Teisės terminai 1936 m. ir 2013 m. lietuviškuose tarptautinių žodžių žodynuose: lyginamasis tyrimas

Terminologija / Terminology 2025, Nr. 32, p. 1–18 Turinio nuoroda / Contents link ISSN 2669-2198 (elektroninis / online) LEGAL TERMS IN THE 1936 AND 2013 LITHUANIAN DICTIONARIES OF INTERNATIONAL WORDS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY Legal Terms in the 1936 and 2013 Lithuanian Dictionaries of International Words: A Comparative Study DALIA GEDZEVIČIENĖ Institute of Law, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences Email: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8285-9692 Research areas: legal language, legal terminology, naming socially vulnerable persons, conceptual metaphor theory. https://doi.org/10.35321/term32-06 ABSTRACT The article examines and compares legal terms and their adjectival components recorded in Lithuanian dictionaries of international words published in 1936 and 2013 (DIW 1936 and DIW 2013). The study of the collected material aims to assess the significance of these dictionaries for the legal language of the respective periods of independent Lithuania. A similar number of legal terms and adjectival components was found in both dictionaries (DIW 1936 – 738, DIW 2013 – 748). The article concludes that DIW 1936 was a carefully prepared, useful, and significant source of legal terminology for its time, whereas DIW 2013 had considerably less influence and significance for legal language because, first, the relative number of legal terms in DIW 2013 decreased compared with DIW 1936, and, second, in the later period legal terminology was recorded and published in many other publicly accessible specialised sources. KEYWORDS: legal term, legal language, dictionary of international words, terminology source. ABSTRACT The article analyses and compares the legal terms and their adjectival components recorded in the Lithuanian dictionaries of international words published in 1936 and 2013 (DIW 1936 and DIW 2013). The aim of studying the collected material is to evaluate the significance of these dictionaries for the legal language of the respective periods of independent Lithuania. A comparable number of legal terms and adjective components was recorded in both dictionaries (DIW 1936 – 738, DIW 2013 – 748). It may be concluded that Copyright © 2025 Dalia Gedzevičienė. Published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. // Published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of the content in any medium, provided the author and source are credited. Received: / Received: 2025-04-30. Accepted: / Accepted: 2025-07-21. 1 DIW 1936 was a meticulously prepared and valuable source of legal terminology for its time, whereas the impact and significance of DIW 2013 for legal language are considerably lesser, because, firstly, the relative frequency of legal terminology decreased in DIW 2013 compared to DIW 1936, and secondly, during the latter period, legal terminology had already been extensively recorded and disseminated across a wide-ranging publicly accessible specialised sources. KEYWORDS: legal term, legal language, dictionary of international words, source of terminology. INTRODUCTION The impetus for studying and comparing legal terms recorded in two Lithuanian dictionaries of international words, published almost eight decades apart, was a circumstance common to the publication of both dictionaries: neither during the first period of independence, known as the interwar period, when the 1936 Dictionary of International Words (hereinafter DIW 1936) appeared, nor during the period of restored independence (from 1990 to the present), when the 2013 Dictionary of International Words (hereinafter DIW 2013) was published, was an explanatory multilingual dictionary of legal terms issued. In light of this circumstance, which is significant from a terminological perspective, this article aims, on the basis of material found in the dictionaries (legal terms and their adjectival components), to assess the significance of two Lithuanian dictionaries of international words as sources of legal terminology of their respective periods for the language of law and for research into the history of legal concepts. To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set: 1) to compare the legal terms in both dictionaries and the ways in which they are presented by calculating: a) the number of legal terms and their components and their proportion relative to the total number of dictionary headwords; b) the number of legal terms and their components by form (the composition of terms and parts of speech); c) the number of legal terms and their components by source language and differences in source-language indications; 2) to identify the sets of legal terms and their components common to both dictionaries and those that differ, and on this basis to establish major changes in the forms and definitions of terms. Thus, the subject of this study is one type of source of legal terminology—two dictionaries of international words published in different periods—while the legal terminology recorded in these dictionaries constitutes the research material, which helps determine the significance of this source of terminology for the language of law of the time, the development of legal concepts, and research into that development. Legal terms were collected manually from both dictionaries; the article employs quantitative, comparative, and descriptive-analytical methods. It is important to note that dictionaries of international words are not, in general, primary sources of legal terminology for two reasons. First, the most reliable sources of legal terminology are legal acts at various levels, dictionaries of legal terms, legal scholarship, and specialised databases; second, dictionaries of international words are sources not of the entire body of legal terminology but only of a specific part of it—international legal terms. Nevertheless, the article advances the hypothetical assumption that during the first period of independence, in the absence of a published Lithuanian dictionary of legal terms, let alone a corpus or database, DIW 1936 may for several years (until the occupation of the country), alongside Lithuanian legal acts and legal scholarship, have been one of the primary sources of legal terminology. 