Terminų trumpumo principas: vertinimas ir taikymas terminų tvarkyboje

Terminologija / Terminology 2025, No. 32, pp. 1–39 Contents link ISSN 2669-2198 (electronic / online) Copyright © 2025 Ramunė Vaskelaitė. 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 Lithuanian Language Institute. This article is open access, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction of the content in any medium, provided that the author and source are acknowledged. Received: / Gauta: 2025-09-26. Accepted: / Priimta: 2025-11-13. 1 PRINCIPLE OF CONCISSION: EVALUATION AND APPLICATION IN THE DATE PROCESS The Principle of Term Brevity: Evaluation and Application in Terminology Management RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ Institute of Lithuanian Language E-mail: ramune.vaskelait[email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6063-9699 Research areas: Lithuanian terminology; researches on Lithuanian common language norms and usage. https://doi.org/10.35321/term32-08 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ANNOTATION The article examines one of the principles of terminology – the principle of shortness of terms, which is considered both the principle of creation of terms and their management. Firstly, the evaluation of this principle in Lithuanian terminology works is reviewed in order to grasp its possible problematic aspects and factors that may lead to its problematicity, and then focuses on term length data, showing how the principle of brevity is applied in different directions of terminology work. KEY WORDS: term, principles of terminology, principle of brevity, computerized terminology management, lexicographic terminology management, textual terminology management. ABSTRACT The article examines one of the principles of terminology – the principle of terminological brevity, which is considered to be a principle of both term creation and term management. First, the evaluation of this principle in Lithuanian terminology is reviewed in order to identify its possible problematic aspects and the factors that may cause problems, and then the focus shifts to term length data, which shows how the principle of brevity manifests in different directions of terminology management. KEYWORDS: term, principles of terminology, principle of brevity, computerized term management, lexicographic term management, textual term management. 2 INTRODUCTION The principle of shortness of terms is formulated as one of the principles of terminology, applicable both to the creation and management of terms. However, real terminology data reveal that not always and not all terminology principles are followed, so some of them, as well as the traditional terminology itself, have been subject to considerable criticism for some time (see, for example, Temmerman 1997; 1998; Myking 2001; Cabré 2003). New approaches are being formulated, and with them new principles (see, for example, Temmerman 2000). Some of the principles envisaged by traditional terminology are also questioned by Lithuanian terminologists, such as the principle of unambiguity of terms formulated at the beginning of terminology science as one of the main ones, according to which each term should denote only one concept, and each concept should be named only by one term (e.g.: Keinys 2013; Mitkevičienė 2020). However, the principle of shortness of terms has not received much attention, at least in Lithuanian terminology. There are some comments about it, but in a separate work this principle is not examined. This article focuses precisely on the principle of shortness of time. The aim is to examine whether it is problematic as a principle of terminology. For this purpose, a two-step investigation is carried out. Initially, focusing on the comments made in Lithuanian terminology on the issue of this principle or the shortness of terms, the aim is to clarify whether the theoretical evaluation of this principle is problematic and to grasp the possible factors of problematicity. And when the factors emerge, some of them are verified by the analysis of real term management data, thus revealing whether there are differences in the application of the principle of brevity in term management. Since this is not a scientific study or monograph, but only a scientific article, the theoretical part of the thesis does not aim to record all the comments on the issue of shortness of terms in Lithuanian terminology works. The main focus is on the main Lithuanian terminology works, which provide some or other comments on the subject. The focus is on publications of the late 20th and 21st centuries, but some earlier works are also included, which may reveal the formation of the concept of the principle of brevity in Lithuanian terminology. Both the main object of this thesis and the whole set of terminology principles are named by different terminology, therefore the problem of naming the object under consideration arises. The principles discussed in terminology works are called both terminology principles (e.g.: ISO 704-87; Noreikaitė 1994; Klimavičius 2003: 12; TŽR 2007) and terminology requirements (e.g.: Keinys 2005 [1987]: 459; Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206), as well as term requirements (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206–213) or requirements for terms (e.g.: Keinys 2005 [1994]: 262). Accordingly, specific principles are also mentioned, such as the principle of brevity (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1990]: 406) or the requirement of brevity (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1997]: 195, 238). The main focus of the term is more frequently used in educational works or in works focused on the term creators (e.g. TV 2006: 2; Bielinskienė et al. 2014: 145; Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 47), while the term principle is more frequently used in discussions of theoretical terminology issues. However, this is not always the case. For example, a comprehensive article by Kazimieras Gaivenis published in 1979 is entitled „General principles of the creation and standardization of Lithuanian terminology‚ 3 (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 107–117), while another article focused on theoretical considerations of terminology principles is entitled „Linguistic and logical requirements of terms‚ (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206–213). Synonyms are inevitable even in one work. However, in view of the above-mentioned tendency, the general term chosen here is the principle of brevity of terms (also abbreviated as the principle of brevity), only the emphasis remains almost unchanged. The aptariant kitų autorių darbus bus pavartojamas ir jų vartotas terminas. Šalutinis termino term economy principle or economic principle, used to refer to the principles of standardization of the Lithuanian common language, is rare in Lithuanian terminology works. It was used by K. Gaivenis (2002: 96-97), comparing the principles of terminology with the principles of standardization of common language. ASSESSMENTS OF THE PRINCIPLE Differences in theoretical assessment Whether the principle of brevity is regarded as a terminological principle can be determined primarily by the enumeration or discussion of those principles. When listing principles, the principle of brevity is usually mentioned. In the Educational Glossary of Terminology, which includes the term requirements of terms, among the requirements listed for its interpretation are the mention of creative convenience, systematicity, stylistic neutrality, regularity, accuracy and brevity (Kvašytė 2005: 79), which means that it is considered to be of the same rank or level as the others listed. Stasys Keinys, when evaluating the terminology of librarianship and bibliography, also lists the requirements for terms, and among them mentions brevity: “Terms are subject to a number of different requirements – unambiguity, tikslumas, sistemiškumas, taisyklingumas, objektyvumas (nejausmingumas), trumpumas, transparency (linguistic validity of the meaning) and so on” (Keinys 2005 [1996]: 246). In the 1 methodical textbook Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology, the requirements for terms are discussed separately, and as one of them briefness is also discussed (Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 49–50). At the beginning of the book, discussing the concept of a term, it is also said that “each term must be correct, accurate, systematic, short, stylistically neutral and practically convenient” (Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 12). Aušra Rimkutė-Ganusauskienė (2023: 19–24), in a research study aimed at determining the terminological value of clothing names used in sources from the beginning of the 21st century, first discusses the criteria according to which it will be assessed, i.e. the requirements for terms, including the requirement of brevity. The fact 2 that the principle of brevity is considered one of the principles of terminology is also evident from the comments in various terminology works. For example, in an article published in 1969, K. Gaivenis (2014 [1969]: 521) wrote that a composite term may be of regular construction, logically meaningful and scientifically motivated, but not suitable for practical use because of a large 1 Only the author of the article is mentioned everywhere. 2 K. Gaivenis (2014 [1996]: 225), discussing the principles of terminology, drew attention to the fact that the term criterion should be used when it comes to evaluating something according to principles; a criterion is a basis for evaluation, or a measure. 