Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?6
doi.o g/10.35321/ e m27-01
Te m Fo ma ion –
Is The e a S a e o he A ?
JOHAN MYKING
Uni e si y o Be gen
ABSTRACT
The a icle discusses heo e ical p oblems o e m o ma ion wi h espec o he
adi ion as well as o ecen de elopmen s o e minology heo y. Te minology
heo y has been challenged, discussed and e ised du ing he las h ee decades.
I is asked whe he he sub ield o e m o ma ion has expe ienced he same
so o heo e ical challenging as ha e o he sub ields o e minology and
whe he a clea s a e o he a o e m o ma ion can be iden i ied. Exis ing
models o e m o ma ion a e discussed and he main posi ions o some mod-
e n app oaches a e ou lined and discussed wi h espec o he consequences
hese app oaches migh ha e o heo e ical and p ac ical e minology wo k.
The a icle a gues ha any a emp a de eloping a heo y o e m o ma ion
mus ake in o accoun p ima y as well as seconda y e m o ma ion. Func-
ional aspec s o e ms a e in e es ing o p ac i ione s and hence, ele an o
heo y. The a icle ag ees ha he ques ion o a speci ic heo y o e m o ma-
ion pe haps s ill is open, bu sugges s ha a mo e modes app oach o ‘ heo-
ising’ e m o ma ion in all i s aspec s should be encou aged.
KEYWORDS: e m o ma ion, neology, e minology heo y, language planning, e m mo i-
a ion
ANOTACIJA
S aipsnyje ap a iamos eo inės e minų da ybos p oblemos a siž elgian į a-
diciją i naujausią e minologijos eo ijos aidą. Pe pasku iniuosius is dešim 
mečius e minologijos eo ija bu o ne ka ą ginčijama, ap a iama i pe žiū ima.
S aipsnyje klausiama, a e minų da ybos s i is apo okių pačių eo inių dis-
kusijų objek u, kaip i ki os e minologijos mokslo s i ys, i a galima nus a y i
aiškią pažangą e minų da ybos s i yje. Ap a iami esami e minų da ybos mo-
deliai, išdės omi i ap a iami pag indiniai šiuolaikinių eo inių p ieigų p incipai
a siž elgian į pasekmes, ku ias šios p ieigos gali u ė i eo iniam i p ak iniam
e minologiniam da bui.
7Te minologija | 2020 | 27
S aipsnyje eigiama, kad be koks bandymas suku i e minų da ybos eo iją
u i a siž elg i į pi minę i an inę e minų da ybą. P ak ikus domina unkci-
niai e minų aspek ai, aigi jie y a s a būs i eo ijai. S aipsnyje p i a iama
nuomonei, kad galbū konk ečios e minų da ybos eo ijos klausimas y a is
da a i as i siūloma ska in i kuklesnį požiū į į e minų da ybos „ eo iza imą“
isais jos aspek ais.
ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: e minų da yba, neologija, e minologijos eo ija, kalbos plana imas,
e minų mo y acija
1. INTROduCTION
Te minology is a he co e o any language de elopmen . The ques ion
o i s heo e ical unde pinning has been deal wi h wi hin language plan-
ning as well as in e minology. The concep o he “ e m” is co e ed by
any majo ex book and manual o e minology. In hei well-known ex -
book, He ibe Pich and Jenni e D askau (Pich , D askau 1985: 35)
poin ed o he issue o e m o ma ion as one o he impo an sub ields
o e minology ha was s ill in need o s udying. Appa en ly, howe e ,
he s a us o e m o ma ion has no a ac ed he same deg ee o a en-
ion om heo y-minded e minologis s du ing he las decades as concep
heo y and o he majo sub ields o e minology.
When mode n e minology s a ed o lou ish in he 1970s and 80s a
numbe o scien i ic inspi a ions, heo ies and me hodologies we e b ough
in o co-exis ence o o m a new mul idisciplina y ield o esea ch whose
main pu pose was o enhance specialis communica ion ac oss linguis ic
ba ie s. The e is no doub ha he heo e ical p inciples es ablished by
Eugen Wüs e ha e been uni e sally ecognised as he basic ene s o
e minology, encompassing concep heo y, de ini ions and e m o ma-
ion, a he same ime as d awing a clea line o dema ca ion be ween
e minology and lexicog aphy. This mul i-disciplina y ield is o en e e ed
o as he “Gene al Theo y o Te minology” o simply GTT.
