along with consistency – this is the "wealth of associations" of analogies for the nomination of scientific phenomena and processes, which allows predicting the quality of the object under study ^{[4, pp. 74-75]}.

L. G. Yusupova also points to the justified use of metaphor in scientific discourse in order to close linguistic gaps, saying that "the appearance of a metaphor is always to some extent a way out of a somewhat hopeless situation (when the context "requires" an appropriate nomination so that unnecessary gaps preventing communication are not formed) when incongruence of likened objects, objects and phenomena" ^{[7, pp. 155-156]}.

V. I. Shuvalov agrees with previous researchers, saying that in scientific discourse the appearance of metaphors, devoid, as a rule, of expression and having a conceptual character, is most likely in those areas where the importance of the problem is combined with a lack of knowledge, and subsequently the metaphor that arose at the initial stage of research can either be discarded as irrelevant or be transformed into a clear and verifiable scientific model ^{[9, p. 198]}.

E. A. Lapinya notes that a distinctive feature of metaphor in the language of science is that it acts as the primary name of the designated object for the reason that it has no other name. Having a natural language as their source, metaphor terms leave the natural language and become artificial conceptual signs in a language of another functional style. Metaphorization in the language of science is a semantic process of choosing a name based on the subject, feature or functional similarity of two heterogeneous objects ^{[4, p. 137]}.

N. M. Naer points out the important role of metaphorization in special languages for the nomination of subjects and scientific phenomena. The scientist refers to the typologization of Pelka's metaphors, according to which metaphorical transfer occurs in form, function, movement and location, as well as Brand, who classifies metaphors according to the sphere of borrowing and the type of analogy. The imagery of metaphorical designations used in the language of science disappears, and expressive-emotional connotations decrease ^{[15, pp. 106-107]}.

A review of scientific publications shows that researchers agree that metaphor has deservedly occupied its niche in scientific discourse, reflecting in terminology a certain linguistic picture of the world.

Metaphorization within different lexical groups is studied in their works by Yu. Yu. Timkina, M. V., A.V. Balakhonov and others. – in medical terminology, E. V. Bekisheva – directly in clinical terminology, V. I. Shuvalov – in German poetic discourse, V. K. Kharchenko's work is devoted to zoomorphisms, N. G. Sklyarevskaya, S. B. Kozinets explore zoonyms, O. V. Merzlikina – zoomorphic metaphors on the topic of "livestock" in Russian and Galician, S. A. Zakharova – an agricultural metaphor in modern Russian ^[16].

Thus, Yu. Yu. Timkina proposes to distinguish general (general scientific), basic, subdivided by the researcher into three groups of nominations: medical; human and animal anatomy; biological, and proprietary (highly specialized) terms in the field of veterinary medicine. The researcher refers to his own terms, in particular, eponymous names and terms containing the name of the animal to which this or that pathology belongs ^{[17, p. 157]}.

In the work of E. V. Bekisheva on metaphorization in clinical terminology, metaphor is considered from the point of view of its essential importance for scientific language and cognition as a tool for encoding the scientific picture of the world using the vocabulary of spoken language. The researcher studies aspects of metaphorical word formation using the example of names of symptoms and syndromes of diseases and offers a typology of comparison with representatives of the animal world, with objects and phenomena of the surrounding world in statics or dynamics and their signs, with representatives of the plant world, with qualities inherent in a certain person, mythological or literary hero, with social relations, with qualities inherent in to a person, with food and other substances, with building structures, with various natural phenomena, with functions inherent in other groups of objects (Bekisheva, E. V. Forms of linguistic representation of epistemological categories in clinical terminology / 02/10/19 – theory of language: abstract. diss. ... Dr. Phil. sciences. Moscow, 2007. 48 p., pp. 18-19).

V. I. Shuvalov identified six main types of metaphor models in German poetic discourse: predicative, attributive, compositional metaphors (determinative composites), genitive, verbal and prepositional metaphors. ^{[8, p. 168; 28, p. 150-151]}. The researcher believes that at this stage of the development of the modern German language, the most popular and widespread are medical, theatrical and sports metaphors, which have pushed aside technical and military metaphors ^{[9, p. 193]}.

