TYPOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF EPONYMS IN ENGLISH MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-4077-2025-215-2Keywords:
eponym, term, medical terminology, English for Specific PurposesAbstract
In modern medical communication, terminology functions as a specialized linguistic system designed to ensure precision and clarity in the description of anatomical structures, physiological processes, pathological conditions, and therapeutic procedures. Within this framework, eponyms occupy a significant place as lexical units derived from proper names of individuals, places, ethnic groups, animals, or mythological figures, denoting diseases, syndromes, anatomical structures, diagnostic tests, surgical operations, instruments, and medical treatments. The article investigates the phenomenon of eponyms in English medical terminology, focusing on their typology and functional classification. The study provides a systematic analysis of eponyms according to their nominative origin, including anthroponyms, autoeponyms, ethnonyms, toponyms, hydronyms, zoonyms, poetonyms, mythonyms, biblical eponyms, etc., as well as their functional roles in medicine, such as designating diseases, clinical signs and symptoms, syndromes, diagnostic tests, medical treatments, surgical procedures, instruments or devices, and even elements of human anatomy. Morphosyntactic patterns and orthographic conventions, including the use of possessive forms, are examined to identify regularities and variations in usage. The research combines corpus-based analysis with descriptive and classificatory approaches to reveal structural, semantic, and functional heterogeneity of medical eponyms. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the integration of eponymous terms in medical discourse and provide practical recommendations for medical scholars, terminologists, and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) educators concerning standardization, teaching, and effective use of eponyms in professional and academic contexts.
References
Lysanets Yu., Bieliaieva O. The use of eponyms in medical case reports: Etymological, quantitative, and structural analysis. Journal of Medical Case Reports. 2023. Vol. 17. № 151. Р. 1–19. DOI: 10.1186/s13256-023-03895-0
Стегніцька Л.В. Генетивні конструкції термінів-епонімів в англійській медичній термінології. Південний архів (філологічні науки). 2020. № 83. С. 59–62. DOI: 10.32999/ksu2663-2691/2020-83-11
Телеки M.M. Епонімні термінологічні словосполучення в інфектології. Науковий журнал Львівського державного університету безпеки життєдіяльності «Львівський філологічний часопис». 2019. № 5. P 52–158. DOI: 10.32447/2663-340X-2019-5-26
Andrew K., Logie S., Hage R. Debating eponyms: History of ear and eye anatomical eponyms. Translational Research in Anatomy. 2023. Vol. 32. P. 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.tria.2023.100260
Bacci N., Hutchinson E., Rramer B. Perceptions of journal editors on the use of eponyms in anatomical publishing: the need for compromise. Anatomical Science International. 2024. № 99. P 441–453. DOI: 10.1007/s12565-024-00789-z
Ferguson R.P., Thomas D. Medical eponyms. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives. 2014. Vol. 4. P. 1–4. DOI: 10.3402/jchimp.v4.25046
Karenberg A. The world of gods and the body of man: mythological origins of modern anatomical terms. Anatomy. 2013. Vol. 7. № 1. P 7–22. DOI: 10.2399/ana.11.142
Woywodt A., Matteson E. Should eponyms be abandoned? Yes. The BMJ. 2007. № 335. P. 424–425. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39308.342639.AD
Merton R.K. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review. 1957. Vol. 22. № 6. P. 635–659. DOI: 10.2307/2089193
Editorial. What’s in a name? The Lancet Psychiatry. 2018. Vol. 5. № 6. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30188-3
World Health Organization. World Health Organization best practices for the naming of new human infectious diseases. 2015. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HSE-FOS-15.1:







