Terminologija / Terminology 2025, Nr. 32, p. 1–39 Turinio nuoroda / Contents link ISSN 2669-2198 (elektroninis / online)

THE PRINCIPLE OF TERMINOLOGICAL BREVITY: EVALUATION AND APPLICATION IN TERMINOLOGY MANAGEMENT

The Principle of Term Brevity: Evaluation and Application in Terminology Management

RAMUNĖ VASKELAITĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Email: [email protected]

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6063-9699

Research interests: Lithuanian terminology; research into the norms and usage of standard Lithuanian.

https://doi.org/10.35321/term32-08

ABSTRACT

The article examines one of the principles of terminology—the principle of terminological brevity, which is considered a principle of both term creation and term management. First, it reviews how this principle has been evaluated in Lithuanian terminology studies, with a view to identifying its potential problematic aspects and the factors that may contribute to them. It then focuses on data on term length, showing how the principle of brevity is applied in terminology management work in different areas.

KEYWORDS: term, principles of terminology, principle of brevity, computational terminology management, lexicographic terminology management, text-based 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.

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 Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This article is open access, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of the content in any medium without restriction, provided the author and source are credited.

Received: / Received: 2025-09-26. Accepted: / Accepted: 2025-11-13.

1

INTRODUCTION

The principle of terminological brevity is formulated as one of the principles of terminology, applicable both when creating terms and when managing them. Nevertheless, real terminological data reveal that not all principles of terminology are always observed, and some of them, as well as traditional terminology itself, have been subject to considerable criticism for some time (see, e.g., Temmerman 1997; 1998; Myking 2001; Cabré 2003). New approaches, and with them new principles, are being formulated (see, e.g., Temmerman 2000). Some principles prescribed by traditional terminology have also been questioned by Lithuanian terminologists, such as the principle of univocity of terms, formulated as one of the main principles at the beginnings of terminology as a science. According to this principle, each term should designate only one concept, and each concept should be named by only one term (e.g., Keinys 2013; Mitkevičienė 2020). However, the principle of terminological brevity has received little attention, at least in Lithuanian terminology. Some observations on it have been made, but the principle has not been examined in a separate study.

This article focuses specifically on the principle of terminological brevity. Its aim is to examine whether it is problematic as a principle of term management. To this end, a two-stage study is conducted. First, with reference to observations on this principle and on terminological brevity in Lithuanian terminology, the study seeks to determine whether the theoretical evaluation of the principle is problematic and to identify possible factors contributing to this problematic character. Once these factors have emerged, some are tested through an analysis of actual terminological management data, thereby revealing whether the application of the principle of brevity differs in term management.

Since this is a research article rather than a scholarly study or monograph, its theoretical section does not aim to compile every observation on terminological brevity made in Lithuanian terminology works. It focuses mainly on major works in Lithuanian terminology that offer observations of one kind or another on the subject in question. Attention is directed to publications from the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries, although some works published somewhat earlier are also included, as they may reveal how the concept of the principle of brevity took shape in Lithuanian terminology.

The terminology used to designate both the principal subject of this study and the entire set of terminology principles varies considerably, giving rise to a problem in naming the object under examination. In works on terminology, the principles discussed are referred to both as terminology principles (e.g., ISO 704-87; Noreikaitė 1994; Klimavičius 2003: 12; TŽR 2007), and as terminology requirements (e.g., Keinys 2005 [1987]: 459; Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206), as well as requirements for terms (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206–213) or requirements imposed on terms (e.g., Keinys 2005 [1994]: 262). Specific principles are named accordingly; the one at issue is referred to as the principle of brevity (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1990]: 406) or as the requirement of brevity (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1997]: 195, 238). The core term requirement seems more common in instructional works or those aimed at term creators (e.g., TV 2006: 2; Bielinskienė et al. 2014: 145; Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 47), while the term principle seems more common in discussions of theoretical questions in terminology. However, this is not always the case. For example, Kazimieras Gaivenis’s comprehensive article published in 1979 is entitled “General

2

lietuvių terminijos kūrimo ir norminimo principai“ (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 107–117), o kitas į teorinius terminologijos principų svarstymus orientuotas jo straipsnis – „Kalbiniai ir loginiai terminų reikalavimai“ (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206–213). Sinonimų neišvengiama net ir viename darbe. Vis dėlto, atsižvelgus į minėtą polinkį, kaip bendrąjį čia renkamasi vartoti terminų trumpumo principo terminą (taip pat ir sutrumpintą trumpumo principas), tik aptariant kitų autorių darbus bus pavartojamas ir jų vartotas terminas. Šalutinis termino dėmuo beveik neįvairuoja. Terminas ekonomijos principas ar ekonomiškumo principas, vartojamas kalbant apie lietuvių bendrinės kalbos norminimo principus, lietuvių terminologijos darbuose retas. Jį vartojo K. Gaivenis (2002: 96–97), lygindamas terminologijos principus su bendrinės kalbos norminimo principais.

ASSESSMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE

Differences in theoretical assessment

Whether the principle of terminological brevity is regarded as a principle of terminology can first be inferred from the listing or discussion of principles. When principles are listed, the principle of brevity is usually mentioned. Thus, in the Terminology Teaching Glossary, which includes the term requirements for terms, brevity is mentioned among the requirements enumerated in its explanation: ease of practical use, systematicity, stylistic neutrality, correctness, and precision (Kvašytė 2005: 79). This means that it is considered a principle of the same rank or level as the others listed. Stasys Keinys, in assessing the terminology of librarianship and bibliography, likewise first lists the requirements for terms, including brevity: “Terms are subject to a number of different requirements—univocity, precision, systematicity, correctness, objectivity (emotional neutrality), brevity, transparency (the linguistic motivation of meaning), etc.” (Keinys 2005 [1996]: 246)¹. In the methodological textbook Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology, requirements for terms are discussed separately, and brevity is also discussed as one of them (Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 49–50). At the beginning of the book, in discussing the concept of a term, it is also stated that “every term must be correct, precise, systematic, brief, stylistically neutral, and convenient to form” (Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 12). In her research study, Aušra Rimkutė-Ganusauskienė (2023: 19–24), seeking to determine the terminological value of names of clothing used in sources from the beginning of the twenty-first century, first discusses the criteria² by which they will be assessed, that is, the requirements for terms, including the requirement of brevity.

That the principle of brevity is regarded as one of the principles of terminology is also evident from remarks made in various works on terminology. For example, as early as 1969, K. Gaivenis (2014 [1969]: 521) wrote that a compound term may be correctly formed, logically meaningful, and scientifically motivated, yet unsuitable for practical use because of its great

¹ Deletions throughout are by the author of the article.

² K. Gaivenis (2014 [1996]: 225), aptardamas terminologijos principus, kreipė dėmesį į tai, kad kriterijaus terminas vartotinas, kai kalbama apie ko nors vertinimą pagal principus; kriterijus – tai vertinimo pagrindas, arba matas.

3

length, e.g., fast-acting hardener (= quick-setting hardener). Albina Auksoriūtė also cited the principle of brevity as important when discussing inaccuracies in the use of compound terms: “It is important that a term be not only univocal, correct, precise, and convenient to form, but also brief. It is especially important that compound terms be as clear and short as possible” (Auksoriūtė 1996: 48). She identified descriptive word combinations as one of the inaccuracies in the use of compound terms and argued that they “should be shortened and made into terms” (Auksoriūtė 1996: 48). When assessing the names of library departments, S. Keinys likewise noted that “it is better, whenever possible, to call things more simply and briefly” (Keinys 2005 [1993]: 363). Discussing a bilingual dictionary of Russian and Estonian names for professions and positions, he cited as a positive feature the fact that Estonian term managers had sought to preserve the language’s traditional preference for simple names that are not overloaded with words, adding: “Brevity, compactness, and univocity of terms are goals to be pursued in every way” (Keinys 2005 [1981]: 342). According to him, it is not necessary to change the name of a profession every time technology changes even slightly: for example, a baker may continue to be called a baker, even if today technology would allow him to be called an operator of a semi-automatic bun production line, and tomorrow probably something else again (Keinys 2005 [1981]: 341–342). Assessing the term group curator that had come into use, S. Keinys (2005 [1974]: 443) argued that replacing the previously widely used term group leader with it only harms linguistic economy—the shorter word is replaced with a longer one. In his survey of painting terms, he noted that terminology recommends avoiding long words and using shorter ones wherever possible; thus, instead of multilayered painting (genitive form), one should use multilayered painting, especially since in this case the shorter word is also more correct (Keinys 2005 [1972]: 389).

Thus, as can be seen, the concept of brevity is associated both with the number of words making up a term and with the length of the words. With regard to the latter aspect, S. Keinys cited suffixless derivation as particularly useful for terminology: derivatives formed with endings have an advantage over those formed with suffixes because endings never lengthen a word (Keinys 2005 [1995]: 19); in his words, derivatives formed with endings “are, one might say, ideally suited to terminology” (Keinys 2005 [1979]: 79). Compounds help avoid multi-word terms, that is, they make it possible to form “relatively short specific names that help avoid a concentration of modifiers” (Keinys 2005 [1983]: 130). That the principle of brevity is not associated solely with the number of words making up a term is also evident from attempts to explain the concept of the principle of brevity or to define a term. For example, in the terminology glossary, where requirements for terms are explained as features used to create a term, assess its suitability, and determine its conformity with established norms (Kvašytė 2005: 79), the concept denoted by the term brevity is explained as “the effort to express all the characteristic features of a concept in a shorter term form” (Kvašytė 2005: 84). K. Gaivenis (2002: 96), describing the principle of brevity, stated that “preference should be given to shorter linguistic units.” In fact, attempts to define the term principle of brevity or explain the concept it denotes are rare in Lithuanian terminology. Usually, the concept is taken for granted. Nor are the concepts “short term” and “long term” explained, so the boundary between short and long terms is not clearly drawn.

4

S. Keinys (2005 [1979]: 79), išsamiai aptardamas trumpumo požiūriu „idealiai tinkančią“ galūninę lietuviškų terminų darybą, minėjo terminologijos mokslo pradininką Dmitrijų Lotę, teigusį, kad termino trumpumo reikia siekti taip pat, kaip ir jo tikslumo, ir šį reikalavimą taikiusį ne tik patiems terminams, bet ir jų darybos afiksams, pvz., priesagoms. Rusų terminologų darbų cituojama ir kituose ankstesnio laikotarpio lietuvių terminologijos darbuose, kur pateikiama vienokių ar kitokių pastabų dėl terminų trumpumo principo. Iš to būtų galima spręsti, kad jie galėjo turėti įtakos formuojantis trumpumo principo ar jo svarbos vertinimui lietuvių terminologijoje. Juolab kad D. Lotė, kaip nurodoma K. Gaivenio (2002: 117), pirmasis suformulavo reikalavimus terminams, tarp jų įtraukdamas ir trumpumo reikalavimą. K. Gaivenis ir tiesiogiai įvardija, kad pokario metais lietuvių terminologija daug priklausė nuo rusų terminologijos, nes „[T]eorinės literatūros iš užsienio beveik negaudavome“ (Gaivenis 2002: 110).

However, K. Gaivenis himself appears to have taken a more cautious view on the brevity of terms. In his comprehensive 1979 work General Principles of the Creation and Standardization of Lithuanian Terminology, which makes the first attempt to systematize or formulate “contemporary principles of Lithuanian terminology”³, the principle of brevity is not distinguished as a separate principle, although it is noted that Kazys Girnius, who had earlier attempted to formulate requirements for scientific terminology, also mentioned among them “that a name should be short, since long, multi-part names greatly complicate their use” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 108). K. Gaivenis’s article formulates ten separate principles⁴ in all, but the principle of brevity is not included. It is only mentioned after the seventh principle, which focuses on the correctness and practical convenience of a term, has been formulated; there it is added: “In general, terms are subject to the following additional requirements: (a) brevity, (b) euphony, (c) uniqueness, (d) translatability into other languages, etc.” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 115). It would appear, then, that the article’s author regards the principle of brevity as merely an additional requirement, not one of the same rank as the other principles formulated.

The principle of brevity is likewise not discussed separately in K. Gaivenis’s later article on the principles of terminology, “Linguistic and Logical Requirements for Terms,” published in 1994, although its opening notes that “the most important and most frequently mentioned linguistic requirements for terms are the following: correctness, precision, systematicity, brevity, practical convenience, emotional neutrality, etc.” (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206). In fact, two years later, a work prepared by K. Gaivenis together with Angele Kaulakienė was published

³ That this was the first attempt to formulate “contemporary principles of Lithuanian terminology” is evident from the author’s remark that “until now no one has attempted to systematize either the general or the special principles for creating and standardizing Lithuanian terms” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 113). Earlier attempts to formulate principles are discussed in the works of Jonas Klimavičius (2003), Stasys Keinys (2012 [1967]: 29–56), Albina Auksoriūtė (2024: 35–42), and others.

⁴ The wording suggests that at least some of the terminology principles under discussion are formulated more as rules, for example: “3. Specialists in the relevant field identify and establish the need for a terminological designation. Linguists advise on how best to name the concept” (Gaivenis 2014 [1979]: 114).

5

The article “Extralinguistic Principles of Term Standardization” ⁵ would suggest that the principle of brevity is regarded as important, at least from the perspective of terminology standardization. More precisely, brevity is mentioned here in discussing one of the principles considered extralinguistic—the statistical principle of term evaluation, described as meaning that the most widespread language facts are considered to best conform to the norm (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 233). In stating that the statistical criterion also helps evaluate the brevity of terms, the article refers to Zipf’s law, which predicts that the length of a word or term is inversely proportional to its frequency of use, and then draws the following conclusion: “Thus, the relative length of terms indicates either their novelty or their insufficient standardization” (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 233). It would follow that relatively long terms are considered insufficiently standardized, whereas standardized terms should be short. Elsewhere, the same idea is expressed more directly: the more developed and standardized the terminology, the more short terms there should be (Kaulakienė, Makariūnienė 2014 [1999]: 36).

Nevertheless, K. Gaivenis’s 1991 article “A Couple of Minor Points in Terminology” reveals that the author was not inclined to regard brevity as an essential requirement of terminology. This is evident in his dissent from the opinion of the Russian terminologist: “The Russian terminologist I. Volkova considers the unambiguity, brevity, and linguistic correctness of terms to be essential requirements of terminology, while all the other requirements (systematicity, motivation, ease of use, etc.) are optional. In our opinion, this is not entirely accurate. It is hard to regard the requirement of brevity as essential” (Gaivenis 2014 [1991]: 195). Having noted that not all long terms used in scientific texts are in fact terms and that, conversely, scientific terms can be shortened in texts, the article’s author ultimately draws a rather firm conclusion: “Every term must be derivationally and grammatically correct, but not every term must be short. There are certain groups of terms (names of varieties in plant taxonomy, soil classification terms, etc.) that cannot be one-word or two-word terms at all. Thus, a term must be as required by a particular conceptual system” (Gaivenis 2014 [1991]: 196). K. Gaivenis presents this idea also in his 2002 book Lithuanian Terminology: Outlines of Theory and Management. Discussing the principles of terminology in the context of the principles of standardizing the general language, the author also dissents from the Russian terminologist Irina Volkova, and cites, as one argument, the absence of normative length limits for a word or word combination: “It is hard to regard the requirement of brevity as essential. After all, no normative length limits have been established for an individual word or a nominative word combination” (Gaivenis 2002: 43). As might be inferred from the brief discussion of the principle of brevity in this book, its application seems inclined to be limited to generic terms: “For example, one-word terms are more suitable than compounds for naming generic concepts. For naming specific concepts, international terminology codes in some fields recommend only binomial names. Names of varieties in plant taxonomy likewise cannot be shorter than three words

⁵ Here, extralinguistic principles of term standardization are described as “directly related not to the language system, but to the opinions of society, its separate groups or individuals, their attitudes toward terminology, and also to the application of methods from other sciences to standardize terms” (Gaivenis 2014 [1996]: 229–230).

6

terminai“ (Gaivenis 2002: 43). Išeitų, kad šis lietuvių terminologas trumpumo principo nelaikė pagrindiniu, universaliu, visai terminijai ar net kiekvienam terminui taikytinu terminologijos principu.

On the other hand, he drew attention to the tendency, evident in texts, to shorten terms. For example, this tendency was noted in a 1980 article on the language of scientific articles: it stated that the tendency toward economy is especially pronounced in scientific language, resulting in many distinctive elliptical constructions and special abbreviations, as well as the formation of various term and symbol compounds (Gaivenis 2014 [1980]: 576). And in K. Gaivenis’s 1990 article, it is stated that “terms can and should be shortened in texts. They can be shortened in two ways: 1) by contracting long compound (multiword) terms and omitting some of their components, and 2) by creating alphabetic and syllabic abbreviations” (Gaivenis 2014 [1990]: 406). In his 2002 work Lithuanian Terminology: Outlines of Theory and Management, this author also writes that in an automotive textbook the one-word term engine may be used instead of the compound term internal combustion engine, since shortening is in many ways connected with the stylistics of scientific language (Gaivenis 2002: 43). Nevertheless, in this work K. Gaivenis ultimately offers the following summary: “In general, the brevity and shortening of terms are more relevant to the sphere of use than to that of recording” (Gaivenis 2002: 44). It would follow that both brevity and shortening are more closely associated only with the use of terms, while the principle of brevity is not essential in recording terms—which, as K. Gaivenis’s explanation elsewhere would suggest, refers to the provision of terms in terminology dictionaries, standards, terminology banks, or other terminology sources⁶ (cf. the author’s claim that a term must be as required by a particular conceptual system). Attention is also paid in other works to the tendency to shorten terms in texts, as well as to lengthen them, with the concepts of term brevity and term shortening distinguished (see Mitkevičienė 2015: 55–56). However, in one of her latest works, Asta Mitkevičienė (2024: 2) draws attention to the fact that terms are shortened not only in texts but also in terminology management (in its creation, translation, standardization, and harmonization)—shorter expressions for concepts are sought here as well. It would follow that the pursuit of brevity is relevant not only to the use of terms but also to their management.

Thus, from what has been discussed alone, it becomes clear that the theoretical evaluation of the principle of term brevity in Lithuanian terminology is not entirely uniform or unproblematic. On the one hand, brevity is considered a principle of the same standing as other principles of terminology, or even singled out from among them as an unequivocally desirable objective; on the other hand, it is evaluated more cautiously—as merely an additional principle. On the one hand, it tends to be considered relevant only to the use of terms; on the other hand, it is noted that the pursuit of brevity is also relevant to terminology management.

The variation is also revealed by the place assigned to this principle in the classification of terminology principles. When these principles are divided into linguistic and logical ones, the principle of brevity is classified as linguistic (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206). Its linguistic nature would also be indicated by

⁶“Fifteen to twenty years ago, researchers of linguistic problems in terminology were mainly interested in what are known as terms in the sphere of recording, that is, terms taken from dictionaries, standards, terminology banks, and other terminology sources” (Gaivenis 2014 [1986]: 154). It is true that the term recording is used rather infrequently in Lithuanian terminology; the concept it denotes, or its relation to the concept denoted by the term terminology management, is not explained separately.”

7

In discussing this principle, observations are made, for example, the previously mentioned reliance on Zipf’s law, which predicts that the words or word combinations used most frequently in a language tend to be short, or the observation of economy trends manifested in language. The principle of language economy is also included in the set of principles and criteria for standardizing Lithuanian Standard Language (BKTP 1997), and these are drawn upon when principles of terminology are formulated. For instance, K. Gaivenis (2002: 90) notes that they are all more or less suitable for standardizing terminology as well, although some need further clarification, specification, and adaptation to the needs of terminology. Nevertheless, in another publication, where requirements for terms are also divided into linguistic and logical ones, the requirement of brevity is classified as logical rather than linguistic (Kvašytė 2005: 79). It is true that claims are also made which suggest there should be no major contradiction here—brevity is relevant from both the linguistic and logical points of view: “Long, excessively expanded terms harm the economy of speech (and thought) <...>” (Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 49).

Nevertheless, both the differences in views on the importance of the principle of brevity that emerge from this overview and the fluctuations apparent in the classification of principles suggest that this principle is not unproblematic.

Possible factors behind the problem

The fluctuations observed in assigning the principle of brevity to a particular group of principles might suggest that differences in views on this principle stem from the very nature of terminology, that is, its connection with both language and logic. However, other observations made in discussions of the principle of brevity or of other matters suggest that cautious evaluation of this principle may stem from the fact that, at least in some cases, applying it when creating or managing terms is difficult.

Štai K. Gaivenis (2022: 100–108), be bendrųjų terminų norminimo principų, mini ir specialiųjų taisyklių bei principų, kurie „reglamentuoja skirtingų terminijos sričių ar jos mikrosistemų tvarkybą“. O tokios specialios taisyklės, pvz., jo minimos chemijos nomenklatūrai taikomos IUPAC aprobuotos taisyklės, reglamentuoja ir pavadinimų sudarymą. 1994 m. skelbtame K. Gaivenio straipsnyje „Tarptautinių terminologijos principų taikymas mūsų terminijai“, kur iškeltos tarptautinės terminų tvarkybos sudaromos problemos, irgi kreiptas dėmesys į tai, kad kai kurių sričių ar mikrosistemų terminų tvarkybą reglamentuoja atitinkamą terminų sandarą numatančios tarptautinės terminų tvarkybos taisyklės. Pvz., ji numatoma tarptautiniuose botanikos, zoologijos nomenklatūros kodeksuose (Gaivenis 2014: [1994]: 214). Tame straipsnyje minima net tokių tarptautinės terminų tvarkybos rekomendacijų, kurios numato, kad naujai atsirandančioms sąvokoms būtų suteikti pavadinimai, kuriuos būtų galima perimti į kitas kalbas be pakeitimų arba mažai ką pakeitus (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 216). Be to, kaip atkreipiamas dėmesys, Tarptautinė standardizacijos organizacija (ISO) standardizuoja ne tik atskirų sričių terminus, bet ir terminologijos principus bei metodus. Išeitų, kad bent tam tikrų sričių terminijoje taikyti trumpumo principą gali būti keblu dėl atitinkamo terminų tvarkybos reglamentavimo.

8

Be to, tame K. Gaivenio (2014 [1994]: 215–216) straipsnyje pastebima, kad tarptautiniuose terminų kodeksuose dažnai būna nurodyta terminus nacionalinėmis kalbomis versti, o specialistai terminų vertimą dažnai supranta tiesiogiai, kaip gramatiškai adekvatų vertimą. Į specialistų polinkį terminus versti, o ne juos kurti, kreipiamas dėmesys ir kitur, net jei šis polinkis su tarptautinės terminų tvarkybos reikalavimais ir nesiejamas (pvz.: Gaivenis 2002: 85; Keinys 2004: 234–235; Zaikauskas 2014). O tai rodytų, kad trumpumo principo taikymo trikdis galėtų būti originalo kalbos terminų sandara. Antai S. Keinys, dar 2004 m. atkreipęs dėmesį į tai, kad per pastaruosius keliolika metų ne vienos srities tekstų daug daugiau verčiama nei kuriama („šiuo atžvilgiu, galima sakyti, beveik grįžta į XVI amžių, kai irgi vyravo tekstų vertimas, o ne kūryba“), kartu pastebi, kad vertimo praktikoje ryškėja tendencija savos kalbos terminus kuo labiau priartinti prie originalo kalbos terminų, bijant nuo jų nutolti (Keinys 2004: 234–235). Be verčiamų tekstų gausos, lietuvių terminologų jau seniai pastebimas ir mokslo ar technikos raidos skatinamas terminų daugėjimas (Gaivenis 2014 [1982]: 121). O dabar, vadinamosios globalizacijos sąlygomis, kaip rodytų kad ir standartizuojamos terminijos aptarimas (pvz.: Skujina ir kt. 2006; Bl̇iūdžuvienė, Černiauskaitė 2021), terminų gausa jų tvarkybos požiūriu tampa sunkiai suvaldoma. Tai irgi galėtų būti trumpumo principo taikymo trikdis.

Judita Džežulskienė (2010: 7–8), irgi atkreipdama dėmesį į globalizacijos veiksnį, mini sąvokų sudėtingėjimą. Tiksliau, ji teigia, kad šiuolaikinėse terminų sistemose sudėtingesnėms sąvokoms reikšti nebepakanka vienažodžių terminologinių vienetų, prireikia pagrindinę sąvoką tikslinti, plėsti, detalizuoti dar keliais dėmenimis, todėl ir randasi daugiažodžiai terminai. Minėdama daugiažodžius terminus kaip būdingiausią šiuolaikinės mokslo leksikos bruožą, autorė teigia, kad jie „paprastai atsiranda jau susiformavus pagrindinėms terminų sistemoms, kai randasi naujų reiškinių, reikalaujančių esamų terminų modifikacijos. Tokių terminų reikšmės motyvuojamos baziniais terminais, o struktūros išplečiamos kitais dėmenimis. Daugiažodžiai terminai kartais gali būti laikomi kurio nors dvižodžio termino dėmens detalizacijos rezultatu“ (Džežulskienė 2010: 7).

Other observations on term brevity or the principle of brevity suggest that a possible obstacle to applying this principle is its potential conflict with other principles of terminology, for example, the principle of correctness. Although compounding is considered convenient in terminology because it makes it possible to form a shorter term, some articles from an earlier period also identify it as a frequent source of incorrectly formed terms. For example, a 1981 review of terminological teaching dictionaries noted that almost every Lithuanian terminological teaching dictionary contains incorrectly formed terms and their variants (Gaivenis 2014 [1981]: 461). A 1994 article cites the inaccurate choice of a derivational type or category, resulting from the application of the pseudo-analogy principle, as one of the most frequent instances of incorrect term formation, for example: bebrimvietė, ugniaatsparumas (Gaivenis 2014 [1994]: 206–207). The conflict between the principles of brevity and correctness that arises in certain cases is also stated directly: “A single word is not always better than a word combination. For instance, whether one likes it or not, instead of the adjective gerakokybiškas one must use the expression geros

9

kokybės; instead of the derivationally defective term beatliekinė technologija – technologija be atliekų, “waste-free technology”—and instead of the word bepilietis – asmuo be pilietybės, “a person without citizenship,” and so on” (Gaivenis 2014 [1988]: 705). A 1990 article discussing one-word neologisms frequently formed from international elements or translated in part, for example, lazerostimuliacija, and proposing that they be replaced with two-word expressions, for example, lazerinė stimuliacija, expresses the view that in such cases priority should nevertheless be given to the principle of correctness: “To those who might think that such standardization conflicts with the principle of term brevity, we would like to say that the principle of correct term formation is more important than brevity” (Gaivenis 2014 [1990]: 406). Some observations made in discussions of terms or terminology suggest that a conflict may also arise between the principles of brevity and systematicity. For example, a 1995 article states that terms with elektro- are not always to be replaced with corresponding two-word terms; however, if a compound term such as elektros kibirkštis, “electric spark,” is used, then apdirbimas elektros kibirkštimi, “machining by electric spark,” is more systematic than the term elektrokibirkštinis apdirbimas, “electrospark machining” (Gaivenis 2014 [1995]: 638), which, as can be seen, would be one constituent shorter. It is also noted that a shorter term may fail to satisfy the criteria of clarity and purity, for example: “Not every one-word term is better than a compound one. For instance, the clearer and Lithuanian terms are automobilių dalys, ‘automobile parts’ (not autodalys), automobilių dažai, ‘automobile paint’ (not autodažai), automobilių lenktynės, ‘automobile racing’ (not autolenktynės), and so on” (Gaivenis 2014 [1995]: 636–637).