2 The Dictionary of International Words, published in 1936 (DIW 1936), was not the first Lithuanian dictionary of international words1, but it was the first work of this scale (1,064 pages) to be professionally prepared by a team of specialists in their respective fields. The dictionary was compiled by the writer Kazys Boruta and the well-known historian and encyclopedist Pranas Čepėnas, together with his wife Albina Sirutytė-Čepėnienė; it was edited by the historian and Lithuanian studies scholar Juozas Žiugžda, and reviewed and corrected by the lawyer and bibliophile Prof. Vaclovas Biržiška and the philosopher Prof. Pranas Dovydaitis. In total, approximately 22,000 different words, terms, and expressions are explained in the dictionary. Thus, this dictionary was selected as the subject of study for the first period because its scope exceeded that of its predecessors by nearly ten times and it was compiled by the intellectuals of the time. More than one dictionary of international words was also published during the period of restored independence2. Of these, the second subject of this comparative study is the Dictionary of International Words (DIW 2013), prepared by a team of authors and published in 2013. It explains approximately 28,000 words in separate entries. This dictionary was compiled on the basis of the Dictionary of International Words published in 2004. To date, the way terms are recorded in dictionaries of international words has not been studied in depth. Dalia Gedzevičienė (2023) has discussed certain features of the presentation of legal terms in DIW 2013. Among the individual fields whose terminology has been collected from dictionaries of international words and analysed from one perspective or another are printing (Petretienė, Mikalajūnaitė 2010) and medicine (Briaukienė 2004). Changes in the semantics of international words used in administrative language have also been examined (Vladarskienė 2004; Rudaitienė 2006; Vladarskienė 2014; Vladarskienė 2019), as has the use of certain international words in the language of lawyers (Koženiauskienė 2004). Alvydas Umbrasas (2001; 2008; 2010; 2021; 2024, etc.) has extensively examined the state of Lithuanian legal terminography in different periods in his publications. Although a tradition has developed in Lithuanian terminology of treating only nouns and noun phrases as terms, these forms are insufficient in the language of science and practice, where terms function; in particular, it is impossible to do without verbs with specialised meanings (Umbrasas 2010: 14). Accordingly, this article also treats verbs as terms in their own right. Adjectives are not regarded as independent terms in this publication but are studied as secondary components of complex terms. Thus, the research material consists of nouns, verbs, and their combinations (complex terms) denoting legal concepts, as recorded in DIW 1936 and DIW 2013, as well as adjectives used with specialised meanings in the field of law—that is, independent legal terms and their possible secondary components—recorded in the dictionaries as separate words. Throughout the remainder of the text, all this research material is collectively referred to as legal terms. 1 Ankstesni žinomi lietuviški tarptautinių žodžių žodynėliai: Šlapelis Jurgis 1907: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis: skaitytojams palengvinimas, Tilžė: Šviesa, 110 p.; M. ir S. 1923: Svetimų ir tarptautiškų žodžių žodynėlis, Šiauliai: „Vilties“ dr-jos leidinys, 84 p.; Norkus Jonas 1924: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis, Kaunas: „Vaivos“ b-vė, 95 p. 2 Pvz.: Mackevičienė Aldona 1999: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Gimtinė; Vaitkevičiūtė Valerija 2007: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Žodynas; ir kt. 3 To select legal terms from the dictionaries under consideration, it was first necessary to establish criteria for identifying and selecting legal terms. Since “a term is not some special word or fixed word combination, but a designative linguistic unit whose content is revealed by the definition of its terminological meaning” (Gaivenis 2002: 13), in this article the meaning of a word as given in DIW 1936 and DIW 2013 is provisionally equated with a definition of its terminological meaning. In accordance with this approach, the presentation in a dictionary of a definition, or meaning, of a legal concept was chosen as the main criterion for identifying a legal term and as a defining feature of a legal term. In collecting legal terms from dictionaries of international words, the aim was to cover as much legal vocabulary as possible: terms used in various branches of law and in the legal systems of other countries (e.g., bestas), as well as obsolete terms (e.g., abjudikacija) and terms of canon law (e.g., konkordatas) were collected. TEISĖS TERMINŲ KIEKIS 1936 M. IR 2013 M. TARPTAUTINIŲ ŽODŽIŲ ŽODYNUOSE In this article, a term is understood as the name of a concept in science, technology, art, or another field. From the entries for the meanings of international words, provisionally equated here with term definitions, it was established that 738 international words in DIW 1936 and 748 in DIW 2013 denote legal concepts or are used with a specialized meaning in the field of law. The 738 legal terms and their components found in DIW 1936 constitute 3.35% of all headwords in the dictionary (22,000), while the 748 legal terms and their components found in DIW 2013 constitute about 2.67% of all its headwords (28,000). Comparing the number of headwords in the two dictionaries (22,000 in DIW 1936 and 28,000 in DIW 2013), we see that the latter dictionary, published 77 years later, contains 6,000 more, i.e., 27% more; nevertheless, the absolute number of legal terms has essentially remained unchanged, while their relative number has even decreased. This shows that the attention paid by the compilers of DIW 2013 to the field of law did not increase proportionately to that paid to concepts in other fields. To some extent, this situation can be regarded as a continuation of circumstances that took shape during the Soviet period: international-word dictionaries compiled at that time3 paid very little attention to social sciences such as sociology and psychology, while other fields, e.g., economics and political science, were heavily ideologized. On the other hand, dictionaries of international words are compiled using, among other sources, dictionaries of terms; thus, the very limited number of social-science concepts in DIW 2013 may also have been due to the lack of terminology dictionaries for the relevant fields. 3 During the Soviet occupation, an original Lithuanian dictionary of international words was compiled only in the late Soviet period—in 1985 (Kvietkauskas Valdemaras 1985: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija); until then, Russian dictionaries of international words, or translations from Russian somewhat adapted to Lithuanian usage, were used in practice, e.g.: Lemchenas Chackelis 1951: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla; Lemchenas Chackelis 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, Vilnius: Mintis. 