4 expandability, e.g. fast-acting curing agent (= fast-acting curing agent). Albina Auksoriūtė also mentioned the principle of conciseness as important, discussing the inaccuracies in the use of compound terms: “It is important that the term is not only unambiguous, correct, accurate, practically convenient, but also short. It is particularly important that compound terms are as clear and short as possible (Auksoriūtė 1996: 48). She identified descriptive word combinations as one of the inaccuracies in the use of composite terms and stated that they “should be shortened and reduced” (Auksoriūtė 1996: 48). S. Keinys, when evaluating the names of library departments, also mentioned that “it is better, whenever possible, to call them simpler, shorter” (Keinys 2005 [1993]: 363), and when discussing the bilingual dictionary of Russian and Estonian professions and positions, he pointed out as a positive feature that the Estonian terminology managers tried to maintain the traditional language tendency to simple, not overloaded with words names, and added: “Briefness, compactness and unambiguity of terms are things to be sought after in any case” (Keinys 2005 [1981]: 342). According to him, it is not necessary to change the name of the profession every time, at least slightly changing the technology, for example, a baker can continue to be called a baker, although today the technology would allow him to be called an operator of a semi-automatic roll production line, and tomorrow probably some other way (Keinys 2005 [1981]: 341–342). S. Keinys (2005 [1974]: 443) assessed the newly adopted term group curator and stated that, by replacing the hitherto widely used term group leader with the term group curator, the economy of language is only damaged – a shorter word is replaced by a longer one. In reviewing the terms of painting, he mentioned that in terminology it is suggested to avoid long words and, wherever possible, to use shorter ones, thus multilayer painting should be used instead of multilayer painting, especially since in this case the shorter word is also more regular (Keinys 2005 [1972]: 389). Thus, as can be seen, the notion of brevity relates both to the number of words that make up a term and to the length of the words. In the latter aspect, S. Keinys mentioned the marriage of endings as particularly favourable for terminology: ending derivatives are superior to preposition derivatives in that the endings never lengthen the word (Keinys 2005 [1995]: 19), according to him, ending derivatives “fit terminology, one could say, ideally” (Keinys 2005 [1979]: 79). And punching helps to avoid the terms of multiple words, i.e. allows to form “relatively short, helping to avoid the concentration of signs species names” (Keinys 2005 [1983]: 130). The fact that the principle of brevity is not only related to the number of words that make up a term is evident from the attempts to explain the concept of the principle of brevity or to define a term. For example, in the glossary of terms, where the requirements of terms are interpreted as the characteristics according to which a term is created, its suitability and compliance with established norms are assessed (Kvašytė 2005: 79), the concept marked by the term brevity is explained as “the attempt to express all the characteristics of the concept in a shorter term” (Kvašytė 2005: 84). K. Gaivenis (2002: 96), describing the principle of brevity, stated that “preference should be given to shorter language units”. However, attempts to define or explain the principle of brevity are rare in Lithuanian terminology. Usually this concept is taken for granted. The terms “short term” and “long term” are not explained, so the boundary between short and long terms is not clearly defined. 5 S. Keinys (2005 [1979]: 79), discussing in detail the “ideally suitable‚ final construction of Lithuanian terms” from the point of view of brevity, mentioned the pioneer of terminology Dmitrijus Lotas, who argued that the shortness of a term should be sought as well as its accuracy, and applied this requirement not only to the terms themselves, but also to their construction affixes, e.g., suffixes. The works of Russian terminologists are also cited in other Lithuanian terminology works of the earlier period, where some or other remarks are made about the principle of the shortness of terms. From this one could conclude that they might have had an influence on the formation of the principle of brevity or its importance in Lithuanian terminology. Especially since D. Lotė, as stated by K. Gaivenis (2002: 117), was the first to formulate the requirements for terms, including the requirement of brevity. K. Gaivenis directly mentions that in the post-war years Lithuanian terminology depended heavily on Russian terminology, because “[t]heoretical literature from abroad was almost not available to us” (Gaivenis 2002: 110). However, K. Gaivenis himself seemed to be more cautious about the shortness of the deadlines. In the comprehensive work Bendrieji lietuvių terminologijos kūrimo ir norminimo principai, published in 1979, where he first attempted to systematize or formulate “the principles of modern Lithuanian terminology”, the principle of brevity is not distinguished 3 as a separate one, although it is noted that Kazys Girnius, who tried to formulate the requirements for scientific terminology, mentioned among them that “the name should be short, because long multiple names greatly complicate their use” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 108). This article by K. Gaivenis formulates ten separate principles, but the principle of brevity is not included. It was only mentioned after formulating the 7th principle, focused on the 4 regularity of terms and practical convenience, where it was added: “In general, the following additional requirements are placed on terms: a) brevity, b) resonance, c) uniqueness, d) translatable into other languages, etc. (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 115). It would appear that the principle of brevity is considered by the author of the article only as an additional one, and not of the same rank as other formulated principles. The principle of brevity is not discussed as a separate principle in K. Gaivenis’s later article on the issue of terminology principles – “Linguistic and logical requirements of terms” published in 1994‚ although it is mentioned at the beginning of the article that “the most important and most frequently mentioned linguistic requirements of terms are: regularity, accuracy, systematicity, brevity, creative convenience, emotional neutrality, etc.” (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206). However, a couple of years later, K. Gaivenis together with Angela Kaulakiene prepared 3 The fact that this is the first attempt to formulate “modern principles of Lithuanian terminology” is evident from the author’s remark that “so far no one has tried to systematize either general or special principles of the creation and regulation of Lithuanian terms” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 113). Earlier attempts to formulate principles are described by Jonas Klimavičius (2003), Stasys Keinis (2012 [1967]: 29–56), Albina Auksoriūte (2024: 35–42) and others. 4 The wording would indicate that at least some of the principles of terminology discussed are formulated rather as rules, for example: “3. The need for terminological naming is raised and determined by specialists in the relevant field. Linguists advise how to better name this concept (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 114). 6 The article „Extralinguistic principles of terminology standardization“ indicates that the principle of brevity 5 is considered important in terms of terminology standardization. Specifically, briefness is mentioned here in discussion of one of the principles considered extralinguistic – the statistical principle of terms evaluation, described as meaning that the most common language facts are considered to best correspond to the norm (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 233). In asserting that the statistical criterion also helps to assess the shortness of terms, this article mentions Zipf’s law, which provides that the length of a word or term is inversely proportional to the frequency of its use, and then draws the following conclusion: “Therefore, the relative length of terms indicates either their novelty or insufficient standardization” (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 233). It would follow that relatively long deadlines are considered to be insufficiently standardised, while standardised deadlines should be short. Elsewhere, this idea is expressed more directly: the better the terminology is developed and standardized, the more shorter terms should be used (Kaulakienė, Makariūnienė 2014 [1999]: 36). However, in 1991, K. Gaivenis wrote an article “A couple of terminology by terminology requirement. This is shown by the opposition to the opinion of the Russian terminologist: “Russian terminologist I. Volkova considers the unambiguity, brevity and linguistic correctness of terms as the mažmožių‚ atskleidžia, kad autorius nebuvo linkęs trumpumo laikyti būtinuoju necessary requirements of terminology, and all other requirements (systematics, motivation, operational convenience, etc.) as optional. In our view, this is not quite the objective. The requirement of conciseness can hardly be considered essential (Gaivenis 2014 [1991]: 195). After pointing out that not all long terms used in texts of scientific language are really terms and that, on the other hand, scientific terms can be shortened in the text, the author of the article finally reaches a fairly strict conclusion: “Every term must be verbally and grammatically correct, and short – not every one. There are certain groups of terms (variety names in plant systematic terminology, soil classification terms, etc.), which cannot be monoor bi-word at all. Thus, the term must be such as it is needed for a particular system of concepts (Gaivenis 2014 [1991]: 196). This idea is also presented by K. Gaivenis in his 2002 book Lithuanian Terminology: Outline of Theory and Organization. Discussing the principles of terminology in the context of the principles of standardization of common language, the author also opposes the Russian terminologist Irina Volkova, and as one of the arguments mentions the absence of limits on the standard length of a word or word combination: “The requirement of shortness can hardly be considered necessary. After all, there are no fixed limits on the normative length of a single word or a nominative word combination (Gaivenis 2002: 43). As could be deduced from the discussion of the principle of shortness in this book, its application seems to be limited to related terms: “For example, single-word terms are better suited for naming related concepts than composite ones. International codes of terminology in some fields recommend only binary names for species terms. Variety names in plant systematic terminology cannot be shorter than three words. Here extralinguistic principles of terminology standardization are described as “directly related not to the system of language, but to the opinion of society, individual groups or individuals, their attitude to terminology, as well as to the application of other scientific methods to standardize terms” (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 229–230). 