Several authors also mention a conflict that may arise between the principles of brevity and precision (e.g., Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 49; Rimkutė-Ganusauskienė 2023: 22), and an article published in 2013 by Alvydas Umbrasas, marking the tenth anniversary of the Lithuanian Republic’s Term Bank (hereafter, the Term Bank), reveals how this conflict manifests itself in term management, more specifically, in the management of legal terminology in the Term Bank. According to the author, when legal terms are considered and managed at meetings of the Terminology Subcommittee of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language (hereafter, VLKK), efforts are made to align terms with their definitions as far as possible; to ensure that a term matches its definition, it often has to be lengthened. Thus, for example, gamintojas, “manufacturer,” was replaced due to insufficient precision by civilinių pirotechnikos priemonių gamintoju, “manufacturer of civil pyrotechnic articles” (Umbrasas 2013: 108–109). It follows that achieving brevity while seeking precision in a term is difficult. Indeed, in discussing legal terms managed in the Term Bank, A. Umbrasas also mentions terms consisting of a dozen or more words and identifies the following eighteen-word term as the longest: žemdirbių, miško savininkų, vietos veiklos grupių narių, kitų kaimo gyventojų ir jų konsultantų neformaliojo tęstinio profesinio mokymo programa (Umbrasas 2013: 113). According to the author, its two-word term mokymo programa, “training programme,” would not be an adequate substitute, since according to the definition it would be too broad. In another article by A. Umbrasas (2023: 159), published in 2023 to mark the Term Bank’s twentieth anniversary, several short Term Bank terms are discussed separately; this discussion reveals, for instance, that the term programa, “programme,” is recorded in the Term Bank in 20 articles drawn from various legal acts, standards, and dictionaries. It would follow that a short term may be polysemous, while unambiguity, as is known, is also considered one of the principles of terminology.

10

Having identified the conflict between brevity and other terminological principles that arises when managing the terminology of legal acts, the author himself identifies the distinctive nature of legal concepts as the deeper underlying cause in both articles, for example: “The emergence of long—descriptive—terms is determined by the distinctive nature of legal concepts. Given the definitions, short terms are hardly possible” (Umbrasas 2013: 114, see also 2023: 165). The distinctive nature of legal concepts or legal language as a possible obstacle to the universal application of the principle of brevity is also indicated by a statement in another of the author’s articles, namely, that the language of legal acts differs from the language of science (Umbrasas 2022: 122). Indeed, theoretical conceptions developed or advanced by terminologists in other countries—for example, Stanisław Gajda’s theory of terminology—would suggest that terminology or special vocabulary can be divided into scientific, administrative, folk, political, everyday, and other varieties (see Gaivenis 2002: 133); thus, there could, in a sense, be differences between scientific and administrative terminology. Moreover, a statistical study of word frequencies, which used several Lithuanian texts to test how far Zipf’s law could be applied to short Lithuanian texts, would suggest that the terminology of administrative language may be distinctive in its use of longer terms. As established here, in an article on information technology or in Jonas Biliūnas’s short story Joniukas, the most frequently repeated words are very short, whereas in a section of the Criminal Code, the vast majority of the most frequently used words have more than four characters (Bružaitė, Rekašius 2016: 64).

However, A. Umbrasas’s 2022 article “On the Requirements for Terms in Legal Acts and Their Definitions,” which discusses the terminological requirements imposed on terms in legal acts, also reveals another factor that may affect the application of the principle of brevity in terminology. It notes that “in law, the formal regulation of expression and adherence to instructions and recommendations on expression are important” (Umbrasas 2022: 122), while also making clear that the requirements imposed on legal acts are themselves prescribed by legal acts. Thus, difficulties in applying the principle of brevity to the terminology of legal acts may arise not only from the distinctive nature of legal concepts, but also from the particularities of managing this terminology, that is, from the fact that the management of legal-act terminology is regulated by legal acts. It is true that the discussion of the requirements suggests that the requirements for terminology in legal acts more or less coincide with the general principles of terminology mentioned in terminological works; however, the principle of term brevity is not singled out in the recommendations for drafting Lithuanian legal acts, even though it is clearly stated that terms must be precise (Umbrasas 2022: 124–125). The General Requirements for the Compilation of Terminological Dictionaries (TŽR 2007) do mention the principle of brevity: “Terms are created and standardized in accordance with the general principles and standardization criteria of terminology: correctness, precision, systematicity, stability, ease of formation, purity, b r e v i t y, stylistic neutrality, etc.” (TŽR 2007).

Nevertheless, an article by A. Umbrasas written as early as 2013 drew attention to the fact that some long legal-act terms listed in the Terminų bankas hover on the boundary of a definition, and this point is developed further in the 2023 article. More specifically, drawing on examples of long terms, the article considers that not all legal-act terms listed in this computerized terminology-management resource could be regarded as genuine terms, and that their degree of termhood is not uniform.

11

For example, according to the author, the termhood of the approved word combination elements of drinking-water supply and wastewater-management infrastructure that pose a risk to human health and/or the environment is greater than that of the combination mandatory form of a government security, excise stamp, passenger transport ticket, official marking sign, or document form (Umbrasas 2023: 161), whereas terms containing a subordinate clause, such as losses from providing a periodical-delivery service to subscribers in rural settlements and cities that are located in sparsely and moderately populated residential areas, have very low termhood—such wording is characteristic of definitions (Umbrasas 2023: 162). However, A. Umbrasas also reveals that, unlike in traditional terminography, such terms or constructions are not avoided in the Terminų bankas: they are provided to specialists when more convenient terms cannot always be found immediately, in the hope that such terms may emerge over time. This reveals a difference between this terminology-management resource and traditional terminology-management works—terminological dictionaries. It would follow that, although the author explains the long terms listed in the Terminų bankas by the distinctive nature of legal concepts, at least some of them could be explained by differences between computerized and terminographic terminology management, or by particular features of the Terminų bankas as a computerized terminology-management resource.

This hypothesis is also prompted by A. Umbrasas’s comparison of the lengths of approved legal-act terms published in the Terminų bankas with those listed in terminological dictionaries. Drawing on dictionary data from the Lithuanian Term Database (hereafter, the Term Database), created by the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics and covering 27 dictionaries published between 1965 and 2003⁷, the author showed that terms listed in terminological dictionaries are much shorter (Umbrasas 2013: 117). It is true that the authors of the monograph Automatic Recognition and Definition of Lithuanian Terms⁸ have also provided length calculations for certain terms, and these show that, when only approved terms from legal acts in the fields of education and science are considered, their length does not match A. Umbrasas’s general data on the lengths of legal-act terms (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 65). Thus, the field may, in a sense, have some influence on the application of the principle of brevity. It is true that the monograph’s authors themselves tend to conclude that the structure of terms from different fields does not differ very much (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 65). Nevertheless, K. Gaivenis has also observed that “statistically, only terminology data from the same fields should be compared, since the average length of terms from different fields may differ considerably” (Gaivenis 2002: 98).

In any case, this review would suggest that applying the principle of brevity may be difficult in certain cases or to certain terminologies. Factors that could make its application problematic include the relevant regulations governing terminology management; the growth in the number of terms and the possible terminology-management challenges it creates; the increasing volume of translated texts and the resulting influence of terminology from other languages; the growing complexity of concepts, which creates a need to expand shorter terms already in use; and possible conflicts between the principle of brevity and other principles.

⁷ Kaip nurodyta A. Umbraso (2013: 97) ir matyti iš VLKK interneto svetainėje pateikto Terminyno aptarimo (https://vlkk.lt/naujienos/kitos-naujienos/atnaujinta-lietuviu-kalbos-terminyno-programa), šį terminų duomenų bazę, į kurią buvo dedami geriausi įvairių sričių terminų žodynai, nebepildoma.

⁸ These calculations are also presented in an article published in the 2012 issue of the journal Terminologijos (Rimkutė 2012).

12

terminological principles, the characteristics of concepts, or differences in functional style. If such factors are indeed significant, they could account for a cautious attitude towards the importance of the principle of brevity in terminology or term management, and thus also for the differences in views that have emerged earlier. On the other hand, differences in theoretical evaluation may also be a factor giving rise to difficulties or differences in applying the principle. Whether the factors underlying the problems highlighted in this overview do indeed affect efforts to apply the principle of brevity in terminology or term management should be investigated. It seems that the only more developed studies are those that may reveal the influence of other languages on the length of Lithuanian terms, that is, comparisons of the structure of Lithuanian terms with that of terms in other languages (e.g., Džežulskienė 2010; Litevkienė 2013; 2014; 2015; Smirnova, Rackevičienė 2016; Mockienė, Rackevičienė 2018; Zavistanavičienė 2019). Here, the focus is on applying the principle of brevity in term management; that is, drawing on a source of term management from different fields, the following discussion will attempt to test a factor emerging from this overview: the possible influence of the field of term management or of the management source. This will be assessed on the basis of term-length indicators, in this case focusing only on the number of words making up a term. First, of course, studies relevant to the question under examination will be discussed.

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE IN TERM MANAGEMENT ACROSS DIFFERENT FIELDS

Studies demonstrating application of the principle

Whether the principle of brevity is applied uniformly in term management sources from different fields has not been studied separately in Lithuanian terminology. However, certain assumptions can be made on the basis of two works already mentioned, which also provide some comparative data: A. Umbrasas’s 2013 article on term management in the Terminų bankas (Term Bank) and the monograph Automatic Recognition and Definition of Lithuanian Terms. In addition, some publications examining the structure of terms provide data on the length of terms in the particular source studied (e.g., Andriuškaitė 2000; Keinys 2002; Zemlevičiūtė 2003; 2004; 2005; 2016; Šilobraitaitė 2008; 2009; 2011; Umbrasas 2010; Babickienė 2012). Comparing the data presented in these studies could serve as a starting point for examining the application of the principle of brevity in current term management.

Publications that examine the structure of terms and also provide data on their length often focus on terms presented or used in texts (textbooks, scholarly articles, etc.). They do not always specify exact figures for term length; moreover, it is not always sufficiently clear how much these figures reflect textual term management, described as the systematization and standardization of terms when writing, translating, and editing various texts (Gaivenis 2002: 84; Kvašytė 2005: 80), and how much they reflect term usage. Overall, however, such studies suggest that Lithuanian texts of various kinds contain the most two-word terms, fewer one-word terms, still fewer three-word terms, and that terms consisting of more than three words are rare. A remark in a 2001 article also suggests that this ordering of one-, two-, and three-word terms, and the small number of terms longer than three words, represents a certain regularity in Lithuanian terminology. There, S. Keinys, examining the terminology used in 1901

13

in the Lithuanian Grammar published under the name of Petras Kriaušaitis, notes that two-word terms account for about two-thirds of the terms, nearly one in four is a one-word term, and the remaining terms make up less than a tenth; of these, three-word terms are the most common and four-word terms are much less common. He also observes that this ratio of one-word to multiword terms “is in keeping with the general tendency of our terminology” (Keinys 2012 [2001]: 141). Indeed, many studies show precisely this ordering of one-, two-, and three-word terms and a small number of terms longer than three words, even when terminology from different periods is examined. For example, a study of legal terms used in codes in force from 1918 to 1940 reports that two-word terms account for 53 percent of all the material examined and three-word terms for 16 percent; the percentage of one-word terms is not specified, but the description of three-word terms as “the third most numerous type of term” indicates that, by group size, the terms are ordered as follows: two-word, one-word, three-word (Umbrasas 2010: 137, 187). Terms longer than three words, referred to here as multiword terms, are said to account for only 4 percent of all the material examined (Umbrasas 2010: 211). The same ordering is found in the linguistic terms examined by Ramunė Andriuškaitė (2000) in two volumes of Jonas Balčikonis’s Selected Works: two-word terms account for 65.11 percent, one-word terms for 23 percent, and three-word terms for 10.14 percent. The economic terms examined by Zofija Babickienė in a 2012 article, selected from a website and two dictionaries of economic terms, follow the same ordering. Having chosen a total of 765 terms for discussion, the author states that 53 percent consist of two words, one-word terms account for 28 percent, and all the others for 19 percent; however, three-word terms are distinguished within the latter group (there are 110), meaning that here too they are the third-largest group of terms. This case also encompasses work in terminographic term management, but the terms from the dictionaries and the website are examined together, so it is unclear whether there are any differences in the application of the principle of brevity between economic terms used in online texts and those included in term dictionaries. In addition, after noting a small number of four-word terms, the author adds that these are not genuine terms, but are called descriptive (Babickienė 2012: 60). Elsewhere, when researchers examining terminology from various sources find few four-word or longer terms or names, they remark that “the status of at least some of them as terms may be open to question” (Umbrasas 2010: 211), or that they are descriptive expressions (Zemlevičiūtė 2016: 402).