In hei wellknown a icle om 1993 Ch is e Lau én and H. Pich
(Lau én, Pich 1993) poin ed o he coexis ence o di e en “schools”
wi hin e minology. In he impo an Canadian (Quebec) app oach he
concep o e minological neology was in oduced by Guy Rondeau
(“néonymie”, c . Rondeau 1984). The analysis p o ided by Ch. Lau én
and H. Pich (Lau én, Pich 1993: 527) concluded ha al hough he p in-
ciples o he GTT we e accep ed, he e minology in Quebec placed a
la ge emphasis on linguis ics.
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?8
This endency can be gene alised: The e ha e been, acco ding o John
Humbley, wo main app oaches o e minology de elopmen and s udies:
On peu di ise les app oches héo iques en deux g andes endances: une p e-
miè e qui place la é lexion e minologique dans l’ín e discliplina i é, e une
seconde qui éclame un anc age exclusi dans la linguis ique [One can g oup
he heo e ical app oaches in wo b oad endencies: one ha si ua es he e mi-
nological e lexion in in e disciplina i y, and a second demanding an exclusi e
ancho ing in linguis ics] (Humbley 2018a: 46 .)
F om he 1990s he Wüs e ian ene s ha e been challenged, modi ied
o e en eplaced by a numbe o al e na i e app oaches. S uc u alis
concep heo y has been eplaced by cogni i e app oaches and he Wüs-
e ian dema ca ion o ‘ e m’ s ‘concep ’ has been ques ioned. A majo
line o discussion has been e minology’s ela ionship o linguis ics – is i
a linguis ic discipline o no ? – as well as ha o “p esc ip i ism”: i has
been a gued ha he main pu pose o e minology should be empi ical,
no no ma i e, and ha he p esc ip i e ‘bias’ should be o e come.
The wo main app oaches ou lined abo e ag ee ha e ms a e he main
ype o concep ep esen a ion. Te ms a e linguis ic en i ies, and, con-
sequen ly, any app oach o he sub ield o e m o ma ion mus deal
wi h linguis ic aspec s in one way o ano he . Te minology is, conse-
quen ly, linguis ic in na u e i espec i e o i s main inspi a ion. This
ac leads u he o he ques ion o whe he he sub ield o e m o ma-
ion has expe ienced he same so o heo e ical challenge and whe h-
e a clea s a e o he a o e m o ma ion can be iden i ied a e he
las wo decades o heo e ical discussion. This is he poin o depa u e
o his a icle.
2. THe PRObLem OF STATe OF THe ART
The ques ion o s a e o he a has mos ecen ly been discussed by
John Humbley in a majo monog aphy and a sho e a icle (Humbley
2018a, Humbley 2018b). A e e iewing a as ange o s udies as well
as e m o ma ion models, he asks:
<…> he numbe o e ms c ea ed ises exponen ially each yea , c ea ing a
p ac ical p oblem o inco po a ing hese new o ms in e minological epe -
oi es, e m banks in pa icula . The p oblem can also be placed on he heo e ical
le el: how can all hese new e ms be accoun ed o ? (Humbley 2018b: 437 .,
emph. Jm)
9Te minologija | 2020 | 27
And he con inues:
The e a e <…> a numbe o e y basic ques ions conce ning specialised neol-
ogy <…> which a e inhe en o any e lec ion on he na u e o e minology:
a e new e ms o med consciously o no , o a he which ca ego ies o e ms
a e o med consciously and which a e no ; a e he me hods o e m o ma ion
ans e able om one subjec ield o ano he , o om one language o ano h-
e , a e e ms o med any di e en ly om o dina y lexical i ems. i.e. is a spe-
ci ic heo y o e m o ma ion needed wi h i s own pa icula c i e ia, a he han
one o simply wo d o ma ion? (Humbley 2018b: 437 ., emph. Jm)
I is pe haps a i ial and undispu ed ac ha e m o ma ion di e s
ac oss domains, languages and adi ions and ha e ms a e c ea ed bo h
consciously and spon aneously. P ecise desc ip ions o pa e ns and di -
e ences ac oss domains mus be desc ibed and explained by linguis ic as
well as by con ex ual ac o s.