5 7 terms‚ (Gaivenis 2002: 43). It would appear that this Lithuanian terminologist did not consider the principle of brevity as a basic, universal, applicable to all terminology or even to every term. On the other hand, he drew attention to the tendency to shorten terms in the texts. For example, such a tendency was observed in a 1980 article on the language of scientific articles – it is written that the language of science has a particularly pronounced economic tendency, which is why there are many peculiar elliptical constructions, special abbreviations and various combinations of terms and symbols (Gaivenis 2014 [1980]: 576). In a 1990 article by K. Gaivenis it is stated that “in the text the terms can and should be shortened. They can be abbreviated in two ways: 1) by contracting long compound (polyword) terms and omitting some of their elements and 2) by creating alphabetic and syllable abbreviations (Gaivenis 2014 [1990]: 406). In the 2002 work Lithuanian terminology: theory and arrangement outline this author also writes that in the automotive textbook instead of the compound term internal combustion engine can be used the single word engine, because the abbreviation is much related to the stylistics of the scientific language (Gaivenis 2002: 43). Nevertheless, in this work K. Gaivenis finally presents the following summary: „In general, the shortness and shortening of terms are more relevant to the field of usage than to that of fixation“ (Gaivenis 2002: 44). It would appear that both brevity and abbreviation are more related only to the use of terms, and the principle of brevity is not necessary in the fixation of terms, which, as K. Gaivenis’ explanation elsewhere shows, is considered to be the provision of terms in dictionaries, standards, term banks or other 6 terminology sources. (cf. the author’s statement that the term must be such as it is needed for a particular system of concepts). The tendency to shorten terms in texts, as well as to lengthen them, is also addressed in other works, distinguishing between the concepts of term shortness and term shortening (see Mitkevičienė 2015: 55–56). However, in one of her most recent works Asta Mitkevičienė (2024: 2) draws attention to the fact that terms are abbreviated not only in tests, but also when managing terminology (creating, translating, norming, standardizing it) – here too, a shorter expression for concepts is sought. It would appear that the aim of brevity is relevant not only to the use of terms, but also to their management. Thus, from what has been discussed, it becomes clear that the theoretical evaluation of the principle of shortness of terms in Lithuanian terminology is not completely uniform or unproblematic. On the one hand, brevity is considered as a principle of the same rank as other terminology principles or even distinguished from them as something to be pursued in any case, on the other hand, it is assessed more cautiously – it is named only as an additional principle. On the one hand, it tends to be considered more relevant only for the use of terms, and on the other, it is observed that the aim of brevity is relevant for the management of terms. The lack of uniformity is also revealed by the place given to this principle in the classification of terminology principles. By dividing these principles into linguistic and logical, the principle of brevity is assigned to the linguistic ones (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206). That its nature is linguistic, would show and 6 „15-20 years ago, researchers of linguistic terminology problems were mainly interested in the so-called fixation sphere terms, i.e. terms taken from dictionaries, standards, term banks and other terminology sources‚ (Gaivenis 2014 [1986]: 154). It is true that the term fixation is rarely used in Lithuanian terminology, the term it denotes or its relationship with the term of terminology management is not explained separately. 8 comments are made on this principle, such as the aforementioned adoption of Zipf's law, which predicts that the most commonly used words or their combinations are short, or the observation of a tendency to economics in language. The principle of language economy is also included in the set of principles and criteria for the standardization of the Lithuanian common language (BKTP 1997), and they are used to provide the principles of terminology. For example, K. Gaivenis (2002: 90) indicates that all of them are more or less suitable for terminology standardization, only some need to be further specified, specificated, adapted to the needs of terminology. However, in another publication, where the requirements of terms are also divided into linguistic and logical, the requirement of shortness of terms is classified not as linguistic but as logical (Kvašytė 2005: 79). It is true that there are also statements that would show that there should be no major contradictions here – brevity is relevant both from the point of view of language and logic: “Long, overly expanded terms harm the economy of speech (and thinking) <...>” (Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 49). However, both the differences in attitudes to the importance of the principle of brevity that emerge from this overview and the variations in the classification of principles would indicate that the principle in question is not unproblematic. Galimi problemiškumo veiksniai The fluctuations observed in the classification of the principle of brevity in the relevant group of principles suggest that differences in the approach to that principle may be due to the very nature of terminology, namely its interface with both language and logic. However, other observations made in the context of the principle of brevity or other matters would suggest that a cautious assessment of this principle may be due to the fact that, at least in certain cases, it is difficult to apply it to the creation or management of terms. In addition to the general principles of terminology standardization, K. Gaivenis (2022: 100–108) mentions special rules and principles that "regulate the management of different areas of terminology or its microsystems". And such special rules, such as the IUPAC approved rules for chemical nomenclature to which he refers, also govern the formation of names. K. Gaivenis’s article “Application of International Terminology Principles to Our Terminology”, published in 1994, which raised the problems posed by international terminology, also drew attention to the fact that the terminology of some fields or microsystems is governed by international terminology rules providing for the appropriate terminology structure. For example, it is provided for in international codes of nomenclature in botany and zoology (Gaivenis 2014: [1994]: 214). That article even refers to international terminology recommendations that provide that newly emerging concepts should be given names that can be adopted into other languages with little or no change (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 216). In addition, as noted, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standardizes not only the terms of individual fields, but also the principles and methods of terminology. It would appear that the application of the principle of brevity in the terminology of at least certain fields may be difficult due to the relevant regulation of terminology. 9 Furthermore, in that article K. Gaivenis (2014 [1994]: 215–216) observes that international terminology codes often specify that terms should be translated into national languages, and that specialists often understand the translation of terms directly as a grammatically adequate translation. The tendency of specialists to translate terms rather than create them is also noted elsewhere, even if this tendency is not related to the requirements of international terminology (e.g. Gaivenis 2002: 85; Keinys 2004: 234–235; Zaikauskas 2014). This would suggest that the terminology of the original language could be a hindrance to the application of the principle of brevity. For example, S. Keinys, who already in 2004 drew attention to the fact that in the last ten years, much more texts have been translated than created in many fields (‘in this respect, it can be said, we are almost returning to the 16th century, when translation of texts also dominated, rather than creation’), at the same time notes that in translation practice there is a clear tendency to bring the terms of one’s own language as close as possible to those of the original language, for fear of moving away from them (Keinys 2004: 234–235). In addition to the abundance of translated texts, Lithuanian terminologists have long observed a proliferation of terms that is encouraged by the development of science or technology (Gaivenis 2014 [1982]: 121). And now, in the conditions of so-called globalization, as the discussion of standardized terminology (e.g., Skujiņa et al. 2006; Bliūdžuvienė, Černiauskaitė 2021) shows, the abundance of terms becomes difficult to manage from the point of view of their organization. This could also be an interference with the principle of brevity. Judita Džežulskienė (2010: 7–8), also drawing attention to the globalization factor, mentions the complexity of concepts. More precisely, it states that in modern terminology systems, one-word terminological units are no longer sufficient to represent more complex concepts, the basic concept needs to be refined, expanded, detailed with several more elements, and therefore polyword terms are found. Mentioning polyword terms as the most characteristic feature of modern scientific lexicon, the author states that they “usually appear after the formation of the basic terminology systems, when new phenomena require modification of existing terms. The values of such terms are motivated by the basic terms, and the structures are expanded by other elements. Polyword terms can sometimes be considered as the result of the detailing of a two-word term (Džežulskienė 2010: 7). Other comments on the issue of the shortness of terms or the principle of brevity would reveal as a possible obstacle to the application of this principle its possible interference with other terminological principles, such as the principle of regularity. While word-joining is considered a convenient terminology for the ability to form a shorter term, it also emerges from some articles of the earlier period as a frequent source of irregular terms. For example, when reviewing the educational dictionaries of terms in the 1981 article, it was noted that almost every Lithuanian educational dictionaries of terms can be detected terms of irregular construction and their variants (Gaivenis 2014 [1981]: 461). In the 1994 article, one of the most common cases of creating irregular terms is mentioned as the incorrect choice of the type or category of work, determined by the application of the principle of pseudoanalogy, e.g.: bebrimvietė, fire resistance (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206–207). The contradiction between the principles of brevity and regularity is also directly mentioned in certain cases: “Not always is one word better than a combination of words. For example, in all 16 those dictionaries the terms consist of two-word terms, a smaller part of them is made up of one-word terms, an even smaller part of them is made up of three-word terms, and there are few four-word and longer terms in the dictionaries (Umbrasas 2013: 117). In this case, the terminographic terminology works are already evaluated, but on the