4 Of the 738 legal terms and their components found in DIW 1936 and the 748 found in DIW 2013, 562 are terms recorded in both dictionaries that denote the same legal concept and differ, if at all, only in certain formal features of expression. This is the body of legal terms common to both dictionaries. It should be noted that there are many more lexemes with identical forms, but those that did not yet have the meaning of a legal concept in 1936 or no longer had it in 2013 are not counted among the common terms. It was established that over nearly eight decades at least 77% of the foundation of Lithuanian international legal terminology remained stable, while the remaining 178, or 23%, of legal terms consist of: 1) terms recorded in only one of the dictionaries: a) DIW 2013 includes legal terms that were not yet present in DIW 1936; this situation was caused both by the emergence of new social phenomena as objects of legal regulation and by the emergence of new legal concepts, e.g.: alimentinis, diskriminuoti, genocidas, lobizmas, preambulė, resocializacija and so on; b) DIW 1936 included legal terms that are no longer found in DIW 2013; this situation was caused by changes in legal regulation, changes in legal concepts and the terms used to denote them, the obsolescence of concepts, and so on, e.g.: akriniminacija, areštantas, azilis, egzekutyva, ilegališkas, impunitetas, nunkupuoti, observancija, perifakcija and so on; 2) words recorded in both dictionaries under study, but with a terminological meaning in only one of them: a) in the 2013 dictionary, words already present in the 1936 dictionary but not denoting a legal concept there were extended to include the meaning of a legal concept; for example, kolizija in DIW 2013 has a second meaning, “a conflict between laws regulating the same or similar social relations,” whereas DIW 1936 records only the meaning of kolizijos as “a struggle, a clash of opposing forces, interests, conditions, opinions, or feelings”; likewise, one of the meanings of nacionalinis in DIW 2013 is “belonging to the whole state, of the whole state,” whereas in DIW 1936 nacionalinis meant only “national”; b) words or word combinations recorded in the 1936 dictionary as denoting a legal concept no longer have that meaning in the 2013 dictionary; for example, in DIW 1936 degradacija meant “demotion, deprivation of rank or of certain other rights,” whereas in DIW 2013 degradacija is defined only as the gradual loss of some positive qualities, deterioration, decline; one of the meanings of retrakcijos in DIW 1936 was “the reversal of a court decision because of its erroneousness,” whereas in DIW 2013 retrakcija means only contraction, reduction; 3) the 1936 DIW headword list records 53 compound legal terms, e.g.: administracinė teisė, civilinė teisė, fizinis asmuo, juridinis asmuo, kasacinis skundas, notarialinės sutartys, etc. Most of these compound terms in DIW 1936 have become an integral part of modern Lithuanian legal terminology. EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL TERMS Before discussing the forms of expression of the terms found in dictionaries of international words, it should be noted that, in this article, legal terms’ components or possible components are defined as adjectives used with a special meaning in the field of law, recorded in the headword lists of dictionaries of international words not as components of word combinations (complex terms), but as separate lexical units whose terminological meaning emerges from explanations of their meanings or 5 examples of usage provided. In terms of formal expression (term structure), such adjectives are henceforth classified in the article as term components; their precise designation would be adjectival components of complex terms. Of all 738 legal terms and their components recorded in DIW 1936, 53 are complex terms and 685 are single-word terms and their components. Of the 53 complex terms, 52 are two-word terms and 1 is a three-word term (active electoral right). The head component of all these complex terms is a noun, while the subordinate components are of two kinds: most are (a) agreeing modifiers expressed by an adjective (35), e.g., administrative acts, commercial court, servitude law, verbal note, or by a participle (1), e.g., indictment; or (b) governed modifiers expressed by a noun in the genitive case (17), e.g., letter of credit, law of exile, guarantee contract, police supervision. It is not possible to compare this group of complex legal terms recorded in DIW 1936 with the corresponding group in DIW 2013, since the latter dictionary contains no word combinations denoting legal concepts—that is, complex terms—among its headwords4. Būtina atkreipti dėmesį, kad TŽŽ 1936, be jau minėtų 738 tarptautinių teisės terminų ir jų dėmenų, pateikta ir 10 lietuviškų teisės terminų: 3 iš jų yra vienažodžiai (akistata, antstolis, nepakaltinamumas) ir 7 – sudėtiniai terminai (asmens neliečiamybė, ypatingi įstatymai, karo lauko teismas, lyg­tinis nuteisimas, netesėjimo mokestis, tarptautinė teisė, trečiųjų teismas). Nors iš pirmo žvilgsnio tai atrodo kaip žodyno rengėjų darbo nenuoseklumas, vis dėlto iš žodyno redaktoriaus J. Žiugždos (1936: 6) parašytos „Prakalbos“ („Greta tarptautinių žodžių žodyne <...> paaiškinti ir kai kurie lietuviški mokslo terminai“) matyti, kad tai buvo sąmoningas ir anuomet, trūkstant terminų žodynų, itin reikalingas žodyno rengėjų sprendimas – kai kuriuos lietuviškus (netarptautinius) terminus pateikti ir paaiškinti leidžiamame tarptautinių žodžių žodyne. In DIW 2013, all 748 legal terms and their possible components are single-word terms. In form, they belong to three word classes: nouns, verbs, and adjectives. It was calculated that, of the 738 legal terms and their components found in DIW 1936, 566 are single-word terms expressed by nouns, or 76.7 percent of all legal terms in the dictionary; 69 are expressed by verbs, or 9.8 percent; 45 are term components expressed by adjectives, or 6.4 percent; and 53 are complex terms, or 7.1 percent. Of the 748 legal terms and their components found in DIW 2013, 573 are noun terms, or 76.6 percent of all terms in the dictionary; 92 are verb terms, or 12.1 percent; 83 are term components expressed by adjectives, or 11.3 percent; and the headword list contains 0 complex terms (Fig. 1). 4 It should be added that DIW 2013 gives complex legal terms as usage examples for 21 of the 83 adjectives used in the field of law, e.g., under juridical – juridical address, juridical person, under criminal – criminal offence, under operational – operational information, and so on. A total of 27 such examples of complex terms are provided. Since only legal terms and their possible adjectival components recorded in the headword lists were collected from both dictionaries, these examples of complex terms are not included in the overall count of legal terms in DIW 2013; only the adjectives recorded as headwords are counted. 