S. B. Kozinets, in his work on zoonyms, writes that in the vast majority of cases they serve in figurative use to characterize a person (his appearance, character qualities, behavioral characteristics, social status). According to the researcher, animalistic metaphors have less imaginative potential than comparisons, since they name an object, feature or action directly, actualizing certain semes. ^{[18, pp. 254-255]}.

A.V. Balakhonov et al. consider the names of animals that are used to characterize a person in a state of health and illness in the sublanguage of medicine. Researchers attribute medical metaphors to a figurative nomination. In this case, the transfer from the sphere of "animal" is directed to the sphere of "man" ^{[19, p. 26]}.

O. V. Merzlikina conducts a comparative study of zoomorphic metaphorical nominations from the point of view of linguoculturology, analyzing the characteristics of domestic animals, their lifestyle and environment in the Russian and Galician languages. The study of zoomorphic metaphors, according to the researcher, is of interest, since zoonyms encode the culture of the people, their psychological, social and mental traits. According to O. V. Merzlikina, in a zoomorphic metaphor, any feature of an animal is a source sphere, and a person acts as a target sphere of metaphorical assimilation. The zoomorphic metaphor, therefore, is a cognitive projection of the "image" of an animal on the characteristic of a person or the realities of the surrounding reality. ^{[20, pp. 115-116]}.

The veterinary terminological system, which, on the one hand, is part of medical terminology, due to the unity of the doctrine of human and animal diseases, and on the other hand, having its own specifics associated with the objective difference between human and animal organisms and the pathological processes occurring in these organisms, is developing quite dynamically, as a result of which there is a need to nominate the latest phenomena, processes, methods of treatment using, among other things, metaphorization. Metaphorical terms are widely represented in veterinary medicine and the works of a number of researchers (E. A. Abrosimova ^[21], Yu. G. Rozhkov, L. V. Yagenich) are devoted to their study.

E. A. Abrosimova considers metaphorization in the world of plants in veterinary clinical terminology. The researcher identifies two metaphorical models with the source sphere "plant": "pathology is a plant" and "a sick organism is a plant", and also comes to the conclusion that in clinical terminology, the main areas of metaphorization are the pathological process itself (disease) and the organism subject to this process. The frame-slot structure of the models identified by the researcher includes three frames: "plant life cycle", "plant parts", "plant varieties" ^{[22, p. 10]}.

Yu. G. Rozhkov studies the structural and semantic features of veterinary medicine terms and the most productive ways to replenish it. If in the past, the formation of new veterinary terms, according to the author, mainly occurred with the help of Greek-Latin word–formation components, now the syntactic method prevails - the formation of terminological compounds, which subsequently turn into an abbreviation ^{[23, p. 13]}.

In his article, L. V. Yagenich identifies three groups of terms in veterinary terminology using the example of the English language: veterinary, anatomical and biological. Paying tribute to the Latin language, the use of which in veterinary discourse is significant and in demand, the author also highlights the terms-eponyms and terms-abbreviations that contribute to the enrichment of veterinary medicine and allow, with minimal written presentation, to convey the content as accurately and exhaustively as possible ^{[24, p. 347]}.

Let's turn to the consideration of the corpus of metaphorical terms in the veterinary terminology system in the German language, which amounted to 1,426 lexical units (hereinafter referred to as LE). In accordance with the thematic correlation of the comparison underlying the metaphor, we have combined all the metaphors of the veterinary terminology system into 5 thematic groups.