Of course, the specific indicators of group size vary, as can be seen from the several figures cited here (and are reported in different ways: in some cases the number of terms is given, in others the group size is expressed as a percentage). This could indicate some variation in the application of the principle of brevity. However, two patterns that emerge—the same ordering of one-, two-, and three-word term groups by group size, and the small number of terms longer than three words—suggest that there are similarities in how the principle of brevity is applied across different sources. As can be seen, there is a tendency towards relatively short terms: two-word and one-word terms predominate, there are fewer three-word terms, and longer terms are uncommon. It is true that studies of the terminology of some earlier-period sources indicate an even stronger tendency towards brevity, that is, they contain a relatively large proportion of one-word terms. For example, a study of the

14

The terminology of an arithmetic textbook was reported to contain as many as 42.2% one-word terms among all the terms found, while two-word terms together with three-word terms accounted for 57.8% (Šilobritaitė 2011: 156, 161); a study of the terms in an arithmetic problem book published in Tilžė in 1885 also stated explicitly that one-word terms made up the largest share—64.5%—of all the terms in this source (Šilobritaitė 2009: 187). This may explain the fluctuations in how three-word terms are classified: in some works, they too are already called multiword terms (e.g. Gaivenis 2014 [1981]: 594; [1988]: 615), whereas in others only four-word or longer terms are called multiword terms (e.g. Keinys 2002; 39; Umbrasas 2010: 211). However, such variation is also found in studies of contemporary terminology: three-word terms are likewise called multiword terms in some works (e.g. Džežulskienė 2010; Babickienė 2012: 60), suggesting that differing classifications of three-word terms may not be related to the development of terminology. In any case, this paper does not examine aspects of the development of terminology; therefore, without discussing in greater detail or comparing studies that provide term-length data for earlier periods, the discussion below turns to the two studies mentioned at the beginning of this subsection, which make it possible to assess the application of the principle of brevity in contemporary term management or usage.

One of these, namely the monograph Lietuvių kalbos terminų automatinis atpažinimas ir apibrėžimas, likewise notes the prevalence of one- to three-word terms and the small number of longer terms. The aim of this work is to draw attention to descriptive term management, that is, to one of its branches—corpus-based term management, in which “attention shifts from term standardization to the term already used and its analysis in a corpus, that is, in actual usage” (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 19). To this end, an attempt is made to apply a methodology for the automatic extraction of terms from a corpus: terms in education and science are extracted from a corpus for the Švietimo ir mokslo terminų žodynui and the Švietimo ir mokslo terminų ontologijai using the relevant methodology. After the terms are extracted, data on their length are presented and compared with data from other sources. As can be seen, even terminology extracted on the basis of a corpus confirms the two general trends identified earlier: two-word terms make up the largest share of all the education and science terms extracted (474), followed by one-word terms (155, about 20%), and then three-word terms (125, 16.03%); considerably fewer four-word education and science terms were identified on the basis of the corpus, namely 22, and only 4 five-word terms (see Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 61–64). Nevertheless, these results may have been influenced by the term-extraction methodology itself: after potential terms had been extracted automatically from the corpus, they were further processed in light of general trends in term structure; that is, only terms of the relevant grammatical structures were analyzed, terms longer than seven-word combinations were excluded, and so on; subsequently, an expert selected the education and science terms (for more, see Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 54–61). In any case, the monograph compares the term-length data obtained in this way with A. Umbrasas’s calculations and notes that the results are similar to the data he reported for term dictionaries (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 65).

Indeed, the results of A. Umbrasas’s 2013 calculation of the lengths of terms included in term dictionaries, based on 27 dictionaries, show that the largest share

15

of the terms in all those dictionaries consists of two-word terms, followed by one-word terms, then three-word terms, while dictionaries contain few four-word or longer terms (Umbrasas 2013: 117). In this case, term-management works of a terminographic nature are being assessed, but two patterns are also identified on their basis, patterns that emerge primarily from terminology presented in texts. This would seem to indicate that there are no pronounced differences in the application of the principle of brevity between terminographic and text-based term management (or usage).

However, in the same work, A. Umbrasas also provides data on the length of legal-act terms managed in the Term Bank, as already mentioned in the first part of this article. As the article’s author also notes, term management in the Term Bank covers not only terms from legal acts (Umbrasas 2013: 99–100), but in his 2013 article he discusses in greater detail precisely the management of legal-act terms, and in doing so provides calculations of the lengths of terms managed there—more specifically, data on the lengths of legal-act terms included in the Term Bank that had been considered by the Terminology Subcommittee and had attained approved-term status. In August 2013, there were 9,056 such terms (Umbrasas 2013: 113). The figures provided, as well as the examples, suggest that these terms are considerably longer, as can be inferred from several indicators.

First, as Table 1 shows, four-word terms make up a fairly large share of these terms, at about 15%, while five-word and longer terms account for an even larger share. As many as about 19% were found, although, as noted, four-word terms are already uncommon in other sources. Comparing approved legal-act terms with terms in term dictionaries, A. Umbrasas (2013: 117) states that four-word terms make up only about 3% of dictionary terms, and five-word and longer terms only about 1%.

Table 1. Comparison by length of terms included in the Term Bank and term dictionaries, 2013

Term source

1 word

2 words

3 words

4 words

5 words or more

Term Bank (approved legal-act terms)

~ 10%

~ 32%

~ 24 percent

~ 15 percent

~ 19 percent

Term dictionaries

~ 32 percent

~ 52 percent

~ 12 percent

~ 3 percent

~ 1 percent

Šaltinis: A. Umbrasas (2013: 113, 117); sudaryta autorės.

Second, the distribution pattern of the one-, two-, and three-word term groups is also different in this case from that found in other studies: although two-word terms predominate among the legal act terms managed in the Terminology Bank, there are considerably more three-word terms than one-word terms, i.e., they account for about 24 percent, while one-word terms account for about 10 percent. Even four-word terms outnumber one-word terms (cf. about 10 percent and about 15 percent), as do five-word and longer terms (cf. about 10 percent and about 19 percent). In the terminographic management sources selected for comparison by the author, three-word terms do not outnumber one-word terms; more precisely, three-word terms account for only about 12 percent, while one-word terms account for as much as about 32 percent. Four-word terms, or the group of five-word and longer terms, do not outnumber them either (see Table 1).

16

Third, not only the figures but also the examples show that the approved legal-act terms presented in the Term Bank are exceptionally long. A. Umbrasas identifies as the longest the eighteen-word term already mentioned in this article: the programme for non-formal continuing vocational training for farmers, forest owners, members of local action groups, other rural residents and their consultants; however, other terms consisting of a dozen or more words are also mentioned. It should be noted that, unlike the usual practice in studies presenting data on the length of Lithuanian terms, function words are also counted when determining term length. Thus, if these words were excluded from the count, even the longest term would be somewhat shorter—it would consist of seventeen words. The author himself says of the five-word and longer terms in the Term Bank that the more words a term consists of, the fewer such terms there are among the approved legal-act terms. This is also shown by the table he provides (the data selected from it here, covering only five-word and longer terms, are presented in Table 2). Nevertheless, terms consisting of a dozen or more words are not recorded in other sources; even six-word terms are mentioned rather rarely, and only as isolated cases (e.g., Zemlevičiūtė 2004: 349). K. Gaivenis (2002: 17) has noted that the longest terms in dictionaries of terms and standards consist of seven words; elsewhere, however, when discussing approved terms in standards, the author cited only two seven-word terms found in them (Gaivenis 2014 [1995]: 221).

Table 2. Five-word and longer legal-act terms presented in the Term Bank, by number of words, 2013

Number of words in a term | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 18 Number of terms | 719 | 385 | 265 | 142 | 86 | 53 | 35 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1

Šaltinis: A. Umbrasas (2013: 113); sudaryta autorės.

Thus, both the data presented by A. Umbrasas on the legal-act terminology managed in the Term Bank, compared with data on term length in 27 dictionaries of terms from various fields, and the comparison presented here highlight that the legal-act terminology managed in the Term Bank differs considerably from the terminology presented (or used) in other sources. This is evident from several indicators: the predominance of three-word terms over one-word terms, the much greater number of terms longer than three words, and the exceptional length of the terms. Judging by these indicators, the principle of brevity is applied here quite differently than in terminographic or textual term-management sources.

The author himself explains the longer-than-usual terms presented in the Term Bank, compared with traditional terminography, by the distinctive nature of legal concepts. However, an assumption raised earlier in this article is that differences in computer-based term management, compared with terminographic term management, may also influence the application of the principle of brevity. It is precisely the factor of the direction of term management that is to be examined here, by selecting sources representing several different directions of term management, one of them being

17

the Term Bank, a source of computer-based term management. More precisely, extending the comparison initiated by A. Umbrasas while also drawing on other sources, this study will compare whether the principle of brevity is indeed applied differently in this source of computer-based term management than in other term-management sources. This will be assessed on the basis of term-length indicators, focusing in this case solely on the number of words making up a term.

Sources examined and specific features of data selection

To compare whether the application of the principle of brevity does indeed vary across term-management works representing different directions, sources from three directions of term management—computer-based, terminographic, and textual—are used here. Works belonging to the fourth of the directions usually mentioned (see: Gaivenis 2002: 63–87; Mickienė, Briaukienė 2016: 58–63), standardization, are excluded both because of limitations on the article’s length and because this could be the subject of a separate study.

As has already become clear, computer-based term management is represented here by the Term Bank, terminography by a pair of economics dictionaries of terms, and textual term management by a pair of textbooks for higher education (hereafter, textbooks). Thus, the number of sources compared is not large, but a large number is not sought in this case. On the contrary, the aim is to limit the analysis to terminology data from a single field—economics—since the theoretical assessment of the principle of brevity discussed earlier already indicated that term length may vary across fields. Specifically, the table in the monograph Automatic Recognition and Definition of Lithuanian Terms, which gives data on the length not of terms in general but only of approved legal-act terms in the field of education and science (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 64), shows that these figures do not match the overall data presented by A. Umbrasas. For example, among approved legal-act terms in education and science, three-word terms do not outnumber one-word terms (three-word terms account for 23%, and one-word terms for 21.6%); four-word terms in this field are also few (4.1%). This further encourages the selection of sources managing terms from the same field, with a focus on economics terminology.

The two dictionaries of terms selected are David Pearce’s explanatory English–Lithuanian Dictionary of Economics, published in 2006 (hereafter AEŽ), whose preface states that it contains 2,800 term entries, and Rūta Vainienė’s explanatory Dictionary of Economics Terms, published in 2008 (hereafter ETŽ), whose cover states that it contains about 1,400 terms. Pearce’s dictionary is also called explanatory, but it is a translation (given the comprehensiveness of its definitions, it could even be considered comparable to an encyclopedic dictionary). Accordingly, when necessary to distinguish this dictionary in the text from the other explanatory dictionary, it will be called the translated AEŽ. The economics textbooks selected are those covering macroeconomics: Kaunas University of Technology’s Macroeconomics (KTU 2008) and Vilnius University’s Macroeconomics (VU 2017). As in A. Umbrasas’s 2013 article, only legal-act terms are taken from the Term Bank, but in this case only those identified in the Term Bank as economics terms are selected. As in A. Umbrasas’s article, only approved terms are assessed

18

terms having the status of a term. Of course, certain tendencies in applying the principle of brevity might also be revealed by comparing approved terms with inadmissible terms; however, apart from the Terminų bankas, a reference to ntk. evaluated terms is provided only in one of the terminology dictionaries, while the other dictionary and both textbooks do not assign this status to the terms they define. Thus, it is difficult to compare the data from this perspective. For the sake of brevity, economic-sector legal act terms with the status of approved term will henceforth also be referred to as terms managed in the Terminų bankas, although, of course, terminology management in the Terminų bankas covers more than just legal act terms. The Terminų bankas data compared here are more than a decade later than those discussed in A. Umbrasas’s article: they are the economic-sector legal act terms approved in this terminology management source in September 2025.

It should be noted, however, that although the sources selected for comparison represent different directions of terminology management, it might seem that they are unified by the evaluation of terms applied by the VLKK. And indeed, in Lithuania, terms in both terminology dictionaries and textbooks are considered and evaluated by the VLKK; in other words, they are standardized by this institution. The standardization of dictionary terms is provided for in General Requirements for the Compilation of Terminology Dictionaries (TŽR 2007) and Rules for the Evaluation of Terminology Dictionaries (TŽT 2004), approved by the VLKK; the evaluation of textbook language, including terminology, is governed by Description of the Procedure for Evaluating the Correctness of Language in Higher Education Textbooks, approved by a VLKK protocol decision, which provides that the VLKK evaluates textbooks also with regard to terminology (AMVA 2015). The Lithuanian Terminų bankas is likewise a source of prescriptive terminology management: the terms it contains are prepared by terminology commissions established in state institutions, but are considered and evaluated by the VLKK Terminology Subcommittee (see Umbrasas 2013; 2023). Thus, although terminology management is not limited to the standardization of terms⁹, it may appear that, from the perspective of standardization, all the sources selected for comparison here are alike. However, the aforementioned requirements for compiling terminology dictionaries are mandatory only for dictionaries commissioned by the VLKK, and higher education institutions also decide at their own discretion whether to submit textbooks for evaluation; therefore, from the perspective of terminological quality, the VLKK does not evaluate the terms in all terminology dictionaries or textbooks. The terminology dictionaries and textbooks selected here, in particular, have no indication that they were evaluated by this institution, although all were edited and reviewed by specialists. Consequently, of the selected sources, only the terms provided in the Terminų bankas have been evaluated by the VLKK (in this case, those with the status of approved term)¹⁰.