basis of them two laws are also established, which emerge mainly on the basis of the terminology presented in the texts. This seems to indicate that there are no more pronounced differences in the application of the principle of brevity between terminographic and textual terminology (or usage). However, the same work by A. Umbrasas, as already mentioned in the first part of this article, also provides data on the length of the legal acts managed in the Terms Bank. As the author of the article points out, the Terms Bank not only covers the terms of legislative acts (Umbrasas 2013: 99–100), but in the article of 2013 he discusses the term management of legislative acts more broadly, and in discussing it he also provides the calculations of the length of the terms of the legislative acts treated here, more precisely, data on the length of the terms of the legislative acts considered and approved by the Terminology Subcommittee provided by the Terms Bank, of which there were 9,056 in August 2013 (Umbrasas 2013: 113). From the figures provided, as well as from the examples, it would be clear that these terms are considerably longer, and this can be judged from several indicators. Firstly, as can be seen from Table 1, a relatively large proportion of these terms consists of four-word terms, i.e. about 15 % of them, and an even larger proportion of five-word and longer terms. About 19% of them were found, although, as mentioned, four-word terms are mentioned in other sources only rarely. Comparing the approved terms of legislative acts with the terms of the terminology dictionaries, A. Umbrasas (2013: 117) indicates that in the terminology dictionaries only about 3% of the terms are four-word, and five-word and longer – only about 1%. Comparison of terms provided in the term bank and term dictionaries by length, 2013 Term source 1 word 2 words 3 words 4 words 5 words and terms of acts) more Term dictionaries ~ 32 per cent ~ 52 per cent ~ 12 per cent ~ 3 per cent ~ 1 per cent Terms bank (approved rights ~ 10 per cent ~ 32 per cent ~ 24 per cent ~ 15 per cent ~ 19 per cent Source: A. Umbrasas (2013: 113, 117); compiled by the author. Secondly, the sequence of single-word-three-word terms groups is also different in this case than in other works: although two-word terms predominate among the terms of the legislative acts managed by the Terms Bank, three-word terms are significantly more than single-word terms, i.e. they constitute about 24%, and single-word terms – about 10%. One-word terms are even outweighed by four-word terms (compare about 10% and about 15%), as well as five-word and longer terms (compare about 10% and about 19%). In the sources of terminological order chosen by the author for comparison, three-word terms do not outweigh single words, more precisely, three-word terms here only about 12%, and single words – even about 32%. In particular, they are not offset by four-word terms or a group of five-word and longer terms (see Table 1). 17 Thirdly, not only the figures, but also the examples show that the terms of approved legislative acts presented in the Terms Bank are exceptionally long. As the longest, A. Umbrasas refers to the eighteen-word term already mentioned in this article, the informal continuing vocational training programme for farmers, forest owners, members of local action groups, other villagers and their advisors, but he also mentions other terms consisting of several words. It is true that, unlike the usual practice in works presenting data on the length of terms in Lithuanian language, when determining the length of a term, the official words are also counted, thus the longest term, excluding these words from the calculations, would be shortened a little – it would become seventeen words. The author himself says about the evaluated five-word and longer terms of the Term Bank that the more words that make up a term, the fewer these terms are among the approved legislative acts. This is also shown in the table he provided (see table 2 for data selected here only for five-word and longer terms). However, terms consisting of a few words are not recorded in other sources, and even six-word terms are mentioned rather rarely and only in isolated cases (e.g., Zemlevičiūtė 2004: 349). K. Gaivenis (2002: 17) has standartuose ilgiausi terminai – septyniažodžiai, tačiau kitur, aptardamas aprobuotus mentioned that in terms of dictionaries and standards, the author referred to only two seven-word terms that occurred in them (Gaivenis 2014 [1995]: 221). Table 2. Five-word and longer terms of legislative acts by number of words in the term bank, 2013 Number of words in the term 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 Number of terms 719 385 265 142 86 35 6 6 3 2 1 53 12 Source: A. Umbrasas (2013: 113); compiled by the computerized terminology compared with terminographic terminology could also have an author. Thus, both the data provided by A. Umbrasas about the terminology of legislative acts managed by the Terms Bank, his comparison with the length of terms provided in 27 term dictionaries of different fields, and the comparison presented here highlight that the terminology of legislative acts managed by the Terms Bank differs significantly from the terminology provided (or used) in other sources, and this is evident from several indicators: the influence when applying the principle of brevity. It is precisely the factor of the direction of prevalence of three-word terms compared to one-word terms, the much greater number of terms management that is decided to be checked here, by selecting several sources terms longer than three words, the exceptional length of terms. Judging by these indicators, the principle of brevity is applied here in a significantly different way than in the sources of terminographic or textual terminology. The author himself explains the longer than usual in traditional terminology terms provided in the Terms Bank with the specificity of legal concepts, but already in the previous part of this article it was assumed that the differences in representing different directions of management, and as one of them the Term Bank is selected – a computerized term management source. More precisely, by continuing the comparison started by A. Umbrasas, but using other sources as well, it will be compared here whether the principle of brevity is really applied in this computerized terminology source in a different way than in other terminology sources. This will be determined by the length of the terms, in this case focusing only on the number of words that make up the term. In order to compare whether there are indeed differences in the application of the principle of brevity in the terms management work of different directions, a total of three directions – computer, terminographic and textual – terms management sources are used here. The fourth of the commonly mentioned (see: Gaivenis 2002: 63–87; Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 58–63) directions of terminology management – standardization – is not included because of the limitations of the article’s scope and because it could be the subject of a separate study. Computerized terminology management, as it has already become clear, is represented in this case by the Terms Bank, terminographic – a pair of economic terminology dictionaries, textual – a pair of textbooks for higher schools (they will be called textbooks). Thus, the number of sources to be compared is not large, but a large number of them is not sought in 18 this case. On the contrary, the aim is to limit the terminology data only to one field – economics, since it became clear already during the discussion of the theoretical evaluation of the principle of brevity that the terminology of different fields may be characterized by different lengths of terms. More specifically, the table presented in the monograph Automated recognition and definition of Lithuanian language terms, which does not indicate general data, but only the length of terms approved by legislation in the field of education and science (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 64), shows that they do not coincide with the general data provided by A. Umbrasas. For example, three-word terms approved in legislation in the field of education and science do not outweigh single words (three-word – 23%, single – 21.6%), four-word terms only in education and science are also not many (4.1%). This would also encourage the choice of sources that handle terms of the same field, focusing on the management of economic terms. The mentioned pair of dictionaries of choice terms are the Explanatory English-Lithuanian Dictionary of Economics (hereinafter – AEŽ) compiled by David Pearce and published in 2006, the preface of which states that it contains 2,800 terms, and the Explanatory Dictionary of Economics (hereinafter – ETŽ) by Rūta Vainiene, published in 2008, the cover of which states that it contains about 1,400 terms. The dictionary compiled by D. Pearce is also called an explanatory dictionary, but it is a translational dictionary (according to the exhaustiveness of the definitions it provides, it could even be compared to an encyclopedic dictionary), so if it is necessary to distinguish this dictionary from another explanatory dictionary in the text, it will be called a translational AEŽ. From the economics textbooks, textbooks presenting the macroeconomics course are selected: Kaunas University of Technology Macroeconomics (KTU 2008) and Vilnius University Macroeconomics (VU 2017). From the Terms Bank, as in A. Umbraso 2013 article, only legal terms are taken, but in this case only those are selected that are indicated in the Terms Bank as terms in the economic field. As in the article of A. Umbrasas, only the approved 19 terms with term status. Of course, certain tendencies to apply the principle of brevity could also be shown by comparing approved terms with non-presentable terms, but, apart from the Terms Bank, the reference to the terms evaluated in the other dictionaries is provided only in one of the dictionaries, and for the terms defined in the other dictionaries nesuteikiamas. Taigi, lyginti duomenis šiuo požiūriu keblu. Aprobuoto termino statusą and in both manuals, the terms of economic legislation with such status will be referred to as terms managed by the Terms Bank for reasons of brevity, although, of course, the management of terms in the Terms Bank includes not only the terms of legislative acts. The Terms Bank data to be compared here are more than a decade later than those discussed in A. Umbrasas’ article – they are the terms of economic legislation approved in this term management source in September 2025. It is true that, although the selected comparative sources represent different directions in terms management, they may appear to be united by the term assessment applied by the CCIR. And in fact, both