6 Figure 1. Forms of expression of international legal terms and their components by parts of speech in DIW 1936 and DIW 2013 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL TERMS – THE LOANWORD AND DERIVATIVE DILEMMA Before presenting the statistics on the source languages of the legal terms and their components found in both dictionaries, it is necessary to define the criteria used to calculate these figures, since neither dictionary specifies the source language for some words (in DIW 1936, for some one-word nominal and verbal terms, adjectival components, and multiword terms; in DIW 2013, for some verbal terms and adjectival components). Moreover, in DIW 2013, some entries include an arrow pointing to another entry, whose headword or etymology should help establish the origin of the word being explained. Although the compilers of neither dictionary explained why the source language is not specified for some words, it may be assumed that words with a Lithuanian suffix for which no source language is indicated are probably treated not as loanwords but as derivatives based on another international word. It is also likely that in some cases the compilers of DIW 1936 lacked sufficient data to establish the origin of certain words; moreover, some words may have been left without a source-language indication by mistake. The least difficulty in calculating terms by source language is posed by the group of one-word nominal terms, since the source language is indicated for most such terms in both dictionaries (in DIW 2013, it is indicated for all 573 nouns, whereas in DIW 1936 it is omitted for only 12 of the 566 nouns, e.g., falsifikatas, rasizmas). This indicates that the dictionary compilers regard them as loanwords. All the morphemes in these nouns, except for the ending, are of foreign origin. It is likely that these nouns entered Lithuanian as ready-made forms, with endings added only here to adapt them to the grammatical system of Lithuanian. When such words are treated as loanwords5, there is no 5In Lithuanian linguistics, some scholars regard such nouns as loanwords; other researchers, however, consider nouns with non-Lithuanian endings, alongside which there is also a semantically 7 meaningful corresponding form in Lithuanian, suitable for morphological segmentation and analysis by derivational categories. From the perspective of morphemic analysis, it is evident that most of these nouns entered Lithuanian with international suffixes. Most of the one-word nominal international legal terms recorded in both dictionaries have the international suffix -acija (about 20 percent of all nominal terms) or -ija (about 19 percent of all nominal terms); approximately 40 percent of nominal terms have one of the following foreign-origin suffixes: -alas, -(i)antas, -aras, -(i)atas, -ažas, -ektas, -enas, -entas, -eris, -ė, -esas, -etas, -ika, -istas, -ė, -istika, -itas, -izmas, -yva, -yvas, -(t)orius, -ė, -(i)umas, -utas, -ūra; one or two terms were found with each of the following suffixes: -ada, -anas, -antas, -endas, -eris, -eta, -ezė, -ėja, -idas, -ierė, -ierius, -iktas, -ina, -inas, -ingas, -ionas, -isas, -izė, -yras, -olas, -onas, -oras, -ulas, -usas. About 20 percent of the remaining international nominal legal terms consist of terms that a) have a foreign-origin prefix and suffix, e.g., koalicija; b) have only a foreign-origin prefix, e.g., preambulė; or c) have neither a prefix nor a suffix, e.g., aktas, cenzas, faktas, nota, pasas, renta, stigma. In summary, the nominal terms discussed in the article are regarded as loanwords, and their classification and calculation by source language did not pose a problem. A somewhat different situation emerges when examining the morphemic structure of verbal legal terms and adjectives used with a specialised meaning in the legal field: a much larger proportion of these lexemes, unlike the nominal terms discussed above, consist of one international component (a stem) and one Lithuanian component (a suffix), not counting the ending. Thus, some of these terms and their components may reasonably be regarded as derivatives rather than loanwords. That the compilers of both dictionaries viewed the group of verbal terms and adjectives from precisely this perspective—that is, attempting to establish which had entered Lithuanian as ready-made forms and which had been formed in Lithuanian—is evident from the fact that no source-language indication is given for a considerable number of verbs and adjectives, while for some additional verbs and adjectives in DIW 2013 an arrow points to another word. All 69 verbal terms found in DIW 1936 have the suffix -uoti, e.g., apeliuoti, justifikuoti, proroguoti. Of the 92 verbal legal terms found in DIW 2013, 91 have the Lithuanian suffix -uoti, e.g., amnestuoti, inkriminuoti, reglamentuoti, suspenduoti, and one verb has the suffix -auti: advokatauti. In Lithuanian, when such suffixes are added to a foreign stem, they first serve a morphological adaptation function: by means of them, a word is incorporated into the inflectional system; in some cases, moreover, “when more than one word with the same stem may be borrowed into the language, and one of them is morphologically more complex, a synchronic derivational relationship can already be discerned” (Pakerys 2013–2014: 2). Thus, when a lexeme cannot be morphologically segmented because it has no base word in Lithuanian, and the suffix serves only to adapt the loanword morphologically, and a formally related word exists, it is regarded as a correlative derivative. Jolanta Vaskelienė discusses the dual treatment of such nouns in greater detail in Praktinėje bendrinės lietuvių kalbos gramatikoje (Balčiūnienė ir kt. 2024: 366–371). 8 Even when cognate nouns or adjectives are found in Lithuanian, it may be assumed that such a suffix serves not only to adapt the word to the grammatical system of Lithuanian, but also performs a derivational function, and such a verb can already be regarded as a derivative. The article assumes that etymological references are omitted specifically for verbs that the dictionary compilers treat as derivatives, whereas they are provided for those treated as borrowings. In DIW 1936, etymological references are given for 60 of the 69 verbal legal terms, for example: aprobuoti, notifikuoti, and omitted for 9, for example: bankrutuoti, kodifikuoti, kontroliuoti, legalizuoti. Although it would now be difficult to guess which words the compilers of DIW 1936 considered the base words for verbs such as kodifikuoti and kompensuoti, in the calculations below of terms by source language, this decision by the dictionary compilers will not be questioned, and these words will be assigned to the group for which no source language is specified. Of the 92 verbal legal terms in DIW 2013, no source language is specified for 36 words either, for example: advokatauti, konfiskuoti, licencijuoti, patentuoti. In this article, this group of words is assigned to those for which no source language is specified. The dictionary compilers presumably consider these verbs to be derivatives. It should be emphasized that “in Lithuanian linguistics, the derivational status of so-called international verbs is generally viewed with caution, since historically they and their cognate nouns may have been borrowed independently, so the derivational process itself may not have taken place in Lithuanian; it is only when we examine the relationship synchronically that we perceive it” (Pakerys 2013–2014: 9). In DIW 2013, for some verbs where a derivational process could likewise be perceived from a synchronic perspective, an arrow points to an assumed base word, for example: amnestuoti [↑ amnestija], konvojuoti [↑ konvojus]. There are 13 such verbs in DIW 2013. In this article, the source language of these verbs will be determined according to the source language of the assumed base word given in brackets. The fact that