However, for other reasons too, the Terminų bankas differs from terminography-based or text-based sources of terminology management. As

⁹ The glossary states that terminology management is the systematization and standardization of terms in accordance with requirements for terms (Kvašytė 2005: 80).

¹⁰ The terms in one of the sources—the Vilnius University textbook Macroeconomics—could be considered to have been considered and evaluated by the VLKK if they were taken from the Terminų bankas, since the textbook terms provided in the Terminų bankas, selected and refined by textbook authors, are considered by the VLKK and its Terminology Subcommittee (Umbrasas 2023: 150). Here, however, the terms are taken from the textbook itself. The terms from the other sources selected here are not provided in the Terminų bankas.

19

A. Umbrasas (2013: 118), terminologinis darbas čia dirbamas pasitelkiant elektroninius ryšius, duomenys bet kada gali būti pildomi, atnaujinami, keičiami. O tekstinė terminų tvarkyba nuo kompiuterinės ar terminografinės tvarkybos lyg ir turėtų skirtis tekstinei ar kontekstinei terminų vartosenai būdingais atvejais, įskaitant ir terminų trumpinimą. Jų siekiant išvengti, t. y. šiuo atveju tiriant terminų trumpumą, o ne trumpinimą, iš vadovėlių atrenkami tik juose apibrėžiami ar aiškinami terminai. Vadovėlyje apibrėžiamas ar aiškinamas terminas dažnai tekste dar ir išskiriamas (kitu šriftu ar kt.), šalia jo pateikiamas angliškas atitikmuo, taigi šiuo požiūriu terminų pateikimas vadovėliuose yra panašus į jų pateikimą kitų krypčių terminų tvarkybos darbuose. Panašumą rodo ir tai, kad, apibrėžiant terminą, kaip ir Terminų banke ar terminų žodynuose, gali būti pateikiamas ir termino sinonimas. Šaltiniuose teikiami terminų sinonimai šiuo atveju nevertinami.

To make the data comparable, terms for which terminology dictionaries provide several meanings are split into separate entries, since this is how terms are presented in the Terminų bankas. This yields a different number of terms from that given in the terminology dictionaries themselves. Since the aim here is to compare terminology data, some of the data provided in the terminology dictionaries are excluded.

As regards the selection of terminology data, it should be noted that this is not an easy task to resolve. Technical obstacles were encountered when selecting data from the Terminų bankas. Data selection from it is made more difficult by the limit on the number of search results displayed. Thus, when economy was specified as the subject area in the advanced search field and approved as the term status (this status makes it possible to distinguish legal act terms from the terminology dictionary and textbook terms provided in this database), only the total number of entries for approved economic-sector legal act terms was displayed, and the search was suggested to be narrowed. Therefore, the terms themselves were searched for by entering likely words from legal act titles in the source field: order, law, resolution, draft. In this way, 910 approved legal act term entries were collected from the Terminų bankas, which almost matches the total number of approved economic-sector legal act term entries reported here—935¹¹.

Selection of terminology data from terminology dictionaries is made more difficult by the fact that, unlike the Terminų bankas, they tend to include non-terms as well, and the question of the terminological status of some of the units included here is rather unclear. Personal names such as Friedmanas, Miltonas; Hume’as, Davidas; Keynesas, Johnas Maynardas ETŽ; Pareto, Wilfredo; Lerner, Abba P.; Edgeworth, Francis Ysidro AEŽ are, naturally, not considered terms and are therefore also excluded from the sample of terms being compared here. Eponymous terms, by contrast, are terms formed from personal names, for example: Grešamo dėsnis, Fišerio reiškinys, Filipso kreivė ETŽ; Cramerio taisyklė, Eulerio teorema, Lorenzo kreivė ETŽ. However, AEŽ also contains document titles (e.g., General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Federal Trade Commission Act), while a particularly large proportion of AEŽ entries consists of proper names of institutions (e.g., National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Islamic

¹¹ The difference arises because terms from the Economics Department of the Bank of Lithuania have also been assigned approved-term status, but they could not necessarily be used in legal acts and are therefore excluded here.

20

development bank, Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, International Association of Bond Dealers). The relationship between such proper names and terms is not sufficiently clear. Lithuanian terminologists, noting the tendency to include proper names in terminology dictionaries, are inclined not to regard them as terms (e.g., Gaivenis 2014 [1969]: 519), while also observing that the relationship between proper names and terms has scarcely been investigated (e.g., Gaivenis 2002: 128).

In Lithuanian terminology, adjectives, participles, and adverbs are also not considered terms because, according to K. Gaivenis (2002: 31), they do not perform one of the most important functions of a term—the nominative, or naming, function. Accordingly, these too are not included here, although some individual adjectives, participles, or combinations of these are included in terminology dictionaries, for example: anticiklinis, konkuruojantis, silpnai stacionarus, kapitalui imlus AEŽ; apodik­tinis, endogeninis, racionalus ETŽ. Adjectives, participles, or combinations thereof that have become nouns are assessed differently (e.g., Mitkevičienė 2022: 7), although their status as terms is questioned elsewhere (Zemlevičiūtė 2020: 316). In this case, substantivized adjectives and participles are included in the set of terms being compared, for example: atleistieji, diskretusis kintamasis, antrasis geriausiasis AEŽ; apdraustasis ETŽ.

Both terminology dictionaries also include Latinisms and Gallicisms, but in the translated AEŽ they are rendered in Lithuanian, for example: a priori Latin for “in advance,” ceteris paribus Latin for “other things being equal,” laissez faire French for “let it act.” In ETŽ they are presented as such, for example: veto, a priori, ab invito, ex ante, force majeure, alter ego. Such unassimilated borrowings from other languages, as well as non-nominative words and constructions used by specialists (e.g., sports and military commands lygiuok kairėn! po du rikiuok!), seem to have been proposed for classification as professionalisms (Gaivenis 2014 [1985]: 141), although it has also been shown that the concept of professionalism itself is not uniform. Thus, the boundary between professionalisms and terms is also unclear. Having discussed narrow and broad conceptions of professionalisms, K. Gaivenis himself (2002: 24; 2014 [1985]: 136–144) tended to hold that terms constitute only one part of professionalisms, while the rest are not terms. As examples of the latter, he mentioned unassimilated words and phrases used in the language of specialists in particular fields, as well as non-nominative words or constructions used in specialist language (Gaivenis 2002: 24; 2014 [1985]: 140–141). Accordingly, in this case, unassimilated Latinisms and Gallicisms, or those translated into Lithuanian, found in terminology dictionaries are not included in the comparative terminology dataset. However, drawing this boundary also raises the question of how professional jargon, calques, and similar items found in terminology dictionaries relate to terminology. Assessing the terminological quality of the terminology being compared according to length indicators, or resolving these theoretically complex issues, is not the aim of this article; therefore, units presented as separate entries in terminology dictionaries other than those listed here are included in the comparison dataset, though some will be discussed separately. These issues posed fewer difficulties when selecting terminology data from textbooks. Although proper names of persons, institutions, or other entities, Latinisms, and Gallicisms found in terminology dictionaries also occur here, with a few exceptions (e.g., International Monetary Fund or World Bank KTU 2008), they are not terminologized.

21

Term length data

Having selected terminology data from the chosen sources using the method just described, the terms were then grouped according to the number of words they comprise, yielding measures of term length for terms presented in sources representing different approaches to terminology management (see Table 3). In determining term length, it was necessary to decide whether to include function words (as A. Umbrasas did in his article) or to exclude them (as is customary when reporting term-length data in various publications). Since the aim here is to compare the results with A. Umbrasas’s calculations, it was decided to present in the table the results obtained by including function words in the calculations, while discussing separately any differences that this may produce.

Table 3. Terms by number of constituent words in works representing different approaches to terminology management

Approach to terminology management | Terminology management source | 1 word | 2 words | 3 words | 4 words | 5 or more words | Total COMPUTER-ASSISTED TERMINOLOGY MANAGEMENT | Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania (Terminų bankas) | 105 | 330 | 216 | 119 | 140 | 910 TERMINOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT | R. Vainienė. Ekonomikos terminų žodynas, 2008 (ETŽ) | 418 | 632 | 138 | 25 | 9 | 1 222 Aiškinamasis ekonomikos anglų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, ed. D. W. Pearce, 2006 (AEŽ) | 372 (361) | 1 518 (1 501) | 594 (603) | 178 (192) | 54 (59) | 2 716TEXTUAL MANAGEMENT | Makroekonomika, 2008 (KTU 2008) | 68 | 211 | 116 | 50 | 9 | 454 Makroekonomika, 2017 (VU 2017) | 38 | 170 | 99 | 51 | 23 | 381

Table 3 first reveals a similarity linking all the terminology management sources selected here: the prevalence of two-word terms. This group accounts for the largest number of terms in both economics terminology dictionaries, both textbooks, and the approved legal terminology in the Terminology Bank, from which only terms classified in that source as economics terms were selected for this analysis. The prevalence of two-word terms confirms the finding highlighted in publications reporting term-length data, including A. Umbrasas’s calculations, which cover data from 27 terminology dictionaries: the most commonly used or provided terms in Lithuanian are two-word terms. The method of calculating term length used here has virtually no effect on the figures for two-word terms. In the calculations

22

excluding function words, the following terms presented in dictionaries should also be considered two-word terms: demand deposit, market entry, nonprofit enterprise, coupon bond, value for money ETŽ, demand deposits, demand money, unsecured debt, brokerless market, performance-related pay, work-to-rule, non-price competition, non-tariff barriers, research and development, skills and earnings, input and output, customs and practices AEŽ; a pair of terms presented in the Terminų bankas (agency attached to a ministry and immunity from fines); and the term investment in inventories presented in the VU textbook. Thus, the indicators for the sizes of two-word term groups given in Table 3 would increase somewhat. However, it would clearly be entirely inaccurate to conclude from the predominance of two-word terms alone that the principle of terminological brevity is applied in the same way in all the compared sources of terminology management. Other indicators must also be assessed.

Three-word terms considerably outnumber one-word terms in all the sources except the ETŽ compiled by R. Vainienė. In the VU textbook, there are more than twice as many, cf. 99 and 38. As discussed in the comparison of works presenting term-length data, the predominance of three-word terms over one-word terms emerged as a characteristic indicator only of the legal terminology managed in the Terminų bankas. In this case, this predominance is also evident when only economic-sector legal terms are selected from the Terminų bankas, but it is also clear that it is pronounced in sources of terminology management in other fields. In the selected terminology from the Terminų bankas, there are slightly fewer three-word terms, i.e. they make up 23.74 percent of all the terms selected from this source; such terms account for 25.55 percent in the KTU textbook and 25.98 percent in the VU textbook. Thus, of the works presenting term-length data discussed above, only the explanatory ETŽ compiled by R. Vainienė confirms in this case the order of the one-word and three-word term groups that had emerged. The method chosen for calculating term length has almost no effect on these indicators either: if the few terms mentioned above were assigned to the two-word category, thereby revealing the predominance of two-word terms, the number of three-word terms would decrease by only a few.

Four-word terms also outnumber one-word terms not only in the Terminų bankas terminology examined here (119 four-word terms, compared with 105 one-word terms). Their predominance over one-word terms is also evident in the textual source of terminology management, the VU textbook Makroekonomika (cf. 51 and 38), although studies of terms by structure, as discussed, generally find that four-word or longer terms are rare. In this textbook, four-word terms account for 13.39 percent of all the economic terms defined in it. In the other textbook, there are also quite a few four-word terms—50—compared with the 68 one-word terms it contains. They account for 11.01 percent of all economic terminology data selected from this source. It should be noted, however, that because of the method chosen for calculating term length, the following are also classified as four-word terms: the term operations with securities presented in the KTU textbook, and the terms accelerator and multiplier model, Baumol-Tobin model, shoe-leather costs presented in the VU textbook, among others. If function words were excluded from the calculations, these terms would be counted as three-word terms, and the number of four-word terms indicated in the table would decrease by a few. On the other hand, the indicators for the three-word term groups would increase. In any case, the indicators for four-word and three-word terms show that there are many three-word terms, which will here be

23

called longer terms, and four-word terms, which will here be called long terms, not only in the economic-sector legal terminology managed in the Terminų bankas, but also in textual sources of terminology management. The monograph Lietuvių kalbos terminų automatinis atpažinimas ir apibrėžimas, in which terms were selected on the basis of a corpus, reports a figure of 22 terms for education and science terminology, amounting to only 2.82 percent of all the selected education and science terms. As noted, however, the selection of terms may have influenced this figure: a total of 77,961 possible four-word terms were found in the corpus; when only word combinations used more than seven times were considered terms, the number fell to 760, and an expert identified 22 of these as education and science terms (Bielinskienė et al. 2015: 63). Yet A. Umbrasas, drawing on works of terminographic terminology management, identified four-word terms as accounting for only 3 percent, based on 27 terminological dictionaries.