the terms of the dictionaries and textbooks in Lithuania are discussed and evaluated by the VLKK, in other words, they are standardized by this institution. The standardization of dictionaries’ terms is provided for by the General Requirements for the Preparation of Term Dictionary (TŽR 2007) and the Rules for the Evaluation of Term Dictionary (TŽT 2004) approved by the VLKK, the evaluation of textbooks’ language, including terms, is provided for by the description of the procedure for the evaluation of the language correctness of higher education textbooks approved by the protocol resolution of the VLKK, terminų tvarkybos šaltinis: jame pateikiamus terminus rengia valstybės institucijose which provides that the VLKK evaluates textbooks also with regard to terminology (AMVA 2015). The Lithuanian Terms Bank is also of a normative nature, formed by the Terminology 9 Commission, but considered and evaluated by the VLKK Terminology Subcommittee (see: Umbrasas 2013; 2023). Thus, although terminology involves more than just terminology standardization, it may seem that all the sources selected for comparison here are identical in terms of standardization. However, the above-mentioned requirements for the preparation of term dictionaries are mandatory only for dictionaries commissioned by VLKK, and the higher education institutions also provide textbooks at their own discretion, so VLKK does not assess the terms of all term dictionaries or textbooks from the point of view of terminological quality. The selected dictionaries and textbooks do not have the certificate that they are evaluated by this institution, although they are all edited and reviewed by 10 specialists. This means that only the terms provided by the Terms Bank (in this case, those with the status of approved term) were evaluated by VLKK from the selected sources. However, for other reasons as well, the Term Bank is a source of terminology management that differs from terminographic or textual sources of terminology management. As specified by 9 The glossary of terms states that terminology is the systematization and standardization of terms according to the requirements of terms (Kvašytė 2005: 80). 10 The terms of one of the sources – the Vilnius University textbook Macroeconomics – could be considered as considered and evaluated by the VLKK if they were taken from the Terms Bank, because the textbook terms provided in the Terms Bank, selected and refined by the textbook authors, are considered by the VLKK and its Terminology Subcommissions (Umbrasas 2023: 150). However, here the terms of this textbook are taken from the textbook itself. Terms from other sources selected here are not provided in the Term Bank. 20 A. Umbrasas (2013: 118), terminological work here is done using electronic communications, data can be supplemented, updated, changed at any time. And textual terminology should differ from computer or terminographic terminology in cases typical of textual or contextual usage of terms, including the abbreviation of terms. In order to avoid them, i.e. in this case by examining the shortness of terms, rather than the abbreviation, only the terms defined or explained in them are selected from textbooks. The term defined or explained in the textbook is often also distinguished in the text (in a different font, etc.) and the English equivalent is provided next to it, so in this respect the presentation of terms in textbooks is similar to their presentation in other directions of terminology management works. Similarity is also shown by the fact that, when defining a term, as in the Term Bank or in the dictionaries, a synonym of the term can also be provided. Synonyms of terms given in sources are not evaluated in this case. In order to compare data, terms that have several meanings in the glossaries are divided into separate articles, as this is how the terms are provided in the Terms Bank. This results in a different number of terms than the ones specified in the glossaries themselves. As this is a case of comparison of terminology data, a certain proportion of the data provided by the glossaries is rejected. Regarding the selection of terminology data, it is not an easy task. When selecting data from the Terms Bank, technical obstacles were encountered. The selection of data from it is complicated by the fact that the number of search results presented here is limited. Thus, if the field of the refined search box is economy and the term status is approved (this status allows to limit the terms of the legislative acts from the terms of the terminology dictionaries and textbooks provided in this database), only the total number of articles of approved terms of the legislative acts in the field of economy is shown and the search is suggested to be narrowed. Therefore, the terms themselves were searched by entering in the source cell the guessed words of the titles of legislative acts: order, law, resolution, draft. Thus, 910 approved legislative term articles were collected from the Terms Bank, which almost corresponds to the total number of approved economic legislation term articles shown here – 935. 11 The selection of terminology data from the term dictionaries is complicated by the fact that, unlike the Term Bank, it tends to provide not only terms, but also the question of terminological evaluation of some of the units provided here is rather unclear. Personal names such as Friedman, Milton; Hume, David. Keynes, John Maynard; Pareto, Wilfredo; Lerner, Abba P.; Edgeworth, Francis Ysidro AEŽ, of course, are not considered terms and therefore not included in the sample of terms to be compared here. Other terms that are composed with personal names are called eponymous terms, e.g. : Gresham's law, Fisher's effect, Phillips' curve of ETS; Cramer's rule, Euler's theorem, Lorenzo's curve. However, there are also titles of documents (e.g., General Agreement on Customs and Trade, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Federal Trade Commission Act), and a particularly large portion of the articles in the EOL consists of official titles of institutions (e.g., the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Trade Commission Act, etc.). : National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Islamic 11 The difference arises from the fact that the terms of the Economic Department of the Bank of Lithuania have also received the status of approved terms, but they could not necessarily be used in legislation and are therefore not included here. 21 Development Bank, Industry and Trade Finance Corporation, International Association of Bond Brokers). The relationship between these terms is not quite clear. Lithuanian terminologists, noting the tendency to include proper names in the dictionaries of terms, are reluctant to consider them as terms (e.g.: Gaivenis 2014 [1969]: 519), but at the same time note that the question of the relationship between proper names and terms is still almost unexplored (e.g., Gaivenis 2002: 128). In Lithuanian terminology, adjectives, participles or adverbs are not considered as terms, because, according to K. Gaivenis (2002: 31), they do not perform one of the most important functions of the term – nominative or nominative. Thus, they are not included here, although in the dictionaries of terms of individual adjectives, participants or their combinations are included, for example: counter-cyclical, competitive, weakly stationary, capital-intensive SMEs; apodictic, endogenous, rational ETS. Adjectives, participants or their combinations with adjectives are evaluated differently (e.g., Mitkevičienė 2022: 7), but elsewhere their terminology is restricted (Zemlevičiūtė 2020: 316). In this case, the set of terms to be compared includes adjectives and participles, e.g.: discharged, discrete variable, second best ACE; the insured ETP. In both dictionaries, Latinisms and Frenchisms are also included, but only in the translational AEŽ they are translated, e.g.: a priori Latin. in advance, ceteris paribus Latin. otherwise unchanged, laissez faire French. let it work. In the ETS they are presented as such, e.g.: veto, a priori, ab invito, ex ante, force majeure, alter ego. Such unlithuanised borrowings from other languages, as well as non-nominative words and constructions used by specialists (e.g., the names of sports and military teams, align to the left! Sort by two!), seem to have been proposed as professionalisms (Gaivenis 2014 [1985]: 141), but at the same time it is revealed that the very concept of professionalism is not homogeneous. Thus, the border of professionalisms and terms is not unclear either. K. Gaivenis himself (2002: 24; 2014 [1985]: 136–144), having discussed the narrow and broad concepts of professionalisms, was inclined to hold the view that terms are only part of professionalisms, while the other part of them are not terms. As the latter he mentioned unlithuanised words and word combinations used in the language of specialists in certain fields, as well as non-nominative words or constructions used in the language of specialists (Gaivenis 2002: 24; 2014 [1985]: 140–141). Thus, in this case, Latinisms and Frenchisms presented in the terminology dictionaries that have not been transliterated or translated into Lithuanian are not included in the comparable terminology data set. However, drawing this boundary also raises the question of the relationship of professional jargons, translations, etc. with terminology that occur in the dictionaries of terms. Solving these theoretically difficult questions, assessing the terminological quality of the comparable terminology according to length indicators is not the purpose of this article, so other than the listed here, units presented in the dictionaries of terms as individual articles are included in the sample of comparison data, only some of them will be given separate attention. When selecting terminology data from textbooks, the items listed here caused fewer problems. Although the actual names of persons, institutions or other objects, Latinisms or Frenchisms provided in the dictionaries of terms are also used here, they are not terminologised except in isolated cases (e.g. International Monetary Fund or World Bank KTU 2008). 