1) The first, most numerous, thematic group "Animal body parts" includes terminological nominations denoting the external parts of the body and internal organs of animals. The sample was 674 LE, which is 47.2% of the entire corpus of terminological metaphors. This indicates the relevance for veterinary terminology of transfer on the basis of external similarity (according to such features of the object as shape, size, proportions, organ structure), for example: the term is based on the metaphor der Bl ? ttermagen – book (department of the multicameral stomach of ruminants) (literally (hereinafter: lit.): leaves + stomach) There is a likening of the leaves of a book to the stomach of an agricultural animal. Here we are dealing with a comparison of images of a book with leaves and the stomach of a ruminant animal. Let's give another example. The metaphorization of the term der Ringknorpel – cricoid cartilage (lit.: ring + cartilage) – is based on the external similarity of the animal organ to the ring. The most commonly used components of composite terms of this group are the following body parts or organs of animals: das Bein (bone; leg – 59 LE), das Horn (horn – 42 LE), der Kopf (head – 33 LE), das Gelenk (joint – 30 LE), die Sohle (sole, hoof – 28 LE), der Kamm (comb, scallop – 28 LE), die Haube (mesh – department of the four-chamber stomach of ruminants – 26 LE), die Nase (nose – 23 LE), der Pansen (scar – 22 LE), der Hals (neck – 18 LE), die Zitze (nipple – 18 LE), das Ohr (ear – 17 LE), die Klaue (claw, hoof – 17 LE), der Magen (stomach 16), der Huf (hoof – 16 LE), die Zunge (tongue – 16 LE), der Schwanz (tail – 14 LE), das Haar (hair, wool – 13 LE). Less frequent components are lexical units: das Herz (heart – 9 LE), das Knie (knee – 9 LE), das Maul (mouth, mouth – 9 LE), der Schlund (pharynx, throat, esophagus – 9 LE), der Strich (nipple – 9 LE), die Hand (wrist – 8 LE), die Niere (kidney – 6 LE), der Darm (gut – 6 LE), das Euter (udder – 6 LE), der Knorpel (cartilage – 6 LE), die Lungen (lungs – 6 LE), die Kiemen (gills – 6 LE), der Sch - del (skull – 5 LE), das Auge (eye – 5 LE), die Brust (chest – 5 LE), die Geb – rmutter (uterus – 5 LE), das Gehirn (brain - 5 LE), das Hirn (brains – 5 LE), die Leber (liver – 5 LE), der Hoden (testicle, testis – 4 LE), der Rachen (pharynx, throat – 4 LE), die Rippe (rib – 4 LE), das Genick (occiput – 2 LE), die Ferse (heel – 1 LE). The ability to metaphorize lexical units of this thematic group, which are not usually correlated with parts of the human body (wing, tail, tentacles, etc.), is also indicated in her research by G. N. Sklyarevskaya ^{[25, p. 98]}.

We agree with M. D. Stepanova that many veterinary terms are partial or complete metaphors ^{[26, pp. 129-130]}. Thus, the names of the external parts of the body or internal organs of animals, which act as components of composite terms, can be used both in a direct sense and have a metaphorical transfer. Let's illustrate with examples. Components of the term die Backentasche (cheek sac (in rodents)) the words die Backe ("cheek"), used in the direct meaning, and die Tasche (bag), which gives the term a metaphorical transfer by similarity of form. And in the composite term der Fesselkopf (put joint), consisting of the words der Fessel (ankle, ankle) and der Kopf (head, head), the latter has a metaphorical transfer by similarity of appearance. As the analysis of linguistic material shows, the second component is most often metaphorically reinterpreted, in contrast to the property possessed by most determinative compound words, they do not indicate the class of concepts to which the corresponding narrower concepts belong, but name objects that these body parts or animal organs resemble; for example, in compound words der Augapfel (eyeball) the second component of Apfel allows you to associate this part of the eye with the apple, der B a llenkissen (crumb pillow) – Kissen – metaphorical transfer of this part of the animal's paw to the pillow, der Brustsack (chest air bag (in birds)) – Sack – similarity to a bag, der Euterspiegel (smooth udder surface) – Spiegel – comparison of the smooth surface of an organ with a mirror. As for the first components of these words, they return us to the real nomination of a certain part of the body or internal organ of animals. But the first component of the composite term can also be used figuratively, while the second component can have the usual generalizing meaning, for example, die Fassbeine – O-shaped setting of limbs (lit.: barrel + legs), der Geschirrdruck – injection (hint) from harness (in horse breeding) (lit.: dishes + pressure), die Knopfkan ? le – button cannula (lit.: button + cannula), die Korridorkrankheit – bovine taileriosis (lit.: corridor, passage + disease). The third, rather rare variety in the veterinary terminology system, is the case when both components of a compound word have a metaphorical transfer, i.e. the whole compound is reinterpreted, it seems to have two meanings – direct and figurative, for example: der Schwalbenschwanz – trunnion (lit.: dovetail), das Kronenfleisch – diaphragm (lit.: crown, apex, crest, corolla + meat).