It should be noted that the terminographic sources used here also indicate that they contain fewer four-word terms. One of the terminological dictionaries, ETŽ, contains just 25, accounting for 2.05 percent of the terminology data in that dictionary. If terms such as tax freedom day, free market entry, price-earnings ratio, small and medium-sized business were considered three-word terms, the number of four-word terms presented in this ETŽ would decrease by a further nine. The translated AEŽ also contains fewer four-word than one-word terms: 178 and 372, respectively. Nevertheless, their share here is higher than is generally reported in term-length data, namely 6.55 percent of all terminology data selected from this dictionary. And, as in the Terminų bankas and both textbooks, the three-word terms presented in this dictionary outnumber the one-word terms: there are 594 three-word terms and 372 one-word terms. The table shows that the figures in parentheses for the three-word and four-word terms in the translated AEŽ are even higher. This is related to the way terminological data are presented, namely to the fact that some terms in this dictionary are given with certain components in parentheses, for example: (investment) portfolio diversification, (securities) market maker, decision (making) rule, near (equilibrium price) setting, cash-to-deposit ratio. In discussing the practice of compiling terminological dictionaries, attention has been drawn to the tendency to provide various kinds of information in parentheses (Umbrasas 2008: 223). In this case, it is not easy to determine the reason for this presentation. A comparison of the English and Lithuanian terms in the dictionary suggests that the component absent from the English term may have been placed in parentheses, cf.: factor reversals and (gamybos) veiksnių pakeičiamumas, portfolio balance approach and (investicinio) portfolio balanso metodas, market maker and (vertybinių popierių) rinkos sudarytojas. On the other hand, this may have been intended to reconcile the principles of accuracy and brevity by indicating both the long and short forms of a term. The addition or omission of term components is generally documented in texts and associated with textual or contextual use of terms (e.g., Mitkevičienė 2015); however, as can be seen, in this case both the long and short forms of a term are given in what is known as a fixation source—a terminological dictionary. Furthermore, A. Mitkevičienė (2024) has also recently observed that various forms of term shortening are not uncommon in terminography, and has also written that determining when a term is shortened and when it is lengthened,

24

difficult. Thus, distinguishing six groups of alternative terms with differing numbers of components, the author described cases such as those mentioned here as omission of a lexeme vs. addition of a lexeme (Mitkevičienė 2024: 5). Without examining in greater detail the theoretical questions concerning the terminological assessment of such cases and the reasons for their presentation in this dictionary, attention is drawn here only to the fact that this presentation complicates the determination of term length. For instance, the term artutinis (pusiausvyros kainų) nustatymas can be evaluated both as a two-word term, if regarded as a case of term shortening, and as a four-word term, if regarded as a case of term lengthening. Therefore, Table 3 gives two sets of figures. Given that terms in AEŽ with components written in parentheses are included only in the dictionary itself, whereas those components are not listed in the appended “Index of Lithuanian Terms,” the first figure in the table gives the result of calculating term length without the components written in parentheses, while the second shows how many terms there would be in the corresponding groups if those components were also counted. As can be seen, the number of one- and two-word terms would decrease, while the numbers of three- and four-word terms would increase. In that case, four-word terms would account for 7.07 percent.

Returning to the indicators used here to assess similarities and differences in the application of the principle of brevity—that is, moving on to the group of terms consisting of five or more words—it can be stated that few terms in this group are found in either terminographic or text-based term-management sources: ETŽ has only 9 (just 0.75 percent of the terms presented in this explanatory dictionary), the translated AEŽ has 54 (1.99 percent), and the KTU textbook has 11 (2.43 percent). Somewhat more such terms are presented in the translated AEŽ, but it also contains considerably more terminology data: 2,716 terms were selected, so five-or-more-word terms make up only 1.99 percent of all its terminology. In one textbook, admittedly, there are somewhat more terms in this group—23, accounting for 6.04 percent of the economic terms defined in that textbook. Nevertheless, Table 3 shows that the terminology of the Terminų bankas compared here stands out most markedly according to the indicator for terms of five or more words. It contains more five-or-more-word terms than four-word terms (cf. 140 and 119), and more than one-word terms as well (cf. 140 and 105). Thus, although the discussion of the three- and four-word term groups revealed that longer and long terms are also quite numerous in other sources, the indicator for the group of five-or-more-word terms shows that the longest terms are characteristic of the Terminų bankas terminology compared here. On the other hand, comparison of individual indicators highlights that it differs most only with respect to the five-or-more-word term indicator. The predominance of three-word terms over one-word terms also emerges as a feature characteristic of other term-management sources, while text-based sources for managing economic terminology also reveal a relatively strong tendency to provide four-word economic terms.

A more detailed analysis of the group of five-or-more-word terms would show that, of the 140 economic terms in the Terminų bankas assigned here to the group of longest terms, most consist precisely of five words—59 of them. Nevertheless, this group also includes 43 six-word terms and 27 seven-word terms. However, as mentioned in A. Umbrasas’s 2013 article, only a few terms consisting of a dozen or so words can be found among the terms in legal acts approved and assigned to the field of economics in the Terminų bankas.

25

The longest is the thirteen-word term viešojo pirkimo–pardavimo sutarties arba preliminariosios viešojo pirkimo–pardavimo sutarties sudarymo atidėjimo terminas. In the other sources, the longest term is nine words, namely kvalifikuotoji įstatinio kapitalo dalis ir / arba balsavimo teisių dalis in ETŽ, but in general terms longer than five words are rare in these sources. For example, in the translated AEŽ, which contains 54 terms in the group under discussion, as many as 47 are five-word terms, only five are six-word terms, and the longest here is the eight-word term profsąjungų narių ir ne narių darbo užmokesčio skirtumai.

As Table 3 shows, two-word terms make up more or less than half of the economic terms presented in the various sources. Their number is considerably lower among the Terminų bankas terms compared here (330 out of 910) and considerably higher among the translated AEŽ terms. The proportions represented by one-word terms also vary: in the VU textbook, one-word terms account for 9.97 percent of the economic terms defined or explained there; among the Terminų bankas terms selected here, they account for 11.54 percent; and in the KTU textbook, for 14.98 percent. However, R. Vainienė’s explanatory dictionary stands out clearly in terms of the share of one-word terms: the one-word terms it contains account for as much as 34.21 percent of its terminology data. As becomes clear, this dictionary is not only the sole source examined in which the one-, two-, and three-word term groups are ordered by group size in the commonly observed sequence, but also a source distinguished by the abundance of the shortest terms. Moreover, it contains very few four-word and five-word terms relative to the total number of terms, which would indicate that the principle of term brevity is indeed applied in this terminographic term-management source. The term-length figures reported by A. Umbrasas for terms presented in 27 dictionaries of terminology from various fields suggest that the term-length data for this dictionary come close to the average he established: in those dictionaries, one-word terms account for about 32 percent, compared with 34.21 percent in ETŽ; two-word terms account for 52 percent and 51.72 percent, respectively; three-word terms, about 12 percent and 11.29 percent; four-word terms, about 3 percent and 2.05 percent; and five-or-more-word terms, about 1 percent and 0.74 percent. However, in another of the terminology dictionaries compared here—the translated AEŽ—the one-word terms presented account for 13.70 percent, considerably less than in ETŽ and far below the overall average, while three-word terms substantially outnumber one-word terms, accounting for 21.87 percent. It has already been noted that more four-word terms are also presented here. Admittedly, this dictionary contains more two-word terms (1,518 out of 2,716), which account for 55.89 percent.

A. Umbrasas (2013: 113), atkreipęs dėmesį į termino daugiažodžiai terminai svyravimus ir prie daugiažodžių terminų priskyręs taip pat ir trižodžius terminus, suskaičiavo, kad 2013 m. Terminų banke pateikti aprobuoti teisės aktų daugiažodžiai terminai sudarė 57 proc. Šiuo atveju vertinant tik ekonomikos terminams priskirtų teisės aktų terminų ilgį, ta persvara būtų kiek mažesnė – 52,20 proc. Kaip leido spręsti ir atskirų rodiklių vertinimas, pagal bendrą daugiažodžių terminų rodiklį nuo šio šaltinio pernelyg nenutoltų abu tekstinės terminų tvarkybos šaltiniai: VU vadovėlyje pateikti trižodžiai ir ilgesni ekonomikos terminai sudaro 45,41 proc., KTU vadovėlyje – 38,55 proc. Kiek labiau pagal teikiamų daugiažodžių terminų rodiklį skiriasi AEŽ – jame trižodžių ir ilgesnių terminų yra 30,41 proc. Tačiau

26

There are far fewer such terms in the explanatory ETŽ—14.08. Thus, although in this case only a couple of term dictionaries were selected for comparison, they show that even in terminographic sources for managing the terminology of a single field, the principle of brevity may be applied differently, even when both economics dictionaries were published at around the same time: the translated AĖŽ in 2006 and the ETŽ compiled by R. Vainienė in 2008. Of course, the differences in applying the principle of brevity in a translated dictionary could well be due precisely to the dictionary’s translated nature.

However, determining what accounts for the similarities or differences in how the principle of brevity is applied is not the aim here. This would need to be investigated separately (e.g., by comparing the English and Lithuanian terms presented in AĖŽ, examining recommendations for managing terminology in different directions, and conducting an in-depth analysis of the terminology itself). Here, after examining the theoretical evaluation of the principle of brevity, the aim was only to check whether it is applied uniformly in terminology management in different directions, as judged by term-length indicators. Focusing solely on terms from a single field and comparing different term-length indicators revealed that there are differences, but also some similarities. Contrary to what might have been inferred by comparing other studies presenting term-length data, the approved economics terminology provided in the Terminų bankas stands out most clearly only in the indicator for the longest terms—those of five or more words. Meanwhile, long (four-word) and longer (three-word) terms are also numerous in textual sources for managing economics terminology, and three-word terms outnumber one-word terms in one of the dictionaries as well. As can be inferred from the comparison of two sources, term dictionaries generally provide shorter economics terms; however, the comparison of these two sources also shows that the principle of brevity may be applied differently in terminographic terminology management.

Since determining the causes of the differences observed in the application of the principle of brevity is not an aim here, the terminology itself is not examined in greater detail either. Nevertheless, attention should be drawn to several of its features that are relevant to the aim pursued.

Some features of the terminology

Since it emerged that the terminology in the Terminų bankas compared here differs most from the terminology provided in other terminology-management sources in the proportion of the longest terms—those of five or more words—and since at least some long terms, as noted in the discussion of studies presenting term-length data, are regarded by terminologists as descriptive terms, it is relevant to examine this particular group of terms; that is, to check whether the preponderance of five-or-more-word terms (surpassed only by two-word terms), which indicates a difference in the application of the principle of term brevity, is due precisely to such terms in this terminology-management source. This is especially pertinent given that A. Umbrasas’s article published in 2023 also revealed that there is no reluctance to include them in this computerised terminology-management source.

Indeed, the concept of a descriptive term, like the concepts of a short term or a long term, is rather ill-defined in terminology. A discussion of economics terms, for instance, would suggest that there is a tendency to regard all four-word terms as descriptive. After examples such as income from financial investment activities, distribution of residents by income, severance benefits and compensation, the law of diminishing marginal utility are given, it is concluded that

27

iš tikrųjų tai nėra tikrieji terminai – jie vadinami aprašomaisiais (Babickienė 2012: 60). Kitokią aprašomojo termino sampratą rodytų K. Gaivenio (2014 [1994]: 205) aptariamas terminų skirstymas: nurodęs, kad sudėtiniai terminai gali būti dvižodžiai, trižodžiai ir apskritai daugiažodžiai, pavyzdį neregistruotųjų vertybinių popierių rinka autorius pateikia kaip daugiažodžio termino pavyzdį, o kaip vadinamuosius aprašomuosius sudėtinius terminus mini kopūstai po dobilu, išėstų į vikių ir avižų mišinį žaliajam pašarui ir nacionalinių pajamų sukūrimo, paskirstymo, perskirstymo ir galutinio panaudojimo balansas. A. Umbrasas (2023: 162–163), aptardamas Terminų banke teikiamus terminus terminiskumo požiūriu ir kreipdamas dėmesį į terminiskumo sąvokos neaiškumus, svarsto, kad termino už išlap­tintos informacijos apsaugą atsakingas asmuo terminiskumas didesnis nei termino asmuo, atsakingas už radioaktyviųjų šaltinių fizinę saugą terminiskumas, nes jame nėra skyrybos ženklų, pažyminys teikiamas terminams įprastesnėje prepozicijoje. Mažo terminiskumo terminais autorius būtų linkęs laikyti žodžių junginius su šalutiniais sakiniais, pvz., užsieniečiai, kuriems suteikta papildoma apsauga ar laikinoji apsauga Lietuvos Respublikoje, ar konstrukcijas, į kurias įtraukta komentuojamojo pobūdžio informacija, pvz., leidimas vežti radioaktyviąsias atliekas, išskyrus radioaktyviąsias atliekas, susidariusias branduolinio kuro ciklo metu. Lygindamas terminus vyriausybės vertybinio popieriaus, banderolės, keleivinio transporto bilieto, oficialiojo žymėjimo ženklo, dokumento blanko privalomoji forma ir žmonių sveikatai ir (arba) aplinkai pavojingi geriamojo vandens tiekimo ir nuotekų tvarkymo infrastruktūros elementai, jis linksta manyti, kad pastarojo junginio terminiskumas didesnis bent jau todėl, kad juo apibūdinamas vienas objektas, nėra išvardijimo. Tačiau A. Mitkevičienė (2019) yra paabejojusi ir dėl terminų, kurių sujungiamuosius dėmenis sieja alternatyvūs jungtukai ir (ar) arba ir (arba), terminiskumo. Albinas Drukteinis (2011), nagrinėdamas dviejuose terminų žodynuose teikiamus jūreivystės sudėtinius terminus, regis, būtų linkęs kreipti dėmesį į dėmenų raiškos įvairovę. Pasak jo, „[S]udėtiniams terminams būdingi kilmininkai yra abstraktesni, o vadinamieji semantiniai linksniai (naudininkas, įnagininkas, vietininkas) santykį perteikia konkrečiau, santykio konkretumo ypač pasiekiama prielinksninėmis konstrukcijomis. Tokia terminų raiška rodo nepakankamai susiformavusią terminiją, artimą specialiosios kalbos vartosenos frazėms, bet nebendrinančią sąvokų santykio pagal termino reikalavimus ar polinkius“ (Drukteinis 2011: 252). Vis dėlto įvairesnės raiškos terminų nagrinėjant įvairių sričių terminiją fiksuojama jau ir tarp trižodžių terminų (pvz.: Akelaitis 2008; Džežulskienė 2010; Gaivenis 2014 [1975]), juolab tarp už juos ilgesnių terminų (pvz., Mockienė, Rackevičienė 2018).