22 Term length data Having selected the terminology data from the selected sources in the manner just discussed, the terms are grouped according to the number of words that make them up, thus obtaining indicators of the length of terms presented in the different directions of term management sources (see table 3). When determining the length of the terms, it was necessary to decide whether to include the official words (as was done in A. Umbraso article) or not to include them (as is usual when providing data on the length of the terms in various publications). Since in this case it is intended to compare the results with the calculations provided by A. Umbrasas, it was decided to present in the table the results obtained by including the official words in the calculations, and to mention the differences that may arise separately. Table 3. Terms by number of words in different directions in term management works Terms Term management 1 word 2 words 3 words 4 words 5 and Total term management source more direction words Computerized Management Lietuvos Respublikos term bank (Terminų bankas) 105 330 216 119 140 910 Terms R. Vainienė. Economics (ETŽ) 418 632 138 25 9 1 222 dictionary of terms, 2008 Explanatory (59) D. W. (AEŽ) (VU economics dictionary, 372 1 518 594 ed. 178 54 2 716 English-Lithuanian (361) (1 501) (603) (192) Management Text Processing Macroec- (KTU 2008) onomics, 2008 68 211 116 50 9 454 Pearce, 2017) 2006 Macroeconomics, 2017 38 170 99 51 23 381 From Table 3, one similarity that connects all the sources of terminology selected here can be seen – the prevalence of two-word terms: most of the terms of this group were found both in the dictionaries of economic terms and in both textbooks, as well as in the approved terminology of the Terms Bank’s legislative acts, from which in this case only the terms assigned to economic terms in that source were selected. The prevalence of two-word terms confirms the fact highlighted by publications providing term length data, as well as by A. Umbraso calculations, which include data from 27 term dictionaries, that most of the terms used or provided in Lithuanian are two-word terms. The method of calculating the length of terms chosen here has almost no effect on the indicators of two-word terms. Excluding official words from the 23 calculations, such terms as deposit until demand, entry into the market, non-profit enterprise, bond with a section, value for money in the ETS, deposits until demand, money until demand, debt without collateral, market without intermediaries, wages based on work, work according to rules, non-price competition, non-tariff barriers, research and development, skills and earnings, input and output, customs and practices in the ETS, a couple of terms presented in the Terms Bank (institution attached to the ministry and exemption from fines), the term presented in the VU textbook investments in stocks, should also be considered as two-word terms. However, it would obviously be completely inaccurate to conclude from the prevalence of ambiguous terms alone that the principle of shortness of time applies equally in all comparable sources of terminology. Other indicators to be evaluated. Three-word terms in all sources, except the ETŽ compiled by R. Vainiene, considerably outweigh single words. In the VU textbook there are more than twice, cf. 99 and 38. As discussed in the comparison of works providing data on the length of terms, the prevalence of three-word terms compared to one-word terms emerged only as a typical indicator of the terminology of legislative acts managed by the Term Bank. In this case, by selecting only the terms of economic legislation from the Terms Bank, this advantage is also visible, but at the same time it becomes clear that it is also evident in the sources of terminology of other directions. In the selected terminology of the Terms Bank, three-word terms are even fewer, i.e. they constitute 23.74% of all selected terms of that source, in the KTU textbook such terms are 25.55%, in the VU textbook – 25.98%. Thus, the sequence of one-word–three-word term groups, which emerged from the discussion of the works providing data on term length, is confirmed in this case only by the explanatory ETS compiled by R. Vainiene. The chosen method of calculating the length of terms also has almost no effect on such indicators – when revealing the prevalence of two-word terms, by classifying the mentioned several terms as two-word, three-word terms would decrease by only a few terms. Four-word terms outweigh single words not only in the Terms Bank terminology examined here (119 of them here, single words – 105). Their prevalence, compared to one-word terms, is also evident from the textual source of terminology – the VU textbook Macroeconomics (cf. 51 and 38), although when examining terms according to structure, as discussed, it is usually stated that four-word or longer terms are rare. Four-word terms in this textbook account for 13.39% of all economic terms defined therein. In another textbook, compared to the 68 single-word terms, there are also quite a lot of four-word terms – 50. They account for 11.01% of all economic terminology data selected from this source. However, due to the chosen method of calculating the length of terms, the four-word terms here include the term transactions with securities presented in the KTU textbook, the terms presented in the VU textbook accelerator and multiplier model, Baumol and Tobin model, walking to the bank costs, etc. Excluding official words from the calculation, these terms would be treated as three-word terms and the number of four-word terms shown in the table would be reduced by several terms. On the other hand, the indicators of three-word term groups would increase. In any case, the indicators of four-word and three-word terms show that three-word terms, which will be referred to as longer terms 24 here, and four-word terms, which will be referred to as long terms here, are abundant not only in the terminology of economic legislation managed by the Term Bank, but also in textual terminology sources. In the monograph Automated recognition and definition of Lithuanian language terms, in which the terms are selected on the basis of textbooks, the number of educational and scientific terms is indicated – 22 terms, which constitutes only 2.82% of all selected educational and scientific terms. However, as already mentioned, this number may have been influenced by the selection of terms: a total of 77,961 possible four-word terms were found septynis kartus pavartotus žodžių junginius, tų terminų sumažėjo iki 760, o ekspertas iš jų in the text, with only more than 22 educational and scientific terms being considered terms (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 63). However, A. Umbrasas, based on his work on terminological terminology, determined only 3% of four-word terms on the basis of 27 terminology dictionaries. However, the sources of terminological ordering used here would also show that four-word terms are less frequently used. In one of the terminology dictionaries – ETZ – there are only 25 of them, which would make up 2.05% of the terminology data of this dictionary. If such terms as tax-free day, free entry to the market, price-to-profit ratio, small and medium-sized enterprise were considered three-word terms, then this number of four-word terms provided by the EOJ would be reduced by a further nine terms. There are fewer four-word terms than single-word ones in the translated EOJ, cf. 178 and 372. However, this is more than is usually mentioned in terms of term length data, i.e. 6.55% of all terminology data selected from this dictionary. And the three-word terms in this dictionary, as in the Terms Bank or in both textbooks, outweigh the single words, i.e. three-word terms – 594, single words – 372. The table shows that the number of three-word and four-word terms in the translated EPA is even higher. This relates to terminological data, indicating their real elements in parentheses, e.g.: (investment) portfolio diversification, (securities) market maker, decision pateikimo ypatumais, t. y. su tuo faktu, kad šiame žodyne kai kurie terminai pateikiami tam (adoption) rule, arbitrary (equilibrium) pricing, cash ratio (to deposits). When discussing the practice of compiling dictionaries of terms, attention is drawn to the fact that dictionaries of terms tend to provide various information in parentheses (Umbrasas 2008: 223). In this case, it is not easy to determine the reason for such a submission. As the comparison of the English and Lithuanian terms in the dictionary suggests, the parentheses may be intended to indicate the element that the English term does not have, e.g.: factor reversals and substitution of (production) factors, portfolio balance approach and (investment) portfolio balance method, market maker and (securities) market maker. On the other hand, this may be intended to reconcile the principles of accuracy and brevity by indicating both the long and short forms of the term. Cases of adding or omitting term elements are usually recorded in texts and are associated with textual or contextual use of terms (e.g., Mitkevičienė 2015), but, as can be seen, in this case the long and short forms of the term are presented in the so-called source of fixation – the dictionary of terms. By the way, A. Mitkevičienė (2024) also recently observed that various cases of term shortening are not foreign to terminology, and at the same time it is written that it is difficult to determine when a term is shortened and when it is extended. Thus, the author, distinguishing six groups of alternative terms with unequal number of elements, identified such cases as the ones mentioned here as lexem release 25 vs. lexem addition (Mitkevičienė 2024: 5). Without further examining the issues of the terminological theoretical evaluation of such cases and the reasons for the presentation in this dictionary, it is only pointed out here that in this case the presentation constitutes difficulties in determining the length of the periods. For example, the term “artistic” (equilibrium price) determination can be viewed as a two-word, if we consider it in the case of term shortening, and as a four-word, if we consider it in the case of term lengthening. Therefore, Table 3 shows double figures. Considering that the AEŽ terms with elements written in brackets are provided only in the dictionary itself, and in the added „Index of Lithuanian terms‚ these elements are not indicated, the first result of the calculation of the term length excluding elements written in brackets is indicated in the table, and the second number shows how many terms of the relevant group would be if those elements were also included. As you can see, the number of one-word and two-word terms would decrease, but the number of three-word and four-word terms would increase. Four-word terms would then account for 7.07%. Returning to the indicators, from which the similarities and differences in the application of the principle of brevity are judged here, i.e. moving to the group of five-word and longer terms, it should be noted that the terms of this group are not provided in many sources of both terminographic and textual terminology: only 9 of them in the ETZ (this would constitute only 0.75% of the terms presented in this explanatory dictionary), 54 in the translated AEZ (1.99%), 11 in the KTU textbook (2.43%). A little more of these terms are presented in the translated EOJ, but the terminology data in it is much more, i.e. 2 