2) The second most productive is the thematic group "Diseases, their symptoms and pathologies", which means that various symptoms of diseases, defects, anomalies, pathologies and the designation of the inflammatory process function quite actively as sources of metaphorization in veterinary terminology. 499 LE were identified in this group, which accounted for 35% of the entire corpus of metaphorical terms, for example: die Affenl ? cke (lit.: monkey + gap, gap, gap) – diastema, die Harnflut (lit.: urine + stream, flood, flood) – polyuria, die Backensteinblattern (lit.: cheek + stone + smallpox) – brick pox, erysipelas nettle fever (in pigs), die Kronengelenkschale (lit.: crown + joint + bowl; shell, shell) – chronic periarthritis of the coronary joint, "hoop".

3) In the third group of zoomorphic metaphors "Animals and living organisms", all metaphorical nominations are divided into five subgroups, allocated in accordance with the designation of animal species, their appearance, functions, animals with pathologies and products of their vital activity. 167 terms (11.7%) were identified that denote:

a) names of animals and living organisms – 48 LE (3.4%), for example: die Hakenw ? rmer (lit.: hoe, pickaxe + worms, helminths) – hookworms, crooked heads, die Helmbiene (lit.: helmet, helmet + bee) – drone;

b) the name of the function of an animal / living organism is 46 LE (3.2%), for example: die Killerzellen (lit.: killer + cells) – killer cells (in immunology), die K ? niginpuppe (lit.: queen + doll) – pupa of the uterus (bees). According to A. A. Reformatsky, functional transference has much in common with metaphor, since it is based on similarity, but it is still different from it and has its own special place in polysemy. The main difference between metaphor and transfer by function is that metaphorical transfer is based on the similarity of material characteristics: on color, shape, character of "visible" movements, i.e. on a set of directly perceived by the senses similarities of what the name is transferred from to where the name is transferred. In functional transfer, the commonality is not based on purely material similarity: things can be completely different in shape and color, etc., they are united by the commonality of function ^{[27, p. 84]}.

c) nominations of animal products and reproductive products – 34 LE (2.4%), for example: das Bienenbrot (lit.: bee + bread) – parchment, das Darmpech (lit.: intestines + bad luck; tar, resin) – primordial feces, meconium, die Gei -bohne (lit.: goat + bean, bean) – goat droppings;

d) description of the appearance of the animal (characteristic external signs) – 23 LE (1.6%), for example: das Alterskleid (lit.: age + dress, attire) – plumage of adults, die Fassbeine (lit.: barrel + legs) – O-shaped setting of limbs (proximity of hocks);

e) the name of animals with pathologies / anomalies – 16 LE (1.1%), for example: das Dickhalsferkel (lit.: thick neck + piglet) – piglet affected by goiter, der Eichelspie er (lit.: acorn, head, clubs + philistine, philistine) – young deer with underdeveloped horns, a young deer with hairpin horns.

4) The fourth group "Veterinary instruments and medicines" includes terms denoting various instruments used in veterinary medicine, medicines and items. The group includes 55 LE (3.9%): das Geh -use (lit.: body, case, camera) – shell (in clams), die Vaginalstube (lit.: vaginal + room, hut, room) – vaginal mirror, der Bei - korb (lit.: the basis of the verb bei? en – bite + basket, box) – muzzle.

5) The fifth group "Diagnostic and therapeutic measures" includes terms denoting various measures for the diagnosis and treatment of animals – 31 LE (2.2%), for example: die Eutertoilette (lit.: udder + toilet) – udder toilet, die Feindesinfektion (lit.: enemy + infection) – disinfection of hands, operating field and surgical instruments.