the etymological and derivational analysis of international verbs is a complex and disputed area is also demonstrated by the often differing views of the compilers of the two dictionaries on the origins of the same word. For example, DIW 1936 gives no etymological reference for falsifikuoti, whereas DIW 2013 indicates that it derives from the Latin word falsificare; conversely, DIW 1936 states that vizuoti is a borrowing from French, while DIW 2013 provides no etymological reference at all for vizuoti, presumably assuming that it may be derived from viza. From the perspective of morphemic structure, the group of adjectival components of legal terms divides into two parts. The first group consists of adjectives formed from a foreign-origin stem and a Lithuanian inflectional ending. Closer examination of these stems reveals two international suffixes, -yvus, -i and -alus, -i. These suffixes are also clearly visible in the etymon given alongside the term in DIW 2013; it is therefore evident that the derivational process involving this suffix, if there was one at all, took place not in Lithuanian but in the source or intermediary language: preventyvus (French preventif), imperatyvus (Latin imperativus), legalus (Latin legalis). DIW 1936 records a total of 8 adjectives in the first group out of 45, or 18 per cent of all adjectival components: 3 have the international suffix -yvus, -i, for example, objektyvus, and 5 have the suffix -alus, -i, for example, eksteritorialus. In DIW 2013 9 the first group includes 21 adjectives out of 83, or 20 per cent; 9 of them have the international suffix –yvus, –i, for example, dispozityvus, while 12 have the suffix –alus, –i, for example, kolegialus. The second group consists of adjectives that, in terms of morphemic structure, may be called hybrids: they consist of a foreign-origin root and one of four Lithuanian suffixes: –inis, –ė; –uotas, –a; –iškas, a; –ingas, –a. DIW 1936 records a total of 37 adjectives in the second group out of 45, or 82 per cent of all adjectival components: 18 with the suffix –inis, –ė, for example: mažoritarinis, privatinis; 17 with –iškas, –a, for example: ilegaliskas, legitimiškas; 1 with –ingas, –a, for example, kreditingas; and 1 with –uotas, –a, for example, patentuotas. In DIW 2013, 60 of the 83 adjectives belong to the second group, or 78 per cent: 49 with the suffix –inis, –ė, for example: konkliudentinis, suspensyvinis; 3 with –iškas, –a, for example, identīškas; 2 with –ingas, –a, for example, kompetentingas; and 6 with –uotas, –a, for example, terminuotas. Derivational analysis of adjectives in the second group and identification of their base word in Lithuanian are rather difficult; for example, it is unclear what should be considered the base word in cases such as generalinis, nacionalinis or kriminogeninis. It may be thought that some adjectives with the suffixes –inis, –ė and –iškas, –a are probably derived from nouns containing the suffix –ija, following disintegration of the base stem (Umbrasas 2010: 123), for example: konstitucinis (cf. konstitucija), administracinis (cf. administracija). This brief overview of the morphemic structure of adjectives sought to identify certain criteria for including or omitting source-language references in the two dictionaries; nevertheless, no clear consistency was discernible (for example, it is difficult to understand why DIW 2013 gives no source language for adjectives such as konspiratyvus, oficialus, etc.). Accordingly, the principles set out in the paragraph on verbal terms will be followed when calculating adjectives by source language: adjectives for which no source language is specified will be assigned to the group with no source language specified, without questioning in each individual case why it is unspecified (whether the word is treated as a derivative, the reference was omitted by mistake, the source language could not be identified, and so on; there are 2 such adjectives in DIW 1936 and as many as 18 in DIW 2013), while those whose origin is specified will be assigned to the corresponding source-language group. Also, in DIW 2013, as with verbs, an arrow points to an assumed base word for some adjectives where a derivational process could be perceived from a synchronic perspective, for example: akcesinis [↑ akcesas], kolizinis [↑ kolizija], motyvuotas [↑ motyvas]. There are 27 such adjectives in DIW 2013. The source language of these adjectives will be calculated according to the source language of the assumed base word given in brackets. CLASSIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL TERMS BY SOURCE LANGUAGES Of the 738 international terms and their components denoting legal concepts recorded in DIW 1936, the majority—465, or 64 per cent—consists of words derived from Latin, e.g.: abjudication, dispens, execution, criminal, legalisation, plebiscite, prorogue, validation. 87 international legal terms, or 11.7 per cent, are derived from French, e.g.: arrest, counterparty, majoritarian, ordinances, regulate; 54, or 7 per cent, are derived from Greek, e.g.: 10 amnesty, anonymous, authentic, monopolise; 20, or 2.7 per cent, are derived from Italian, e.g.: banditry, consulta; 18, or 2.4 per cent, from English, e.g.: general attorney, constable; 5, or 0.6 per cent, from German, e.g.: immunity, bill of exchange. Three terms each (0.4 per cent) came from Spanish (e.g., embargo) and Russian (e.g., katorga). Two legal terms (or 0.25 per cent) recorded here derive from Arabic (e.g., adatas). One term each (0.1 per cent) is derived from Polish (seimas), Chinese (hooligan), Turkish (pajus), Romanian (gerlo), Persian (best), and Dutch (burgomaster). The source is unspecified for 52 compound terms (one component Lithuanian and one an international word) and 23 single-word terms and their components (12 nouns, 9 verbs, 2 adjectives), accounting for 10 per cent of all legal terms. The essential difference in the presentation of source-language references in the two dictionaries is that DIW 1936 gives only an abbreviation for the source language in parentheses next to the headword, e.g.: advokatas (Latin), monopolis (Greek), whereas DIW 2013 explains a word's etymology in much greater detail: next to the headword, in parentheses, it gives not only the language abbreviation but also the etymon itself and its translation into Lithuanian (if the meaning of the etymon coincides with the meaning defined in the entry, no translation is provided), e.g.: kasacija [Latin cassatio – revocation, annulment], trasologija [French tracer], kriminogeninis [Latin crimen (genitive criminis) + Greek genos – kin]. Tiek TŽŽ 1936, tiek TŽŽ 2013, žvelgiant kilmės aspektu, gausiausios tos pačios trys grupės – iš lotynų, prancūzų ir graikų kalbų kilę teisės terminai. Taigi, iš 748 teisės sąvokas įvardijančių tarptautinių terminų ir jų dėmenų, užfiksuotų TŽŽ 2013, didžiąją dalį – 449, arba 60 proc., – sudaro iš lotynų kalbos kilę žodžiai, pvz.: civilinis, deliktas, derogacija, egzekvatūra, imperatyvus, inkriminuoti, prejudikatas, uzufruktas. Antrą vietą pagal gausą užima prancūziškos kilmės tarptautiniai teisės terminai – jų esama 131, arba 17,5 proc., pvz.: abandonas, departamentas, fakultatyvus, garantija, kontrolė. Tačiau tiek šiuo, tiek ir kitais atvejais, kai bus pateikiami iš vokiečių, anglų, italų ir lenkų kalbų kilę terminai, atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad nemažos dalies šių terminų etimonų ištakos yra lotynų arba graikų kalbos (rečiau – kitos kalbos), tad prancūzų kalbą (taip pat atitinkamai vokiečių, anglų, italų ir lenkų kalbas) reikėtų vertinti kaip kalbą tarpininkę, kurioje lotyniško ar graikiško (ar kitos kalbos⁶) pamato žodžiui buvo suteikta teisės sąvokos reikšmė ir iš kurios terminine reikšme jis buvo pasiskolintas kitų kalbų, tarp jų – ir lietuvių. Pabrėžtina, kad TŽŽ 1936 ties antraštiniais žodžiais pateikiama tik viena kilmės kalba. O TŽŽ 2013 ties 46 iš 131 minėtų prancūziškos kilmės terminų nurodyta, kad į prancūzų kalbą šie žodžiai atėjo iš lotynų kalbos, tai sudaro apie 35 proc. visų aptariamų prancūziškų skolinių, pvz.: akreditacija [pranc. accréditation < lot. accredo – išreiškiu pasitikėjimą], reglamentas [pranc. règlement < lot. regula – taisyklė] ir kt. 3 iš prancūzų kalbos pasiskolintų terminų šaltinis – graikų kalba, pvz., kadastras [pranc. cadastre < gr. katastichon – lapas, sąrašas]. Iš graikų kalbos kilę 48 iš 748, 6 French – 5, e.g.: abonentas [German Abonnent < French abonner – to subscribe], orderis [German Order < French ordre < Latin ordo – order], kvitas [Polish kwit < French quitte (de dettes) – free of debts]; German – 2, e.g.: burmistras [Polish Burmistrz < German Bürgermeister], herbas [Polish herb < German Erbe – inheritance]; Italian – 2, e.g., kartelis [French cartel < Italian cartello < carta – paper, document]. 11 or 6.4 per cent, of international legal terms, e.g.: amnesty, charter, hypothesis, katorga. 26 legal terms, or 3.5 per cent, are derived from English, e.g.: affidavit, blockade, hooligan, lobbying. The etymons of 5 of them are of Latin origin, e.g., dominija [English dominion < Latin dominium – rule]. 17 legal terms, or 2 per cent, are derived from Italian, e.g.: bank, quarantine, contraband, risk. 18 international legal terms, or 2.4 per cent, derive from German, e.g.: passport, subsidiarity, bill of exchange. The origins of 11 of these trace back to Latin, e.g.: arrest [German Arrest < Latin arrestum – court ruling], jurist [German Jurist < Latin jus (genitive juris) – law]; one traces back to Greek, e.g., police [German Polizei < Greek politeia – governance]. Four terms in the field under discussion derive from Spanish, or 0.5 per cent, e.g., casco. One loanword each, or 0.15 per cent, was found from Swedish, Arabic, Dutch, Turkish, and Persian, e.g.: akcija (Dutch), bestas (Persian), kadijus (Arabic), ombudsmenas (Swedish), pajus (Turkish); four terms (0.5 per cent) are from Polish, three of which originate in Latin, e.g., metrikai [Polish metryka < Latin matricula – list]. A small group of terms (6) should be mentioned separately: their etymology in DIW 2013 is linked at once to several languages, without favouring any one of them, e.g.: federalinis [English, French federal], konvojus [Dutch konvooi, French convoi], rasizmas [Italian razzismo, French racisme], streikas [English strike, German Streik]. The origin of 52 legal terms and their components, or 7 per cent, is unspecified (36 of them are verbs and 16 adjectives). When several source languages are given for a word, the first one listed is counted when calculating the number of terms by source-language references. Figure 2. Origin data for international legal terms and their components in DIW 1936 and DIW 2013 (absolute numbers) 12 The explanations of the origins of some of the same words coincide in the two dictionaries, while others differ, e.g.: DIW 1936 kadastras (Latin) and DIW 2013 kadastras [French cadastre < Greek kataschion]; DIW 1936 argumentas (Greek) and DIW 2013 argumentas (Latin argumentum); DIW 1936 chuliganas (Chinese) and DIW 2013 chuliganas (English hooligan); DIW 1936 pasas (French) and DIW 2013 pasas (German); DIW 1936 policija (French) and DIW 2013 policija (German), and so on. The article calculates that among the 562 legal terms and their components shared by both dictionaries, the explanations of origin differ for 47 words, i.e. about 8 per cent of the legal terms and their components they share. The presentation of source-language references indicates that the compilers of both dictionaries addressed the question of how, when giving a word's etymology, to include the language in which the word acquired precisely this meaning—that of a legal concept. In DIW 2013 this was done for some terms by indicating both the language of origin of the word (Latin, Greek, etc.) and the intermediary language (German, French, etc.), where the word presumably acquired the meaning of a legal concept. The compilers of DIW 1936 gave references to only one source language, sometimes giving greater priority to the origin of the word, and sometimes to the origin of the concept. That they also considered the origin of the concept is demonstrated by the reference given for one compound term: konstitucinė monarchija (French), although the same dictionary later indicates that konstitucija (Latin), while monarchija is Greek. The analysis of the origins of international legal terms shows that the source references and differing interpretations of the origins of legal terms presented in DIW 1936 and DIW 2013 are significant and informative data not only for terminologists and etymology researchers, but also for researchers in the history of legal concepts, who study the development of legal concepts. MORPHOLOGICAL AND SPELLING FEATURES OF LEGAL TERMS IN DIW 1936 AND DIW 2013 Number. The study identified 9 one-word nominal legal terms that are given in the plural form in both dictionaries; some of them are plural-only nouns. These terms were not and are not used in the singular, e.g.: alimentai, centumvirai, dekretalijos, digestai, finansai, institucijos7, kredencialai, pandektai, represalijos. Nevertheless, when comparing the set of one-word nominal legal terms common to both dictionaries, it is evident that in DIW 1936 at least 5 additional one-word nominal legal terms were recorded as headwords in the plural form, whereas in DIW 2013 they are already entered in the singular: DIW 1936 apatridai, artikulai, kanonai, kondicijos, ordonansai > DIW 2013 apatridas, artikulas, kanonas, kondicija, ordonansas. At present, 4 of these terms are used in both number forms, while kondicija is used only in the singular. Another 2 terms entered in DIW 1936 in the plural form (rekognicijos and revers alijos) are not recorded in DIW 2013 at all. Invariable and unadapted terms. Only 4 invariable legal terms were found in DIW 2013: alibi, damno, kasko, veto. In addition to these 4, DIW 1936 records considerably more terms that the dictionary compilers presumably treated as invariable and which, from a present-day perspective and when compared with their equivalents recorded in DIW 2013, should be considered unadapted, e.g.: 7 In the sense of Roman textbooks in which civil law is set out through separate legal institutions. 13 ambargo, embargo (DIW 2013 embargas), aviso (DIW 2013 aviza), best (DIW 2013 bestas), kadi (DIW 2013 kadijus), kazus (DIW 2013 kazusas), etc. In general, it is difficult to calculate the exact number of invariable and unadapted terms in DIW 1936, since here, unlike in DIW 20138, adapted terms, invariable terms, and various words and phrases in Latin and other languages that functioned in the Lithuanian of that period as foreign-language quotations are all listed together alphabetically as headwords9, e.g., Common-law (English), in England, customary law that has acquired the force of statute. For words in French, English, and certain other languages that are pronounced differently from how they are written, an approximate Lithuanian pronunciation is also provided, e.g., charter (English, pronounced čarter). A separate, comprehensive study is needed to distinguish the invariable legal terms included in DIW 1936 from one-word foreign-language quotations and to calculate the number of such terms. Spelling differences. The spelling of some legal terms common to both dictionaries, and of their components, changed over time. These changes, or differences, can be provisionally divided into several groups: 1) differences in the word stem, i.e. the part of the word without the ending and inflectional suffix; 2) differences in the ending; 3) differences in both the stem and the ending. The first group includes changes in phonetic form involving either a single stem sound (which may be different, omitted, or added), e.g.: DIW 1936 neitralitetas, delikventas, obdukcija, ipoteka, prezumuoti, prezumpcija, observancija > DIW 2013 neutralitetas, delinkventas, abdukcija, hipoteka, preziumuoti, prezumpcija, observacija, or several sounds, e.g.: DIW 1936 dezertuoti, nekrofija, oktroiruoti > DIW 2013 dezertyruoti, nekrofilija, oktrojuoti. The second group includes differences only in the ending, e.g.: DIW 1936 Eklogė, novelė > DIW 2013 Ekloga, novela. The third group includes cases where comparison of variants of the same term recorded in both dictionaries shows differences in both the stem and the ending, e.g.: DIW 1936 analisis, ekspert yza, ministeris > DIW 2013 analizė, ekspertizė, ministras. It may be assumed that some of these phonetic-form differences, which also led to different spellings, arose from the particularities of loanword adaptation. One such factor is the adoption of a loanword into Lithuanian at different times with reference to the term as used in various languages; for example, some legal terms recorded in DIW 1936 appear to have been adapted with reference to the loanword’s phonetic form in Russian: neitralitetas – Russian нейтралитет, ипотека – Russian ипотека, ekspertyza – Russian экспертиза. CONCLUSIONS Based on the entries giving the meanings of international words, which are provisionally treated in this article as equivalent to term definitions, it was established that DIW 1936 contains 738, while DIW 2013 contains 748 8 In DIW 2013, such words and phrases used in their original languages are presented in the section “Words and Phrases in Other Languages” at the end of the dictionary. 9 The “Preface” to DIW 1936 states that, among other things, “quite a number of expressions in various languages that occur more frequently in the press are also explained here” (Žiugžda 1936: 6). 14 International words denote legal concepts or are used with a specialized meaning in the field of law. The 1936 Dictionary of International Words (DIW 1936) contains 738 legal terms and their components, amounting to 3.35% of all its headwords (22,000), while the 2013 Dictionary of International Words (DIW 2013) contains 748 legal terms and their components, or approximately 2.67% of all its headwords (28,000). Comparing the number of legal terms and their components with the total number of dictionary entries shows that the relative number of legal terms decreased in DIW 2013 compared with DIW 1936. The article suggests that this situation may have been caused by the continuation of conditions established as far back as the Soviet era: the ideologization of the social sciences and the limited attention paid to their terminology. Of the 738 legal terms and their components found in DIW 1936 and the 748 found in DIW 2013, 562 are terms or components common to both dictionaries that denote the same concept. It may therefore be concluded that, over almost eight decades, the foundation of Lithuanian international legal terminology remained stable at approximately 77%. Both dictionaries record similar numbers of nominal and verbal legal terms and adjectival components, but only DIW 1936 also includes 53 multi-word legal terms among its headwords. Most of the international legal terms and their components recorded in both dictionaries derive from the same three languages: Latin (DIW 1936 – 64%, DIW 2013 – 60%), French (DIW 1936 – 11.7%, DIW 2013 – 17.5%), and Greek (DIW 1936 – 7%, DIW 2013 – 6.4%). The explanations of the origins of 47 terms and their components common to both dictionaries differ, amounting to about 8% of the legal terminology shared by the dictionaries. In both dictionaries, the language of origin is not specified for some legal terms and their components: in DIW 1936, this applies to 10% (12 of 566 nominal terms, 9 of 69 verbal terms, 2 of 45 adjectival components, and 52 of 53 multi-word terms), and in DIW 2013, to 7% (36 of 92 verbal terms and 18 of 83 adjectival components). The article suggests that the origins of most verbal terms and adjectival components with Lithuanian suffixes are not specified because the dictionary compilers treated them as derived forms rather than borrowings. In other cases, the origin may have been omitted by mistake or because it could not be determined. The essential difference between the two dictionaries in how they indicate the languages of origin is that DIW 1936 gives only an abbreviation for the language of origin in parentheses next to the headword, whereas DIW 2013 explains the word’s etymology in greater detail: alongside the language abbreviation, it gives the etymon itself and often its translation into Lithuanian. Overall, the indications of the origins of legal terms and the differing interpretations of their origins provided in both dictionaries constitute significant and informative data not only for linguists but also for researchers into the history of particular legal concepts. Examination of the legal terms and their components common to DIW 1936 and DIW 2013 revealed differences in the word forms given in the dictionaries. In DIW 1936, at least five one-word nominal legal terms were recorded as headwords in the plural; in DIW 2013, these are given in the singular. Only four indeclinable legal terms were found in DIW 2013, but it is difficult to calculate the exact number of indeclinable and unadapted terms in DIW 1936, because, unlike DIW 2013, it lists alphabetically as headwords adapted terms, indeclinable terms, and various Latin and other 15 language words and expressions that functioned in Lithuanian of that period as foreign-language quotations. A considerable number of terms with variant spellings was also recorded. DIW 1936 was a carefully compiled, valuable, and useful dictionary during the first period of independence, when no Lithuanian legal terminology dictionary—let alone a corpus or terminology database—had been published. Alongside Lithuanian legislation and works of legal scholarship, it could have served for several years, until the country’s occupation, as one of the principal sources of legal terminology. DIW 2013, by contrast, has considerably less influence and significance for legal language: its relative number of legal terms, calculated in relation to the total number of dictionary entries, is lower than that of DIW 1936. Moreover, during the second period of independence, legal terminology was recorded, published, and systematized in many other publicly accessible specialized sources (the Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania, the IATE database, bilingual legal terminology dictionaries, etc.). ŠALTINIAI TŽŽ 1936: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, K. Boruta, P. Čepėnas, A. Sirutytė-Čepėnienė, [Kaunas]: Sakalas. TŽŽ 2013: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, A. Kaulakienė, S. Keinys, B. Kurkulis, V. Račiūnaitė, V. Žalkauskas, Vilnius: Alma littera. LITERATŪRA Balčiūnienė Asta, Drukteinis Albinas, Kazlauskaitė Rūta, Vaskelienė Jolanta 2024: Praktinė bendrinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Practical Grammar of Common Lithuanian Language], Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Bendorienė Aldona, Bogušienė Virginija, Dagytė Emilija, Daržinskaitė Toleina, Grigas Gintautas, Gudžinskas Zigmantas, Jukna Feliksas, Kinderys Algimantas, Kurkulis Bronislovas, Kvietkauskas Valdemaras, Morkūnas Vaidotas, Mudėnienė Regina, Skirmantas Petras 2004: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [Dictionary of International Words], Vilnius: Alma littera. Briaukienė Birutė 2004: Medicinos terminai Tarptautinių žodžių žodyne [Medical Terms in the Dictionary of International Words]. – Žmogus kalbos erdvėje [elektroninis išteklius]: tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys, 2003 m. gegužės 8–9 d., Kaunas, 3(1), 559–565. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos metmenys [Lithuanian Terminology: Outline of Theory and Regulating], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Gedzevičienė Dalia 2023: Dėl teisės terminų pateikimo „Tarptautinių žodžių žodyne“ [On the Submission of Legal Terms in the Dictionary of International Words]. – 16 Respectus Philologicus 43(48), 24–35. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/respectus-philologicus/article/view/29669/30792. Koženiauskienė Regina 2004: Tarptautinių žodžių vartojimas teisininkų kalboje [International Words in the Language of Lawyers]. – Skoliniai ir bendrinė lietuvių kalba, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 189–196. Kv鋪tkauskas Valdemaras 1985: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [Dictionary of International Words], Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija. Lemchenas Chackelis 1951: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [Dictionary of International Words], Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Lemchenas Chackelis 1969: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [Dictionary of International Words], Vilnius: Mintis. Mackevičienė Aldona 1999: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [Dictionary of International Words], Vilnius: Gimtinė. M. ir S. 1923: Svetimų ir tarptautiškų žodžių žodynėlis [Dictionary of Foreign and International Words], Šiauliai: „Vilties“ dr-jos leidinys. Norkus Jonas 1924: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis [Dictionary of Foreign and Incomprehensible Words], Kaunas: „Vaivos“ b-vė. Pakerys Jurgis 2013–2014: Naujųjų skolinių duomenų bazės veiksmažodžių morfologija [Verbal Morphology in the Database of New Borrowings into Lithuanian]. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 3, 1–26. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/taikomojikalbotyra/article/view/17480/16652. Petrėtienė Angelika, Mikala jūnaitė Živilė 2010: 1936 m. „Tarptautinių žodžių žodyno“ poligrafijos terminai [Printing Trade Terms in International Words’ Dictionary of 1936]. – Santalka. Filologija. Edukologija 18(4), 93–106. Prieiga internete: https://www.ceeol.com/search/articledetail?id=125445. Rudaitienė Vida 2006: Dėl tarptautinių žodžių semantinių pokyčių administracinėje kalboje [On the Semantic Variation of International Words in the Language of Management]. – Specialybės kalba: tyrimas ir dėstymas, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras, 123–133. Šlapelis Jurgis 1907: Svetimų ir nesuprantamų žodžių žodynėlis: skaitytojams palengvinimas [Dictionary of Foreign and Incomprehensible Words: Help for Readers], Tilžė: Šviesa. Umbrasas Alvydas 2001: Teisės terminijos padėtis Lietuvoje 1918–1940 metais [The State of the Terminology of Law in Lithuania in 1918–1940]. – Terminologija 8, 76–94. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/698/789. Umbrasas Alvydas 2008: Lietuvių teisės terminografija: nuo rankraščių iki duomenų bazių [Lithuanian Terminography of Law: from Manuscripts to Databases]. – Specialybės kalba: terminija ir studijos: mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 100–109. 17 Umbrasas Alvydas 2010: Lietuvių teisės terminija 1918–1940 metais: pagrindinių kodeksų terminai [Lithuanian Legal Terminology in 1918–1940: Terms of the Main Codes], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Umbrasas Alvydas 2021: Teisės terminijos tvarkyba Terminologijos komisijoje (1921–1926): Terminologijos komisijos 100-mečiui [The Ordering of Legal Terminology in the Terminology Commission (1921–1926): on the Occasion of the 100th Anniversary of the Terminology Commission]. – Terminologija 28, 225–238. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2102/2227. Umbrasas Alvydas 2024: Legal Terminology Management in Lithuania. – Glossa Iuridica XI, 11–28. Vaitkevičiūtė Valerija 2007: Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [Dictionary of International Words], Vilnius: Žodynas. Vladarskienė Rasuolė 2004: Dėl teisės aktų vertimo [On Translations of Legal Acts]. – Skoliniai ir bendrinė lietuvių kalba, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 177–188. Vladarskienė Rasuolė 2014: Naujos tarptautinių žodžių reikšmės administracinėje lietuvių kalboje [New Meanings of the International Words of the Administrative Lithuanian Language]. – Taikomoji kalbotyra 3, 1–16. Prieiga internete: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/taikomojikalbotyra/article/view/17482/16654. Vladarskienė Rasuolė 2019: Tarptautinių žodžių semantikos pokyčiai administracinėje kalboje [Changes in the Semantics of International Words in Administrative Language]. – Bendrinė kalba 92, 1–13. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?92. Žiugžda Juozas 1936: Prakalba [Preface]. – Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas, [Kaunas]: Sakalas, 5–7. 18