716 terms are covered, so five-word and longer terms make up only 1.99% of its total terminology. It is true that in one textbook there are a little more terms of this group – 23, which represents 6.04% of economic terms defined in this textbook. However, Table 3 shows that the most distinguished in terms of the index of five-word and longer terms is the terminology of the Term Bank compared here. There are even more five-word and longer terms than four-word ones (cf. 140 and 119), and more than one-word terms (cf. 140 and 105). Thus, although the discussion of three-word and four-word term groups revealed that longer and long terms are quite abundant in other sources, the index of the five-word and longer term group shows that the longest terms are typical of the Term Bank terminology compared here. On the other hand, a comparison of individual indicators shows that it differs most only in terms of five-word and longer terms. The prevalence of three-word terms, compared to single-word ones, becomes clear and as a characteristic feature of other sources of terminology management, the sources of terminology management of textual economy also reveal a relatively high tendency to provide four-word economic terms. It is true that a more detailed analysis of the group of five-word and longer terms would show that of the 140 terms in the field of economics provided by the Terms Bank, which are classified here as the longest-term group, most of them consist of five words – 59 of them here. However, there are also 43 six-word terms, as well as 27 seven-word terms. It is true that terms consisting of a few words, as mentioned in A. Umbraso 2013 article, can be found among the terms of approved legislative acts assigned to the field of economics in the Terms Bank only a few. 32 terms as many as 17, e.g. : EBIT, EBITDA, BALTIX, INCOTERMS, LIFO, VILSE, LITIN-10, P1, P2, P2, P3. As A. Mitkevičienė (2024) points out, their evaluation is tricky, not yet sufficiently investigated, so in this case these cases are not included in the sample of comparable terms processing data. It is clear, however, that the verbal equivalents of these abbreviations would be longer, which would result in a slight increase in the number of long terms found in the EOJ, which has shown a tendency to provide extremely short terms. CONCLUSIONS The principle of shortness of terms, which is formulated as one of the principles of terminology, applicable both when creating and managing terms, is not discussed in the Lithuanian terminology, but after examining its theoretical evaluation, it became clear that it is not completely uniform. On the one hand, brevity is regarded as a principle of the same rank as other principles of terminology or even distinguished from them as important, on the other, it is considered only as an additional principle. On the one hand, it is considered more relevant only for the use of terms, on the other, it is noted that the aim of brevity is relevant for the management of terms. After systematizing the observations made in various works on the issue of the principle of the shortness of terms, as possible factors of its problematicity, it became clear that the relevant regulation of the terminology management, the proliferation of terms and the possible challenges of terminology management, the increase of translated texts and the related influence of terminology of other languages, the complexity of concepts, which leads to the need to expand the shorter terms already used, contradictions that may arise between the principle of the shortness and other terminological principles, the peculiarities of concepts or differences in functional style. Attempting to verify whether the application of the principle of brevity can be affected by such a factor as differences in the direction of term management or the peculiarities of a particular source of term management, and judging from the indicators of the length of economic terms provided in different sources of term management, it became clear that in general this principle is not applied uniformly even in the term management of one field, but there are also some similarities. Although comparing the works providing term length data would show that one-word terms are usually recorded more than three-word ones, the data of economic terminology management compared here show that three-word terms, with the exception of one terminology dictionary, are provided much more than one-word ones. In the sources representing textual terminology, there is a fairly large proportion of four-word economic terms, and in one of them four-word terms even outweigh single words. Thus, contrary to the assumption that could be made from the discussion of the terminology of legislative acts in the Term Bank and the comparison of other works providing data on the length of terms, longer (three-word) and long (four-word) economic terms are widely used not only in the terminology of legislative acts in the Term Bank, but also in economic textbooks for higher schools representing textual terminology, three-word terms outweigh single words in one of the dictionaries of economic terms used for the study. However, the terminology of economic legislation managed by the Terms Bank stands out according to the longest part of terms – five words and longer – and it is this indicator that would show differences in the application of the principle of brevity. 33 Although the sources of textual terminology – textbooks for higher schools – were not compared in this case, their data would show similarities in the application of the principle of brevity. In terms management works of the terminographic direction, as can be deduced from the comparison of a couple of sources of this direction, generally shorter economic terms are provided. However, the comparison of two sources of the same period shows that there may also be differences in the terminological order of terms in the application of the principle of brevity. ŠALTINIAI AEŽ 2006: Aiškinamasis ekonomikos anglų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas [Explanatory English– Lithuanian Dictionary of Economics], sud. David A. Pearce, Vilnius: TEV. ETŽ 2005: Ekonomikos terminų žodynas [Dictionary of Economic Terms], R. Vainienė, Vilnius: Tyto alba. KTU 2008: Makroekonomika [Macroeconomics]: vadovėlis ekonominių specialybių studentams, V. Snieška, V. Baumilienė, D. Bernatonytė, J. Čiburienė, A. Juozapavičienė ir kt., 3-iasis patais. ir patiksl. leidimas. TB: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas [Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania]. Prieiga internete: https://terminai.vlkk.lt. VU 2017: Makroekonomika [Macroeconomics], V. Gavelis, P. Gylys, V. Mačiekus, N. Minkevičienė, R. Paliulytė, E. Ulvidienė, L. Urbšienė, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. LITTERACY Akelaitis Gintautas 2008: Structural Models of Compound Administrative Terms. – Specialty language: terminology and studies, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University Publishing Center, 5–12. Internet access: https://cris.mruni.eu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c8c34236-02bf4a9d-a9c5-8075abb5e764/content. AMVA 2015: Description of the Procedure for Assessing the Language Regularity of Higher Education Institutions’ Handbooks [Description of the Procedure for Assessing the Language Regularity of Higher Education Institutions’ Handbooks]. Online access: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausi-temai/svietimas/teksteliu-aprovavimas/aukstujuskokyklu-vadoveliu-kalbos-vertinimo-procedures-aprasas?lang=en. 2000: The Structure and Distinctiveness of J. Balčikonis’ Terms of Linguistics [The Structure and Distinctiveness of J. Balčikonis’ Terms of Linguistics]. – Terminology 7, 59–75. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/713/804. About LRTB: About Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania [About Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania]: Access online: https://terminai.vlkk.lt/Apie%20LRTB. 34 Auksoriūtė Albina 1996: Inaccuracies in the Use of Compound Terms. – Terminology 3, 47–49. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/754/845. 2024: Lithuanian Names of Plants and Fungi in the Nineteenth Century: Lists of Names by Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža and Laurynas Rokas Ivinskis [Lithuanian Names of Plants and Fungi in the Nineteenth Century: Lists of Names by Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža and Laurynas Rokas Ivinskis]: monograph, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas. Babickienė Zofija 2012: Occurrence of Grammatical and Lexical Variants of Economic Terms: Standard and Reality [Occurance of Grammatical and Lexical Variants of Economic Terms: Standard and Reality]. – Specialty language: grammar and logic: a collection of scientific articles, par. G. Akelaitis, Z. Babickienė, V. Mažeikienė, L. Pečkuvienė, Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University, 51–64. Internet access: https://cris.mruni.eu/server/api/core/bitstreams/938c4e5e-c097-4739-aead3c16414b8dea/content. Bielinskienė Agnė, Boizou Loïc, Grigonytė Gintarė, Kovalevskaitė Jolanta, Rimkutė Erika, Utka Andrius 2015: Automatic Identification and Definition of Lithuanian Terms [Automatic Identification and Definition of Lithuanian Terms], e. leidimas, Kaunas: Vytautas Didysis University Computer Linguistics Center. Access on the Internet: https://portalcris.vdu.lt/server/api/core/bitstreams/559abb58-b5d1-4fa5-a90745af03a3feb3/content. Tamošiūnaitė Aurelija, Kazlauskienė Asta, Rimkutė Erika, Bielinskienė Agnė 2014: Standard Lithuanian: Norms and Usage: a textbook for students of higher education, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo University, Versus Aureus. 1997: Principles of Lithuanian Common Language Management, Codification Criteria and their Application (VLKK 1997 01 30). Online access: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausiostemos/kalbos-tvarkybos-principai-kodifikacijos-kriterijai?lang- =en. 2021: Model of Terminological Data Management: Library, Information and Bibliography Terms Dictionary [Model of Terminological Data Management: Bibliotekininkystės, informacijos ir knygotyros terminų žodynas]. – Knigotyra 77, 306–330. 2016: Statistical Analysis of Word Frequency Distribution in Lithuanian Texts of Different Genres [Statistical Analysis of Word Frequency Distribution in Lithuanian Texts of Different Genres]. – Lithuanian Journal of Statistics / Lietuvos statistikos darbai 55(1), 61–69. Cabré Castelvi Maria Teresa 2003: Theories of Terminology. Their Description, Prescription and Explanation. – Terminology 9(2), 163–199. 35 Drukteinis Albinas 2011: Syntactic Patterns of Compound Maritime Terms. – Res humanitariae 10, 234–255. 