From the point of view of semantic and comparative analysis of metaphorical terms in the term system under consideration, we were able to identify the following types of metaphorical transfer:

         a) in terms of similarity of shape and appearance – 1095 LE (76.8%), for example, die Fuchslende is very narrow ("fox") loin (defect of the exterior in horse breeding); die Habichtsbrust – hawk chest (when describing the exterior of a horse); das Mopsgesicht – pug–like (dissimilarity of the shape of the bones of the facial skull in atrophic rhinitis of pigs); die Ochsenspalte - ox cleft (exterior defect of the hoof in horse breeding). The examples of the use of metaphor terms given by us allow us to agree with the opinion of other researchers of animalistic metaphors, such as S. B. Kozinets, I. A. Sternin ^{[28, pp. 255-256; 21, p. 115]}, refuting the statement of N. G. Sklyarevskaya that there may be metaphorical transfers from the sphere of "animal" in zoonyms, aimed only at the sphere of "man" and there is no reason to talk about metaphorization of the type "animal" ? "animal" ^{[25, p. 90]}. In our case, we are not talking about describing human qualities, but about the appearance, the exterior of animals. Accordingly, zoomorphic characteristics can be directed not only at humans, but also at other animals, thus being reinterpreted within their own lexical field: "animal" ? "animal". Therefore, we tend to consider it possible to metaphorically transfer the name within the thematic group "animals".

         b) According to the similarity of functions – 163 LE (11.4%), for example, das Pflegevolk – the family- the caregiver of the uterus, the family-the nurse (in beekeeping), die Parfumranzigkeit – a cloying smell (with mold poisoning), das Schambein – the pubic (pubic) bone.

         c) According to the similarity of the impression made – 85 LE (6%), for example, die B ?rentatzigkeit – clubfoot (a vice of putting limbs in horse breeding), das Leineweben – "weaving" (stepping with pectoral limbs and shaking his head – stall vice).

         d) By similarity of location – 82 LE (5.8%), for example, die Lungenwurzel is the root of the lung, der Geb - rmuttergrund is the bottom of the uterus.

         e) By similarity in the way of presenting actions – 1 LE, for example, das Alles-rein-alles-raus-Prinzip – the principle of "everything is occupied, everything is empty" (simultaneous filling of an industrial-type farm with a batch of animals and simultaneous liberation of the premises after the end of their maintenance period).

When considering veterinary metaphor terms, the following was revealed structurally. The most numerous word-formation model is represented by determinative composites, which are fully complex terminological units. In the Grammar of Duden ^{[29, S. 401, 420; 30, S. 716]}, in the works of V. Fleischer and I. Bartz ^{[31, S. 69, 83]}, it is noted that the structure of complex words in the German language is binary when a complex word is divided into constituents, which, in turn, can further consist of one or more basics. We identified 1,276 composites (89.5%), for example, der Habichtsknorpel – cartilage on the handle of the sternum in a horse (lit.: hawk + cartilage), die Bergweidekrankheit – infectious enterotoxemia ("soft kidney") of sheep (lit.: mountain + pasture + disease), die Samtkrankheit – oodinosis (lit.: velvet + disease). As a rule, only one part of composite metaphorical terms undergoes metaphorical reinterpretation: it can be either the first (determinative) component, or the second (definable), very rarely when both components are together. Other researchers of metaphorical lexical units in the German language come to similar conclusions ^{[9, pp. 57-58]}.

         The second most productive word-formation model is represented by terminological phrases (hereinafter: TC). 75 vehicles were identified (5.3%), of which:

- 44 attributive TS, for example, die grauwei?e Steinbrut – ascospherosis, pericystomycosis, pericystosis, calcareous brood; die periartikul re Schale – ossifying periarthritis; das biphasische Milchfieber – two-wave meningoencephalitis;

- 29 genitive vehicles, for example, die Elefantenkrankheit der Rinder – bovine insensitivity; das Kugelherz der H ? hner – enzootic cardiac death (idiopathic heart enlargement) of chickens, round (ovoid) heart of chickens; die Marmormilzkrankheit der Fasane – marble disease of the spleen (hemorrhagic enteritis) of pheasants;

- 1 attributive-genitive vehicle: die ansteckende Luftsackkrankheit des Gefl ? gels – respiratory mycoplasmosis (infectious mycoplasmosis, chronic respiratory disease) of birds;

- 1 prepositional TS: die Dreibeinigkeit bei Ferkeln – peromelia (developmental abnormality in the form of shortened limbs).