Thus, in the absence of clear criteria for distinguishing descriptive or low-termhood terms from actual terms, the focus here will be on those five-or-more-word economics terms provided in the Terminų bankas that are not characteristic of the other terminology-management sources examined here.

Among the five-or-more-word terms provided in the other sources (as well as in the other term groups), only one term was found whose components are linked by alternative conjunctions and (or), and (or): qualified portion of authorised capital and/or portion of voting rights, ETŽ. Among the long terms

28

Five such terms were found in the Terminų bankas (the Bank of Terms), for example: provider of scientific research and/or experimental development services, creditor’s claims secured by a pledge and/or mortgage, supplier of food products and/or beverages. This source also provides 10 terms containing coordinated components linked by the conjunctions ar, arba, including the very longest term, period for deferring the conclusion of a public procurement–sale contract or a preliminary public procurement–sale contract, and compare also: non-compliance of a conformity assessment body or its activities, commercial function entrusted by the state or municipality. No such terms were found in other term-management sources, either among the five-word and longer terms or in other term groups.

It is true that terms whose components are linked by the coordinating conjunction ir, are widespread beyond the five-word and longer economics terms included in the Terminų bankas. There are 26 in this group in the Terminų bankas, for example: candidate for membership of the European Economic and Social Committee, institution implementing the state’s technology and innovation policy, public service for small and medium-sized businesses. In the translated AEŽ, which contains 54 five-word or longer terms, there are 24, for example: wage differences between trade union members and non-members, double taxation and its elimination, price–precious metal coin mechanism. Among the 51 economics terms of this group found in the VU textbook, there are 11. Such terms have long been recorded in terminology, for example, in a 1968 article (Gaivenis 2014 [1968]: 44). As the examples given also show, most are formed by linking two words with that conjunction, while there are only a few cases of so-called enumerative coordination. These include the term in the Terminų bankas strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis, and terms in other sources: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis ETŽ, planning, programming and financing system, structure, conduct and performance paradigm, customs, excise duties and protective taxes, Lewis–Fei–Ranis model AEŽ.

The range of forms found among five-word and longer economics terms formed by subordination in the Terminų bankas is not extensive if the measure excludes dependent components expressed by an adjective, an adjectival word, or a noun in the genitive, and instead considers those expressed in other cases or in prepositional constructions. A few terms are formed by attaching a dative, an accusative, or an infinitive to the head or dependent component, for example: land acquisition project for public needs, assistance to overcome the financial difficulties of a legal entity, contracting authority belonging to the system of central public administration entities, retail company with significant market power, institution subordinate to a public administration authority, placing of a fertilising product on the market of the Republic of Lithuania. One term is formed with an adverb: temporarily uninsured export credit risk. A few more terms are formed with prepositional constructions: debt under a right of claim transferred by another institution, decision on the buyer’s credit insurance limit, notification of the commencement of an environmental impact assessment, prolonged contact with human skin, state special guarantee for a guarantee institution. However, among the dependent components of other five-word and longer terms formed by subordination, the genitive (of nouns, adjectives, or adjectival words) clearly predominates, for example: secondary method of loan repayment security, creditor affected by a company restructuring plan, tobacco products

29

wholesale trade warehouse. In some terms, the dependent components are expressed solely by the genitive, for example: period for deferring the conclusion of a concession contract, period for deferring the redemption of a bond issue, assessment of a measuring vessel volume control system, electronic identification conformity assessment body, organiser of an electronic auction for the lease of immovable property, addition to the list of state immovable property being renewed, recipient of a guarantee from a state-guaranteed guarantee institution, qualification examination for an enterprise restructuring administrator, risk of administration costs in the insolvency proceedings of a legal entity, wholesale trade warehouse for tobacco products.

A similar tendency is evident in the other sources examined here that contain somewhat more five-word and longer terms. For example, in the translated AEŽ, which contains 54 five-word or longer terms, of the 30 terms whose components are linked only by subordination, 12 have dependent components expressed solely by the genitive, for example: constant elasticity of substitution production function, gross domestic fixed capital formation, discounted cash flow yield, terms of trade in pure barter, variable elasticity of substitution production function. Other forms of dependent components are less common, for example: trade in low-wage products, replacement of short-term debt with long-term debt, real cost method in international trade.

The examples of long terms from the Terminų bankas given above, such as placing of a fertilising product on the market of the Republic of Lithuania, show that some long terms in the Terminų bankas also include proper names of geographical entities or companies, including symbolic names; compare also: comprehensive plan for the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, European Technical Assessment approval document, tax arrears transferred to the public limited liability company Turto bankas, amount of an unpaid loan guaranteed by “Invega”. In the terminology of other sources, such cases are rare even among shorter terms: state production organisation in Eastern Europe, mixed enterprise of Eastern European countries, Dow Jones index, Financial Times actuarial share indices, Financial Times ordinary industrial index (as noted in discussing data selection, individual proper names are not included in the comparative data sample). Thus, such terms are more characteristic of the group of long economics terms in the Terminų bankas. Moreover, as the example tax arrears transferred to the public limited liability company Turto bankas shows, generic words are also incorporated into the term; the few such terms found in other sources indicate that the generic word is omitted.

However, terms formed with a personal name or place name are a feature characteristic of the other term-management sources. Both textbooks define the term Cobb–Douglas production function. The VU textbook also includes Harrod–Domar model of economic growth. The translated AEŽ defines long terms Heckscher–Ohlin theory of international trade, Modigliani–Miller theory of the cost of capital, Cobb–Douglas production function, augmented Dickey–Fuller test. It is true that there are few such terms among the longest terms, but they are especially numerous among short terms. For example, among the two-word terms listed in the AEŽ there are 98, including: Bayesian methods, Cramer’s rule, Wagner’s law, Engel’s

30

law, Okun’s law, Engel curve, Euler’s theorem, Juglar cycle, Kalman filtering, Keynes plan, Rawlsian justice, Pigou tax. Most of these terms are derived from personal names, but there are also toponymic ones, for example: the Austrian School, the Lausanne School, the Chicago School, the Brussels Conference. There are 28 such two-word terms in ETŽ. Although there are relatively many of them among longer, three-word terms too (AEŽ – 29, ETŽ – 28), definitions provided in textbooks would reveal that such terms can be a way of avoiding an even longer, so-called descriptive, economics term, for example:

“The relationship between the unemployment rate and the extent to which gross national product falls short of potential GNP was mathematically demonstrated in 1960 by the prominent US macroeconomics researcher Arthur Okun <...>. This theory has been positively evaluated and is known in economics as Okun’s law.”

Okun’s law (Okun’s law) states that there is a regular negative relationship between the percentage ratio of actual GNP (Y) to potential GNP (Yp) and the difference between the actual and natural unemployment rates” VU 2017.

By contrast, such terms are entirely uncharacteristic of the terminology in the Terminų bankas, as would be indicated not only by the group of long terms analyzed, but also by other term groups. Only one term formed with a personal name was found: Celsius temperature.

When comparing the groups of five-word and longer terms, several economics terms provided in the Terminų bankas also stand out, in which a proper name is included as an abbreviation, for example: the portion of a bond issue not guaranteed by the private limited company ILTE, the liability limit of the private limited company ILTE, the guarantee payment of the private limited company ILTE. In one of the terms, the abbreviation is written in parentheses: a market trader affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Individual terms containing elements written as alphabetic, symbolic, or even graphic abbreviations are also found in other sources. In some cases, as can be inferred from the terms a deposit agreed for a term of up to 2 years, a deposit with a notice period of up to 3 months inclusive, 100% reserve banking VU 2017, this form is related only to the way the term is written. Other terms are more difficult to assess when an element written as an alphabetic or symbolic abbreviation has no word equivalent, for example, adjusted multiple correlation coefficient R² (see further Mitkevičienė 2024). However, unlike abbreviations themselves, terms formed with abbreviations tend to be considered terms. For example, K. Gaivenis (2014 [1968]: 35), discussing the grammatical configurations of terms consisting of two or three elements, also mentioned terms whose secondary elements are expressed by alphabetic or numeric elements (e.g.: α-particle, n–p transition), although he added that they have much in common with nomenclature. Thus, terms with such elements are also included when presenting general data on term length, with a term element written as an abbreviation or numeral treated as a separate word. From a terminological perspective, it is more difficult to assess abbreviations that stand for an entire term; examples of these occur in the sources examined here, for example: FT-SE 100, MV = PT, LIBOR AEŽ. In the explanatory dictionary compiled by R. Vainienė, which records only nine five-word and longer terms, there are as many as

31

17 such terms, for example: EBIT, EBITDA, BALTIX, INCOTERMS, LIFO, VILSE, LITIN-10, P1, P2, P2, P3. As A. Mitkevičienė (2024) also points out, their assessment is difficult and has not yet been sufficiently investigated; therefore, these cases have not been included in the sample of term-management data compared here. Nevertheless, it is clear that the word equivalents of these abbreviations would be longer, which would somewhat increase the number of long terms found in ETŽ, which showed a tendency to provide particularly short terms.

CONCLUSIONS

The principle of terminological brevity, formulated as one of the principles of terminology applicable both to term creation and to term management, is not discussed extensively in Lithuanian terminology; however, an examination of its theoretical assessment revealed that views on it are not entirely uniform. On the one hand, brevity is considered a principle of the same standing as the other principles of terminology, or even singled out from among them as important; on the other hand, it is considered merely an additional principle. On the one hand, it is regarded as more relevant only to term use; on the other hand, it is noted that the pursuit of brevity is also relevant to term management.

A systematization of comments on the principle of terminological brevity found in various works revealed the following as possible factors contributing to its problematic nature: the relevant regulation of term management; the growth in the number of terms and the term-management challenges this may create; the increase in translated texts and the resulting influence of terminology in other languages; the growing complexity of concepts, which creates a need to expand shorter terms already in use; possible conflicts between the principle of brevity and other terminological principles; the characteristics of concepts; and differences in functional style.

An attempt to determine whether the application of the principle of brevity may be affected by factors such as differences in the direction of term management or the specific characteristics of a particular term-management source, based on indicators of the length of economics terms provided in different term-management sources, showed that, in general, this principle is applied unevenly even in the management of terms from a single field, although some similarities exist. While comparisons of studies reporting term-length data would suggest that one-word terms are generally recorded more frequently than three-word terms, the data on the management of economics terminology compared here show that three-word terms are provided far more often than one-word terms, except in one terminology dictionary. The sources representing text-based term management also contain a fairly large proportion of four-word economics terms, and in one of them four-word terms even outnumber one-word terms. Thus, contrary to what might have been hypothesized from the discussion of the management of legal terms in the Terminų bankas and the comparison of other studies reporting term-length data, many longer (three-word) and long (four-word) economics terms are provided not only in the Terminų bankas when managing the terminology of legislation, but also in economics textbooks for higher education representing text-based term management; three-word terms outnumber one-word terms in one of the economics terminology dictionaries used in the study as well. However, the share of the longest terms—five-word and longer—sets apart the economics terminology of legal acts managed in the Terminų bankas, and this indicator would point to differences in the application of the principle of brevity.

32

Although few sources of textual term management—textbooks for higher education institutions—were compared in this case, their data would indicate similarities in the application of the principle of brevity. In terminographic works on term management, as can be inferred from a comparison of a pair of sources in this field, shorter terms in economics are generally provided. Nevertheless, a comparison of two sources from the same period also shows that there may be differences in the application of the principle of brevity in terminographic term management.

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.

LITERATŪRA

Akelaitis Gintautas 2008: Sudėtinių administracinių terminų struktūriniai modeliai [Structural Models of Compound Administrative Terms]. – Specialybės kalba: terminija ir studijos, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras, 5–12. Prieiga internete: https://cris.mruni.eu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c8c34236-02bf-4a9d-a9c5-8075abb5e764/content.

AMVA 2015: Aukštųjų mokyklų vadovėlių kalbos taisyklingumo vertinimo tvarkos aprašas [Description of the Procedure for Assessing the Language Regularity of Higher Education Institutions’ Handbooks]. Prieiga internete: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/svietimas/vadoveliu-aprobavimas/aukstuju-mokyklu-vadoveliu-kalbos-vertinimo-tvarkos-aprasas?lang=lt.

Andriuškaitė Ramunė 2000: J. Balčikonio kalbotyros terminų sandara ir savitumas [The Structure and Distinctiveness of J. Balčikonis’ Terms of Linguistics]. – Terminologija 7, 59–75. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/713/804.

Apie LRTB: Apie Lietuvos Respublikos terminų banką [About Terminology Bank of the Republic of Lithuania]. Prieiga internete: https://terminai.vlkk.lt/Apie%20LRTB.