2010: Pre-and Post-Nominal Modification: A Contrastive Investigation of English and Lithuanian Three-Word Terms [Preand Post-Nominal Modification: A Contrastive Investigation of English and Lithuanian Three-Word Terms]. – Linguistics 62, 7–21. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2002: Lithuanian Terminology: Theoretical and Management Dimensions, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos instituto leidykla. Gaivenis Kazimieras 2014: Selected Writings [Selected Works], ed. J. Gaivenytė-Butler, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. ISO 704-87: Principles and methods of terminology. Lietuvos RST 1115-90 (ISO 704-87) [Principles and Methods of Terminology. Lithuanian National Standard RST 111590 (ISO 704-87)], Vilnius. Kaulakienė Angelė, Makariūnienė Eglė 2014 [1999]: Statistical Assessment of Term Brevity. – Skull angel. Terminology. Terminology. Terminology: a collection of articles, Vilnius: Technika, 36– 38. Keinys Stasys 2002: Maironis and Our Terminology of Literary Science. [Maironis and Our Terminology of Literary Science]. – Terminologija 9, 26–54. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/682/773. The State, Development, Role and Tasks of Terminology at the Beginning of the 21st Century: A Review of the 2000-2010 Period. – History of terminology and current problems, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 219–245. Keinys Stasys 2005: Contemporary Lithuanian Terminology, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Keinys Stasys 2012: The Development of Lithuanian Terminology, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 29–56. Keinys Stasys 2013: About Understanding the Unambiguity of the Terms of Science [About Understanding the Unambiguity of the Terms of Science]. – Terminologija 20, 47–55. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/471/560. Klimavičius Jonas 2003: Lithuanian Terminology: Features of the Past, Difficulties of the Present and Tasks [Lithuanian Terminology: Features of the Past, Dfficulties of the Present and Tasks]. – Works of lexicology and terminology: norm and history, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute publishing house, 259–276. Kvašytė Regina 2005: Educational Terminology Glossary, Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. 36 2013: Aspects of Differentiation of Lithuanian Three-Word Anatomical Terms and Their Latin Equivalents [Aspects of Differentiation of Lithuanian Three-Word Anatomical Terms and Their Latin Equivalents]. – Professional Studies: Theory and Practice 12, 26–35. 2014: Cases of Difference of Latin and Lithuanian Compound Anatomical Terms [Cases of Difference of Latin and Lithuanian Compound Anatomical Terms]. – Professional Studies: Theory and Practice 13, 73–81. 2015: Aspects of Dependency of Three-Component Terms of Atribute in Concord and Terms of Atribute not in Concord and Their Latin Equivalents [Aspects of Dependency of Three-Component Terms of Atribute in Concord and Terms of Atribute not in Concord and Their Latin Equivalents]. – Professional Studies: Theory and Practice 15, 42–46. Mickienė Ilona, Briaukienė Birutė 2016: Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology: a methodical textbook, e. resource, Vilnius: Vilnius University. Online access: https://www.knf.vu.lt/dokumentai/failai/katedru/lietuviu/Lietyvi%c5%b3_terminol ogijos_aspektai_2016.pdf. Myking Johan 2001: Against Prescriptivism? The ‘Sociocritical’ Challenge to Terminology. – IITF Journal 12(1–2), 49–64. Mitkevičienė Asta 2015: Some Aspects of Synonymy of Terms [Some Aspects of Synonymy of Terms]. – Terminology 22, 39–60. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/518/608. Mitkevičienė Asta 2019: Coordination in the Structure of Terms With Conjunctions ir (ar), ir (arba) ‚and (or)‛ [Coordination in the Structure of Terms With Conjunctions ir (ar), ir (arba) ‚and (or)‛]. – Terminologija 26, 88–102. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/379/458. Mitkevičienė Asta 2020: Is synonymy of terms a shortcoming? [Is Synonymy of Terms an Imperfection?]. – Common Language 93, 1–19. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/899/1112. Mitkevičienė Asta 2022: Terminological Adjectives in Online Media. – Terminology 29, 6–22. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2178/2304. Mitkevičienė Asta 2024: Alternative Terms With Different Numbers of Constituents. – Verbum 15, 1–15. Access on the Internet: https://www.zurnalai.vu.lt/verbum/lt/article/view/35331/35518. Mockienė Liudmila, Rackevičienė Sigita 2018: Models of Formation of Multi-Word Terms in Legal Acts of a Constitutional Nature in English and Lithuanian. – Terminology 25, 55–76. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/120/108. 37 Noreikaitė Adelė 1994: Standard of the Republic of Lithuania ‘Terminology Principles and Methods’ [Standard of the Republic of Lithuania ‘Terminology Principles and Methods’]. – Terminologijos vagos 1, 99–100. Rimkutė Erika 2012: Automatic Identification of Science and Education Terms Using Linguistic Methods [Automatic Identification of Science and Education Terms Using Linguistic Methods]. – Terminologija 19, 54–70. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/452/541. 2023: Clothing Names: on the Basis of Sources From the Second Decade of the 21st Century [Clothing Names: on the Basis of Sources From the Second Decade of the 21st Century], Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas. Online access: https://lki.lt/ausra-rimkute-ganusauskiene-aprangos-pavadinimai-mokslo-studija2023. Skujiņa Valentīna, Ilziņa Ilze Irena, Vasiļjevs Andrejs, Borzovs Juris 2006: Terminology Standards in the Aspect of Harmonization for International Term Database. – Terminology 13, 17–32. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/613/704. Smirnova Oksana, Rackevičienė Sigita 2016: Terms of the EU Legal Acts in the Lithuanian and French Languages [Terms of the EU Legal Acts in the Lithuanian and French Languages]. – Language and Context 7(1), 129–141. Šilobritaitė Diana 2008: Terminology of First Dictionaries of Mathematics. – Terminologija 15, 180–196. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/600/691. Šilobritaitė Diana 2009: Terms of the First Lithuanian Exercise Book of Arithmetic [Terms of the First Lithuanian Exercise Book of Arithmetic]. – Terminology 16, 186-197. Šilobritaitė Diana 2011: Terms of Petras Vileišis Textbook of Aritmetics Keturi svarbiausieji darbai aritmėtikos [Terms of Petras Vileišis Textbook of Aritmetics Four most important works of arithmetic]. – Terminologija 18, 154–164. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/420/512. Temmerman Rita 1997: Questioning the Univocity Ideal. The Difference Between Sociocognitive Terminology and Traditional Terminology. – Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business 10(18), 51–90. Temmerman Rita 1998: Why Traditional Terminology Impedes a Realistic Description of Categories and Terms in the Life Sciences. – Terminology 5(1), 77–92. Temmerman Rita 2000: Towards New Ways of Terminological Description. The Sociocognitive Approach, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. TV 2006: Terminology Textbook for the Lithuanian Language Directorate General of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission [Terminology Textbook for the Lithuanian Language Directorate-General of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission] 38 Translators of the Lithuanian Language Department of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation], Liuksemburgas. TŽR 2007: General Requirements for the Preparation of Terminology Dictionaries. Online access: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausi-temai/terminija/term-gardens-building-general-requirements. TŽT 2004: Rules for Assessing Terminology Glossaries/Dictionaries. Online access: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausiostemos/terminija/term-gardens-evaluation-rules. Umbrasas Alvydas 2008: Atnaujinti Terminų žodynų rengimo bendrieji reikalavimai [Updated General Requirements for the Preparation of Term Dictionary]. – Terminologija 15, 216–225. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/602/693. Umbrasas Alvydas 2010: Lithuanian Legal Terminology in 1918–1940: Terms of the Main Codes [Lithuanian Legal Terminology in 1918–1940: Terms of the Main Codes], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Umbrasas Alvydas 2013: The Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania: 10 Years After Passing the Law. – Terminologija 20, 96–122. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/475/564. Umbrasas Alvydas 2022: On the Requirements for the Terms of Legal Acts and Their Definitions [On the Requirements for the Terms of Legal Acts and Their Definitions]. – Terminology 29, 120–138. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2180/2310. Umbrasas Alvydas 2023: The Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania: 20 Years After Passing the Law [Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania: 20 Years After Passing the Law]. – Terminologija 30, 142–167. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2271/2371. Zaikauskas Egidijus 2014: Procedures for Translating Terms in Translations of Legal Acts of the European Union into the Lithuanian Language [Procedures for Translating Terms in Translations of Legal Acts of the European Union into the Lithuanian Language]. – Terminologija 21, 71–89. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/534/624. Zavistanavičienė Daiva 2019: Statistical Analysis of Structural Types of Terms of Construction. – Engineering and Educational Technologies 1, 146–150. 2003: Antanas Vileišis’ (1856–1919) Works of Medical Science and Their Terminology [Antanas Vileišis’ (1856–1919) Works of Medical Science and Their Terminology]. – Terminologija 10, 84–106. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/667/758. 39 2004: Terms of Medicine in Naminis Gydytojas [Terms of Medicine in Naminis Gydytojas]. – History of terminology and current problems, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 330–362. 2005: The Names of Treatment Means in Medical Books of the Doctor Antanas Vileišis: A Comparative Study of the Names of Treatment Means in Medical Books of the Doctor Antanas Vileišis. – Terminologija 12, 67–80. Online access: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/638/729. 2016: Terminological Medical Lexicon of 17th–18th Century Dictionaries of Lithuania Minor [Terminological Medical Lexicon of 17th–18th Century Dictionaries of Lithuania Minor]: monograph, Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas. Names for Actors in the Medical Field in the 1920 Issues of Medicina, the First Medical Magazine in Independent Lithuania [Names for Actors in the Medical Field in the 1920 Issues of Medicina, the First Medical Magazine in Independent Lithuania]. – Lituanistica 66(4). Accessed online: https://www.lmaleidykla.lt/ojs/index.php/lituanistica/article/view/4364/3438.