         The third group consists of affixal lexical units formed mainly with the help of suffixes. 56 affixal metaphor terms were revealed (3.9%), for example, die Arbeiterin – a working bee; die Kr ? te – 1. "toad" (bone overgrowth in the area of the put joint), 2. common toad; die Gabel – fork-shaped horns (deer); 2. loop (henchman) in horse breeding.

         The fourth, least productive group includes root words. We have identified 19 root metaphor terms (1.3%), for example, die Wand – wall, partition (lit.: wall), der Bart – beard (in birds) (lit.: beard), das Blatt – scapula (in anatomy) (lit.: leaf, leaf).

         The analysis of the factual material in etymological terms revealed that linguistic means are used to form metaphorical terms to a greater extent of German origin (82.3%), and to a lesser extent of foreign language material (17.7%), where the most productive terms are of Greek-Latin origin (14%), as well as words from European languages, namely, of French, English, Italian or Spanish origin (3.7%). It should be especially noted that here we are talking about hybrid terms formed on the basis of a diverse combination of components of different origins. These can be complex words, the components of which are:

- words of German and Latin origin, for example, die Psalterschleimhaut – the mucous membrane of the book (lit.: psalter + mucous membrane), das Puppenstadium – the pupal stage (in insects) (lit.: doll + stage);

- words of Latin and German origin, for example, der Humeruskopf – the head of the humerus (lit.: shoulder, humerus + head);

- words of German and Greek-Latin origin, for example, die Kn?tchen- und Enteritis-Kokzidiose – nodular coccidiosis of carp (lit.: nodule + enteritis + coccidiosis);

- both components of the compound word have a Greek-Latin origin, for example, die Kronenphlegmone – phlegmon of the hoof corolla (lit.: hoof corolla + phlegmon);

- words of Greek and German origin, for example, der Pankreassaft – pancreatic juice (lit.: pancreas + juice);

- words of Latin and French origin, for example, die Uterustrompete – fallopian tube (lit.: uterus + tube),

- words of French and German origin, for example, das Etageneuter – "tiered" udder, udder with unevenly developed lobes (letters: floor + udder);

- words of German and French origin, for example, die Knopfkan ? le – button cannula (lit.: button + cannula);

- words of German and Italian origin, for example, der Hufbeinkanal – semicircular canal of the hoof bone (lit.: hoof bone + canal);

- words of Italian and German origin, for example, die Korridorkrankheit – bovine taileriosis;

- words of English and Latin origin, for example, der Killerfaktor – lethal factor (lit.: killer + factor);

- the first component of a compound word consists of constituents of English and Latin origin, and the second component is of German origin, for example, die Killerinfektionskrankheit – an infectious disease with a fatal outcome (lit.: killer + infection + disease);

- words of German and Spanish origin, for example, die Pansenpumpe – a pump for sucking out scar contents (lit.: scar + pump).

         Thus, we can agree with the conclusions of other researchers that borrowings do not play a decisive role in the process of metaphorization ^{[9, pp. 59-60]}. This is obviously explained by the fact that borrowings from other languages are less transparent than the native German-speaking vocabulary.

Summing up, it should be noted that metaphorical nominations take an active part in the processes of updating scientific terminology. The contradiction between the tendency to imagery and expressivity inherent in metaphors and the requirement of a complete lack of expressivity imposed on terms is removed in the process of terminologization. Thus, metaphor terms are firmly rooted in scientific discourse. The analysis of veterinary metaphor terms in the German language allowed us to come to the following conclusions. The metaphorical system of veterinary terminology is quite dynamic, which is manifested in the inclusion in the metaphorical field of the results of the development of veterinary and other related sciences. In general, veterinary terminology in German is characterized by the dominance of zoomorphic metaphors, which is quite logical, since the animal is the focus of veterinary medicine. The most frequent sources of metaphorization in the veterinary terminology system are animal body structure and diseases. Veterinary terminology in German is characterized by the presence of metaphors, on the one hand, closing linguistic gaps, and on the other hand, moderately and expediently nominating a certain layer of concepts.