33

Auksoriūtė Albina 1996: Sudėtinių terminų vartosenos netikslumai [Inaccuracies in the Use of Compound Terms]. – Terminologija 3, 47–49. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/754/845.

Auksoriūtė Albina 2024: Lietuviški augalų ir grybų vardai XIX a.: Jurgio Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos ir Lauryno Roko Ivinskio vardynai [Lithuanian Names of Plants and Fungi in the Nineteenth Century: Lists of Names by Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža and Laurynas Rokas Ivinskis]: monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Babickienė Zofija 2012: Ekonomikos terminų gramatinių ir leksinių variantų sklaida: norma ir realybė [Occurance of Grammatical and Lexical Variants of Economic Terms: Standard and Reality]. – Specialybės kalba: gramatika ir logika: mokslinių straipsnių rinkinys, par. G. Akelaitis, Z. Babickienė, V. Mažeikienė, L. Pečkuvienė, Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 51–64. Prieiga internete: https://cris.mruni.eu/server/api/core/bitstreams/938c4e5e-c097-4739-aead-3c16414b8dea/content.

Bielinskienė Agnė, Boizou Loïc, Grigonytė Gintarė, Kovalevskaitė Jolanta, Rimkutė Erika, Utka Andrius 2015: Lietuvių kalbos terminų automatinis atpažinimas ir apibrėžimas [Automatic Identification and Definition of Lithuanian Terms], e. leidimas, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Kompiuterinės lingvistikos centras. Prieiga internete: https://portalcris.vdu.lt/server/api/core/bitstreams/559abb58-b5d1-4fa5-a907-45af03a3feb3/content.

Bielinskienė Agnė, Kazlauskienė Asta, Rimkutė Erika, Tamošiūnaitė Aurelia 2014: Lietuvių bendrinė kalba: normos ir vartosena [Standard Lithuanian: Norms and Usage]: vadovėlis aukštųjų mokyklų studentams, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Versus Aureus.

BKTP 1997: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos tvarkybos principai, kodifikacijos kriterijai ir jų taikymas (VLKK 1997 01 30). Prieiga internete: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/kalbos-tvarkybos-principai-kodifikacijos-kriterijai?lang=lt.

Bliūdžuvienė Nijolė, Černiauskaitė Violeta 2021: Terminologinių duomenų tvarkybos modelis: Bibliotekininkystės, informacijos ir knygotyros terminų žodynas [Model of Terminological Data Management: Bibliotekininkystės, informacijos ir knygotyros terminų žodynas]. – Knygotyra 77, 306–330.

Bružaitė Neringa, Rekašius Tomas 2016: Žodžių dažnių pasiskirstymo analizė skirtingų žanrų lietuvių kalbos tekstuose [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.

34

Drukteinis Albinas 2011: Sintaksiniai sudėtinių jūreivystės terminų modeliai [Syntactic Patterns of Compound Maritime Terms]. – Res humanitariae 10, 234–255.

Džėžulskienė Judita 2010: Prepozicinė ir postpozicinė modifikacija: trižodžių angliškų ir lietuviškų terminų gretinamoji analizė [Pre- and Post-Nominal Modification: A Contrastive Investigation of English and Lithuanian Three-Word Terms]. – Kalbotyra 62, 7–21.

Gaivenis Kazimieras 2002: Lietuvių terminologija: teorijos ir tvarkybos matmenys [Lithuanian Terminology: Theoretical and Management Dimensions], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.

Gaivenis Kazimieras 2014: Rinktiniai raštai [Selected Works], sud. J. Gaivenytė-Butler, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

ISO 704-87: Terminologijos principai ir metodai. Lietuvos RST 1115-90 (ISO 704-87) [Principles and Methods of Terminology. Lithuanian National Standard RST 1115-90 (ISO 704-87)], Vilnius.

Kaulakienė Angelė, Makariūnienė Eglė 2014 [1999]: Statistinis terminų trumpumo vertinimas [Statistical Assessment of Term Brevity]. – Kaulakienė Angelė. Terminologija. Terminografija. Terminija: straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius: Technika, 36–38.

Keinys Stasys 2002: Maironis ir mūsų literatūros mokslo terminologija [Maironis and Our Terminology of Literary Science]. – Terminologija 9, 26–54. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/682/773.

Keinys Stasys 2004: Terminologijos raida, būklė, vaidmuo ir uždaviniai į XXI amžių įžengus [The State, Development, Role and Tasks of Terminology at the Begining of the 21th Century]. – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 219–245.

Keinys Stasys 2005: Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija [Contemporary Lithuanian Terminology], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Keinys Stasys 2012: Lietuvių terminologijos raida [The Development of Lithuanian Terminology], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 29–56.

Keinys Stasys 2013: Dėl mokslo terminų vienareikšmiškumo supratimo [About Understanding the Unambiguity of the Terms of Science]. – Terminologija 20, 47–55. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/471/560.

Klimavičius Jonas 2003: Lietuvių terminografija: praeities bruožai, dabarties sunkumai ir uždaviniai [Lithuanian Terminography: Features of the Past, Difficulties of the Present and Tasks]. – Leksikologijos ir terminologijos darbai: norma ir istorija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 259–276.

Kvašytė Regina 2005: Mokom asis terminologijos žodynėlis [Educational Terminology Glossary], Šiauliai: VšĮ Šiaulių universiteto leidykla.

35

Litevkienė Nijolė 2013: Lietuviškų trižodžių terminų ir lotyniškų atitikmenų skirties atvejai [Aspects of Differentiation of Lithuanian Three-Word Anatomical Terms and Their Latin Equivalents]. – Profesinės studijos: teorija ir praktika 12, 26–35.

Litevkienė Nijolė 2014: Lotyniškų ir lietuviškų sudėtinių anatomijos terminų skirties atvejai [Cases of Difference of Latin and Lithuanian Compound Anatomical Terms]. – Profesinės studijos: teorija ir praktika 13, 73–81.

Litevkienė Nijolė 2015: Trižodžių anatomijos derinamojo pažyminio ir nederinamojo pažyminio lietuviškų terminų ir lotyniškų atitikmenų priklausomybė [Aspects of Dependency of Three-Component Terms of Attribute in Concord and Terms of Attribute not in Concord and Their Latin Equivalents]. – Profesinės studijos: teorija ir praktika 15, 42–46.

Mickienė Ilona, Briaukienė Birutė 2016: Lietuvių terminologijos aspektai [Aspects of Lithuanian Terminology]: metodinė mokomoji knyga, e. išteklius, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Prieiga internete: https://www.knf.vu.lt/dokumentai/failai/katedru/lietuviu/Lietyvi%c5%b3_terminologijos_aspektai_2016.pdf.

Myking Johan 2001: Against Prescriptivism? The ‘Sociocritical’ Challenge to Terminology. – IITF Journal 12(1–2), 49–64.

Mitkevičienė Asta 2015: Kai kurie terminų sinonimijos aspektai [Some Aspects of Synonymy of Terms]. – Terminologija 22, 39–60. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/518/608.

Mitkevičienė Asta 2019: Sujungiamasis ryšys terminuose: terminai su jungtukais ir (ar), ir (arba) [Coordination in the Structure of Terms With Conjunctions ir (ar), ir (arba) “and (or)”]. – Terminologija 26, 88–102. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/379/458.

Mitkevičienė Asta 2020: Ar terminų sinonimija yra trūkumas? [Is Synonymy of Terms an Imperfection?]. – Bendrinė kalba 93, 1–19. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/bendrinekalba/article/view/899/1112.

Mitkevičienė Asta 2022: Terminiai būdvardžiai internetinėje žiniasklaidoje [Terminological Adjectives in Online Media]. – Terminologija 29, 6–22. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2178/2304.

Mitkevičienė Asta 2024: Alternatyvūs skirtingo dėmenų skaičiaus terminai [Alternative Terms With Different Numbers of Constituents]. – Verbum 15, 1–15. Prieiga internete: 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. – Terminologija 25, 55–76. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/120/108.

36

Noreikaitė Adelė 1994: Lietuvos Respublikos standartas „Terminologijos principai ir metodai“ [Standard of the Republic of Lithuania ‘Terminology Principles and Methods’]. – Terminologijos vagos 1, 99–100.

Rimkutė Erika 2012: Automatinis švietimo ir mokslo terminų nustatymas lingvistiniais metodais [Automatic Identification of Science and Education Terms Using Linguistic Methods]. – Terminologija 19, 54–70. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/452/541.

Rimkutė-Gan ausauskienė Aušra 2023: Aprangos pavadinimai XXI a. 2-ojo dešimtmečio šaltinių pagrindu [Clothing Names: on the Basis of Sources From the Second Decade of the 21st Century], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Prieiga internete: https://lki.lt/ausra-rimkute-gan ausauskiene-aprangos-pavadinimai-mokslo-studija-2023.

Skujina Valentīna, Ilziņa Ilze Irena, Vasiļjevs Andrejs, Borzovs Juris 2006: Terminology Standards in the Aspect of Harmonization for International Term Database. – Terminologija 13, 17–32. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/613/704.

Smirnova Oksana, Rackevičienė Sigita 2016: ES teisės aktų terminai lietuvių ir prancūzų kalbomis [Terms of the EU Legal Acts in the Lithuanian and French Languages]. – Kalba ir kontekstas 7(1), 129–141.

Šilobritaitė Diana 2008: Pirmųjų matematikos žodynėlių terminija [Terminology of First Dictionaries of Mathematics]. – Terminologija 15, 180–196. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/600/691.

Šilobritaitė Diana 2009: Pirmojo lietuviško aritmetikos uždavinyno terminai [Terms of the First Lithuanian Exercise Book of Arithmetic]. – Terminologija 16, 186 – 197.

Šilobritaitė Diana 2011: Petro Vileišio aritmetikos vadovėlio Keturi svarbiausieji veikalai aritmetik os terminai [Terms of Petras Vileišis Textbook of Aritmetics Keturi svarbiausieji veikalai aritmetik os]. – Terminologija 18, 154–164. Prieiga internete: 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: Terminologijos vadovėlis Europos Komisijos Vertimo raštu generalinio direktorato Lietuvių kalbos generalinio direktorato vertėjams [Terminology Textbook for the

37

Translators of the Lithuanian Language Department of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation], Liuksemburgas.

TŽR 2007: Terminų žodynų rengimo bendrieji reikalavimai [General Requirements for the Preparation of Terminology Dictionaries]. Prieiga internete: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/terminija/terminu-zodynu-rengimo-bendrieji-reikalavimai.

TŽT 2004: Terminų žodynų vertinimo taisyklės [Rules for Assessing Terminology Glossaries/Dictionaries]. Prieiga internete: https://www.vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/terminija/terminu-zodynu-vertinimo-taisykles.

Umbrasas Alvydas 2008: Atnaujinti Terminų žodynų rengimo bendrieji reikalavimai [Updated Terminų žodynų rengimo bendrieji reikalavimai]. – Terminologija 15, 216–225. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/602/693.

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 2013: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas: 10 metų po įstatymo priėmimo [Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania: 10 Years After Passing the Law]. – Terminologija 20, 96–122. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/475/564.

Umbrasas Alvydas 2022: Teisės aktų terminų ir jų apibrėžčių reikalavimų klausimu [On the Requirements for the Terms of Legal Acts and Their Definitions]. – Terminologija 29, 120–138. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2180/2310.

Umbrasas Alvydas 2023: Lietuvos Respublikos terminų bankas: 20 metų po įstatymo priėmimo [Term Bank of the Republic of Lithuania: 20 Years After Passing the Law]. – Terminologija 30, 142–167. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/2271/2371.

Zaikauskas Egidijus 2014: Terminų vertimo būdai Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų vertimuose į lietuvių kalbą [Procedures for Translating Terms in Translations of Legal Acts of the European Union into the Lithuanian Language]. – Terminologija 21, 71–89. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/534/624.

Zavistanavičienė Daiva 2019: Statistical Analysis of Structural Types of Terms of Construction. – Inžinerinės ir edukacinės technologijos 1, 146–150.

Zemlevičiūtė Palmira 2003: Antano Vileišio (1856–1919) medicinos mokslo darbai ir jų terminija [Antanas Vileišis’ (1856–1919) Works of Medical Science and Their Terminology]. – Terminologija 10, 84–106. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/667/758.

38

Zemlevičiūtė Palmira 2004: Naminio gydytojo medicinos terminai [Terms of Medicine in Naminis Gydytojas.] – Terminologijos istorijos ir dabarties problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 330–362.

Zemlevičiūtė Palmira 2005: Gydymo priemonių pavadinimai daktaro Antano Vileišio medicinos knygelėse [The Names of Treatment Means in Medical Books of the Doctor Antanas Vileišis]. – Terminologija 12, 67–80. Prieiga internete: https://journals.lki.lt/terminologija/article/view/638/729.

Zemlevičiūtė Palmira 2016: XVII–XVIII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos žodynų terminologinė medicinos leksika [Terminological Medical Lexicon of 17th–18th Century Dictionaries of Lithuania Minor]: monografija, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Zemlevičiūtė Palmira 2020: Medicinos asmenų pavadinimai 1920 metų nepriklausomos Lietuvos pirmajame Medicinos žurnale [Names for Actors in the Medical Field in the 1920 Issues of Medicina, the First Medical Magazine in Independent Lithuania]. – Lituanistica 66(4). Prieiga internete: https://www.lmaleidykla.lt/ojs/index.php/lituanistica/article/view/4364/3438.

39