Fu he , we migh ask o which ex en heo e ical cla i ica ions on he
issue o e m o ma ion is eally a necessa y condi ion o he sound
pe o mance o e minology wo k. The majo i y o elabo a ed languages
ha e ecei ed ex ensi e desc ip ions o hei mo phology and lexical in-
en o y as well as mo e o less o icial guidelines o wha may coun as
‘good’ o ‘well- o med’ new wo ds. Some so o applied p ac ice is always
possible wi hou oo much heo ising, and his is one explana ion gi en
by J. Humbley (Humbley 2018b: 437) o he lack o heo e ical wo k on
e m o ma ion. To his i could be eplied ha any ield o applied p ac-
ice needs a p incipled discussion o i s ene s and me hods, and hence,
should be subjec o heo e ical e lec ion.
The abo e ci ed s a emen s om J. Humbley’s smalle a icle (Humbley
2018b) mus be comple ed by also e e ing o his majo su ey o e -
minological neology (Humbley 2018a) which p o ides a as empi ical
e idence om F ench as well as o he languages and e alua ing he
achie emen s o a a ie y o heo e ical app oaches wi hin e minology.
The p esen a icle is la gely indeb ed o his wo k.
3. DeFInInG ‘TeRm FORmATIOn’
The concep o “ e m o ma ion” dese es some commen s because i
con eys sligh ly di e en meanings:
– TF1: Te m o ma ion may be de ined as he p ocess o p oducing
new LSP lexemes (o a he : designa ions) by lexicological mecha-
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?1 0
nisms; his de ini ion co esponds o he concep o “neology” as i
is no mally unde s ood;
– TF2: Te m o ma ion may also be concei ed o as a sub ield o e -
minology, p eoccupied wi h bo h he c ea i e aspec ( e m o ma-
ion in he s ic sense) and he no ma i e and unc ional aspec s
ha ensu es he e iciency o specialised communica ion (c . Lau-
én, myking, Pich 1998: 212).
e iden ly, he “linguis ic” app oaches as ou lined abo e a e closely linked
o TF1 whe eas TF2 ob iously en ails a mul idisciplina y app oach. By
allowing o wo di e en de ini ions we inc ease he di icul y o inding
cohe en c i e ia o analysis. The concep o ‘ e m o ma ion’ in he sense
o TF2 is no longe iden ical o ha o “neology”, whe eas TF1 is p e-
cisely a de ini ion o neology in he sense o lexical g ow h wi hin special
domains. The ad an age o dealing wi h wo de ini ions lies, howe e , in
he possibili y o a comp ehensi e and meaning ul discou se abou e m
o ma ion in i s en i e y, including desc ip i e as well as no ma i e aspec s,
p ima y as well as seconda y e m o ma ion, delibe a e e m c ea ion, e c.
4. THe enTITy OF TeRm In TeRmInOLOGy
S LexICOGRAPHy
One pa icula p oblem caused by he de ini ion o TF1 abo e is he
s a us o he bina y app oach o he linguis ic sign as we ind in he w i -
ings o Fe dinand de Saussu e as well as in he Wüs e ian app oach. The
concep o “ e m” is deal wi h sligh ly di e en ly in lexicog aphy / lex-
icology and in he Wüs e ian app oach o e minology: in lexicog aphy
he associa ion o exp ession and con en is seen as a bi a y, ye solida y,
and lexicog aphy deals, consequen ly, wi h lexemes. B oadly exp essed,
lexicog aphy is semasiological whe eas e minology is onomasiological.
The aim o lexicog aphy is he desc ip ion o language and, consequen -
ly, any analysis depa s om he exp ession le el, he “wo ds” as hey
appea in spoken o w i en language.
Te minology, on he o he hand, is conce ned wi h he ela ionship
be ween he h ee main elemen s objec , concep and ep esen a ion, as
exp essed by ISO 704:
This In e na ional S anda d <…> desc ibes he links be ween objec s, concep s,
and hei e minological ep esen a ions. (ISO 704 2002: i emph. Jm)

1 1Te minologija | 2020 | 27
The objec s a e ca ego ised in o classes co esponding o uni s o knowl-
edge called concep s, o which linguis ic ep esen a ions a e assigned. The
app oach o he Saussu ean a bi a iness o he linguis ic sign is in he
ypical Wüs e ian app oach mo e adical han in lexicog aphy, because
e ms and concep s a e assumed o ha e some so o exis ence indepen-
den o each o he , c . e.g.:
Die Wiene Schule i ü eine kla e T ennung zwischen beg i und benen-
nung ein; sie sp ich om “Reich de beg i e” und dem “Reich de benen-
nungen”. [The ienna school ad oca es a clea di ision be ween concep and
e m; i speaks o “ he ealm o concep s” and he “ ealm o e ms”.] (Lau én,
Pich 1993: 530).
