Key words: language for specific purposes (LSP), terminology, terminological word groups, terminological nest.
At the outset, a language for special purposes is a form of language with a pronounced professional orientation. The question of the functioning of this type of language became most acute in the middle of the twentieth century, when the exchange of scientific and technical information spread to almost all countries. Obviously, we should agree with the opinion of N. Gvishiani, who states that “the growing needs of international scientific communication, generated by the increasing differentiation of scientific knowledge, have led to the necessary and quite natural recognition of the concept of “language for specific purposes” as opposed to “language in general” by scientists from different countries. The first European symposium on “language for special purposes”, that is, language used in various fields of human activity, such as medicine, law, education, etc., was held in Vienna in 1977 (Gvishiani, 2007).  It should be noted that initially this term was assigned to one of the variants of English that served international scientific communication.
The term “language for specific purposes” refers to a specialized form of language used in particular communication fields, featuring terminology relevant to those areas (Engberg, 2023). Terminological phrases form part of the vocabulary within such specialized languages and are utilized to express distinct general concepts.
Notably, in the hierarchy of linguistic units, phrases hold a unique position, functioning both as naming (nominative) and syntactic elements. Many terms across various specialized fields are represented by phrases, illustrating the prevalent use of syntactic structures in term formation in the current landscape of science and technology. The structure of a term phrase is shaped by the compatibility of word classes, the characteristics of the objects named by the phrase’s elements, and the need to provide detailed descriptions of phenomena and objects. A term-phrase, with its intricate internal meaning, operates as a standalone, distinct naming unit, regardless of how specific its components are (Pivnova, 2014).
It is well understood that the terminology of any knowledge domain forms a system made up of subsystems and microsystems, including terminological fields and clusters, known as terminological nests. Terms are grouped within a terminological field based on their semantic connections, specifically through shared content components. Each term field is defined by a common semantic feature, an invariant trait embedded in the meaning of all terms within that specific field.
A “terminological nest” also fits within the conceptual framework of the relevant knowledge system. However, unlike terminological fields, a nest connects units that share both content and form (Sadirova & Berdiyorova, 2023). In evolving terminologies, such as those related to the Internet, the conceptual system is still forming, as the industry continues to describe new processes and phenomena. This terminology consists of fields centered around key terms for primary concepts in the field, such as channel, LAN, link, mode, network, protocol, and routing. These core ideas create their own terminological fields, serving as fundamental units in term formation.
Describing terms through hyper-hyponymic relationships provides a reasonably accurate representation of the conceptual model within the industry. This approach demonstrates the interconnection of concepts and their terms based on the unifying, generalised meaning of their invariant meaning. The selection of terms and the establishment of dependencies between them is carried out at the conceptual rather than the linguistic level.
The breakdown of general concepts relates to the further detailing and specification of ideas. In the conceptual structure of a field, the identification of more frequent and precise concepts, such as in the “network” field that defines different network types, is conveyed in language through terminological phrases. Examples include: centralized network, communication network, computer network, data network, distributed network, local area network, message switching network, mesh network,  metropolitan area network, packet-switching network, ring network,  and wide area network.
Additional refinement of a specialized concept results in the formation of terminological phrases with increasingly complex structures. Clarifying features are systematically added, as seen in the progression: communication network – broadband communication network – integrated broadband communication network.
The original phrase can also be modified to further specify the concept, for example: wireless network becomes wireless in-building network, and wide area network becomes wide area corporate network.
The division of generic concepts with the identification of differentiating features may be accompanied by the opposition of these features: homogeneous network / non-homogeneous network – однорідна мережа / неоднорідна мережа.
Consequently, the analysis suggests that semantic features found in general vocabulary are also present in terms. To standardize terminology effectively, it’s tremendously essential to aim for term clarity within a specific field and to select the most suitable option from among synonymous terms, prioritizing those that best satisfy terminological standards.

References

1. Engberg, J. (2023). Language for Specific Purposes/Specialized Communication. Oxford Bibliographies. http://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0300
2. Gvishiani, N. B. (2007). Modern English. Lexicology. Publishing house: Academia, 224 p.
3. International Teacher Training Organization. (2005). EFL Teaching terminology and glossary.  http://www.teflcertificatecourses.com/teflarticles/eflteaching terminology.html
4. Pivnova, L. (2014). Language for special purposes as the subject for linguistic studies. Ukrainian Language, 4, 117-125. http://jnas.nbuv.gov.ua/article/UJRN-0000287133
5. Sadirova, D. S., & Berdiyorova, M. X. (2023). Key Features of a Language for Special Purposes. Eurasian Journal of Learning and Academic Teaching, 17, 44–47.  https://geniusjournals.org/index.php/ejlat/article/view/3379
6. Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching. Macmillan Books for Teachers, 426 p.