Scientific Collection «InterConf», (39): with the Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference «Science and Practice: Implementation to Modern Society» (December 26-28, 2020) at Manchester, Great Britain

 
Fig. 1 Stages of performance of laboratory works 
 
References: 
1. Mazhitova L.H., Karsybayev M.S., Nauryzbayeva G.K. Information and activity training as the 
condition of formation of the bachelor professional - guided competencies. Vestnik AUES, 2014. 
47-53p. (in Russ.). 
2. Nauryzbayeva G.K. Information and activity approach to vocational training in a technical 
college. Materials of the International scientific-theoretical conference «Innovative directions in 
modern school education». Almaty: KazNU, 2014. 198 p. (in Russ.). 

---

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTION «INTERCONF» | № 3(39)
512 
UDC 
Mengliyeva S.S. 
Military technical institute of NG, Republic of Uzbekistan 
 
TEACHING MILITARY TERMINOLOGY TO CADETS 
 
Abstract. The article highlights the issue of teaching English military terminology 
in uniformed classes. Military classes gained a huge popularity, having met the 
youth’s interest in armed forces they became a key element in national defense 
education. 
Keywords: military terminology, military English, military classes, teaching English, 
armed forces, navy, terms of airborne. 
The construct of raising a patriotic society is a difficult thing to establish in the 
times of globalization and cosmopolitan values. Current reality is not in favor of getting 
the society involved in issues concerning the defense of the country. Not everyone is 
aware of the threats to the national security.
Basic form of engaging the society in actions aiming at defending and securing 
the country is improving the partnership of the Armed Forces, the non- governmental 
organizations and social partners, for instance local government units, universities, 
which operating areas are linked to the national defense. The awareness of bonds 
between these institutions is facilitating the professionalization of the army. 
The curriculum and extra-curricular activities implemented in military classes are 
improving citizenship, teaching to have respect for tradition and national symbols, as 
well as respecting the law. Another priority of the English military terminology is 
teaching foreign languages. 
For better or worse, the language of the military and of warfare in particular has 
greatly impacted the English language. In recent years, numerous dictionaries have 
been compiled in the attempt to ascertain and record the often ephemeral vocabulary 
associated with specific wars—not only weapons terminology and technical jargon, but 

---

 SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: IMPLEMENTATION TO MODERN SOCIETY
513 
also the colorful slang that inevitably characterizes every war. As Thomas E. Murray 
remarks in his discussion of naval fighter pilot terminology, “The study of English in 
the twentieth century has shown that members of the armed services are especially 
prone to linguistic creativity,” whether soldiers, sailors, or flyers (126). Wayne Silkett 
adds that “few specialized vocabularies have been as similarly borrowed, copied, and 
altered as has the military vocabulary” (13). That military language is exceptionally 
productive is not, perhaps, surprising; it makes sense that “each crisis creates its own 
vocabulary” (John Mason in Murray, 126). Moreover, since the armed forces and its 
component units constitute definitive “subcultures or social groups” that “daily share 
a common set of experiences and, perhaps, even a world view,” they “can be expected 
to share a common lingo” (Murray, 126). From there, several notable ways that military 
terminology fulfils both practical and ideological means will be considered. Such 
practical and ideological means range, for instance, from the fostering of community 
among servicemen, to the adoption of an abundance of timesaving acronyms, to the 
development of neologisms. In Thomas E. Murray’s 1986 study “The Language of 
Naval Fighter Pilots,” Murray notably finds that his own survey of naval fighter pilot 
terminology is consistent with general trends in English word formation as defined by 
Algeo in “Where Do All the New Words Come From?” : nearly three quarters of the 
terms in Murray’s study are nominal, the remainder adjectives and verbal. By far “the 
most numerous characteristic” of the words in Murray’s glossary are compounds 
(Murray, 127). Murray’s study goes beyond confirming that the coining of naval fighter 
pilot terminology reflects wider trends in English word formation. Predictably, naval 
fighter pilots are shown to have “their own specialized vocabulary.” However, Murray 
uncovers that this vocabulary “bears only a slight resemblance to all the service lingo 
that has preceded it or to its contemporary, the language of air force fighter pilots” 
(Murray, 126). Even taking into consideration any traditional rivalry between the navy 
and the air force, it seems a bit peculiar that their members would not have more in 
common linguistically. Given that they must perform the same or similar kinds of flight 
maneuvers with similar kinds of equipment, and that their general goals regarding the 
enemy are the same, it must be the case that their self-imposed rules of non-

---

SCIENTIFIC COLLECTION «INTERCONF» | № 3(39)
514 
fraternization with members of the other service are so strongly enforced that dialectal 
divergence has been created.” (Murray, 126) 
Rivalries between military subgroups are nothing new. Take the term infantry, for 
example. Wayne A. Silkett explains that, “While details are obscure of the first use 
of infant to describe foot soldiers, the term was probably coined by cavalrymen as one 
of abuse.” Since early cavalrymen (who, notably, were associated with chivalry, 
nobility, knights, and the aristocracy) rode on horseback, they “could easily create the 
primitive analogy that since infantry could move only at a foot’s pace and could not 
carry their own baggage and supplies to last any length of time, therefore cavalry 
equated to adult, the foot soldier to infant” (Silkett, 13). 
Clearly, the armed forces’ organization into different units and sub-units—and the 
longstanding rivalries deliberately cultivated among them—in fact aids in the 
productivity of military language. Furthermore, the creation of specialist military 
vocabulary, including slang, works “to identify their users as members of a specific 
group (and, conversely, their nonusers as nonmembers), thus creating or intensifying 
psychological and social unity among the group’s members.” Common lingo creates 
social cohesion (Murray, 127).Other factors also come into play in the development of 
group-specific military terminology. Because of influxes of new technology, “new 
terms are rapidly being created, and different factions within the military no longer 
simply adopt the same older terminology” (Murray, 127).
Concluding the above given ideas we can say that the major challenge for 
addressing the impact of military terminology on the English language is one of scope. 
Military terminology is incredibly flexible. Not only are different military groups and, 
indeed, different wars characterized by particular vocabularies, military terminology 
also infiltrates the language of civilians and, conversely, is impacted by a number of 
specialized civilian vocabularies. Although this article makes no attempt to cover all 
of the linguistic creativity marked by military terminology and the language of warfare, 
it offers a snapshot of the ubiquity of military discourse and its clear impact on the 
development of English vocabulary.