This posi ion has been much discussed wi hin he anks o e minology;
i is no wi hou nuances and has been s ongly e u ed by ecen cogni i -
is and sociolinguis ic app oaches (c . sec ion 6, below). Fo he pu pose
o his discussion he de ini ion o TF1 has been made su icien ly “lexi-
cog aphical” o include lexicog aphy as well as di e en app oaches o
e minology. The elemen o “ e m” may be seen as a simple label wi hin
a bina y sign, o as a lexeme ans e ed om gene al language o se e
as he designa ion o a scien i ic concep . In bo h cases he concep ep-
esen a ions a e linguis ic elemen s o med by he epe oi e o mechanisms
p o ided by he na u al language. Hence: We speak o e m o ma ion
whe he he ou come be lexemes o me e linguis ic labels.
Fu he mo e, e ms (designa ions) a e iewed in e minology as he e -
bal ep esen a ions o scien i ic concep s in con as o o he ypes o desig-
na ions such as p ope names o symbols; hey a e made o wo ds, and e m
o ma ions can be di ided in wo, acco ding o he numbe o lexical oo s:
A e m is a designa ion consis ing o one o mo e wo ds ep esen ing a gene al
concep in a special language in a speci ic subjec ield. A simple e m con ains
only one oo , while a e m con aining wo o mo e oo s is called a complex
e m (ISO 704 2002: 34)
The no ion o complexi y also c ea es se e al p oblems:
• Single oo me apho s: a e hey eally “simple”? The ela ionship
be ween li e al and ans e ed sense may be analysed as some so
o complexi y;
• Complex e ms, especially compounds s ph ases: a e such di e-
ences a bi a y o ypology-dependen , whe e do we d aw he line
o dema ca ion be ween wo ds s ph aseology?
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?1 2
Such p oblems a e o be deal wi h no leas in co pus-based e minol-
ogy, bu also as pa o a cohe en heo y o e m o ma ion. due o hei
linguis ic na u e, e ms also d aw he a en ion om lexicog aphy, lexicol-
ogy and wo d- o ma ion heo y in addi ion o e minology. In e minol-
ogy as well as in lexicog aphy he en i ies in ques ion a e said o belong
o a special subjec ield (domain), and bo h disciplines ake an in e es
in he p ocedu es by which he uni s / ep esen a ions a e o med. I -
espec i e o majo app oach, he s udy o e ms cons i u es a sha ed
a ea o in e es be ween e minology and lexicology.
To sum up his discussion, i may be poin ed ou ha co pus-based
e minology has o a long ime conside ed he ela ionship o e ms s
wo ds as a ma e o g adience, exp essed by ca ego ies such as “ e mness”
o “ e mhood”, bu we ha e o lea e ou his discussion he e.
5. APPROACHeS TO TeRm FORmATIOn
The numbe o comp ehensi e wo ks on e m o ma ion in he majo
Eu opean languages is conside able. desc ibing he in en o y and p in-
ciples o e m o ma ion was impo an o E. Wüs e in his majo wo ks
(Wüs e 1966, 1985). D ozd & Seibicke (1973) desc ibed p inciples o
e m o ma ion wi h an emphasis on Ge man. Thei wo k comp ised he-
o y as well as no ma i e aspec s, also emphasising heo e ical aspec s. The
e m o ma ion o english was desc ibed in Sage & al. (1980) and la e
by Sage (1990). The i s heo e ical model o e minological neology was
in oduced by G. Rondeau (Rondeau 1984) and la e , Ros isla Kocou ek
p o ided a majo con ibu ion in his desc ip ion o F ench special language
(Kocou ek 1991). As ega ds he heo e ical ounda ions, b oadly speaking,
D ozd & Seibicke as well as R. Kocou ek wo ked wi hin he P ague
s uc u alis app oach, dealing wi h majo heo e ical opics such as mo i-
a ion. In he wo ks o Sage he e is a p agma ic inspi a ion and also an
in oduc ion o impo an heo e ical dicho omies such as p ima y s sec-
onda y e m o ma ion. The mos ecen among he comp ehensi e wo ks
on e m o ma ion is. Humbley’s wo k on F ench e minological neology
(Humbley 2018a). This wo k is ema kable in i s analy ical su ey o esul s
as well as heo e ical discussions wi hin e minology du ing he las decades.
By aking in o accoun new domains o e minology as well as indings
om Non-Eu opean languages his book mus be conside ed he mos
upda ed wo k on e m o ma ion, and i has p o ided he poin o depa -
u e o much o he discussion ha ollows.
1 3Te minologija | 2020 | 27
based on he men ioned wo ks, wi hin he b oad ield o LSP as i migh
be desc ibed un il he u n o he millennium, se e al models and ypes
o models o e m o ma ion we e p oposed, based on a ious adi ions
o linguis ics. B oadly speaking i is possible o ou line he ollowing
ypology o e m o ma ion models:
a) models o neology: p ima y s seconda y e m o ma ion (Rondeau
1984, Sage 1990);
b) Inc emen al models: e ms a e made by (s uc u al) lexical o ma ion
applied o special pu poses (classical wo ks such as D ozd & Seibicke
1973, Sage 1990, Kocou ek 1991; Kageu a 2002, c . Humbley 2018a,
Humbley 2018b);
c) mo i a ionbased in eg a i e models (Kocou ek 1991; inc emen al +
bo owing + seman ic + nonmo i a ion);
d) Func ionalis (discou sebased) models: e ms a e made in discou se
by g amma ical me apho (Halliday’s sys emic unc ional linguis ics,
c . Humbley 2018a, Humbley 2018b);
e) Cogni i e models, i.e. me apho : e m o ma ion is no jus naming,
bu an ac o unde s anding (Temme man 2000).
Acco ding o he wo majo app oaches o e minology he g oups a–c
a e well known wi hin he mul idisciplina y app oach (GTT, Wüs e ),
whe eas d and e a e clea ly associa ed o mode n linguis ic heo ies – he
sys emic unc ional o Halliday adi ion has only ecen ly been in oduced
o e minology by he ci ed wo ks o J. Humbley (Humbley 2018a, Hum-
bley 2018b). G ouping K. Kageu a (Kageu a 2002) oge he wi h “classi-
cal” wo ks equi es a b oad concep ion o he ca ego y o “inc emen al”,
as will be explained below.
The i e ca ego ies ep esen b oad endencies al hough he bo de s a e
no always clea cu . The G. Rondeau inspi a ion o inco po a ing bo ow-
ing and seman ic ans e seems o ha e been gene ally accep ed, al hough
mos o en exp essed by J. C. Sage ’s dicho omy (in english) o “p ima y”
s “seconda y” e m o ma ion. The la e akes place when a e m o a
gi en concep is eplaced ei he by e ision wi hin he same language o
by ans e o ano he language, whe eas p ima y e m o ma ion akes
place when a gi en concep is named o he i s ime (o iginally Sage
1990; e e ed by Humbley, e.g. 2018 a: 91 ., Humbley 2018b: 442 .).
Inc emen al aspec s a e in eg a ed in any analysis o e m o ma ion,
e en in seman ic p ocedu es and ans e by bo owing. Analysing he
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?1 4
mo pho-seman ic s uc u e o e ms is essen ial o explo ing he e m-
o ming po en ial o a gi en language. In his way, desc ip ion helps o
p o ide an answe o he ques ion o “how” e m o ma ion ope a es,
al hough mo e is equi ed o answe he neglec ed ques ion o “why pa -
icula o ms a e chosen a he han o he s. The ques ion “how” ecei es
an answe , bu no he ques ion “why” Humbley 2018b: 442).
Howe e , inc emen al p ope ies do no always cons i u e he main ai-
son d’ê e o a gi en e m. To a i e a an answe o he ques ion o “why”
a gi en p ocedu e has been applied, i is ui ul o conside he di e en
mo i a ions unde lying a e m: which mo i a ion comes i s , which is
subo dina ed, e c. A me apho as well as a bo owed e m may ha e a
mo phological s uc u e, al hough his s uc u e may no be he salien
ea u e o he e m. Such insigh s a e pa and pa cel o he classical s ud-
ies o e m o ma ion (D ozd & Seibicke, Kocou ek), bu hey need o
be kep in mind no leas wi hin no ma i e ac i i ies o seconda y e m
o ma ion, as well as when wo king wi hin he new app oaches.
As al eady a gued, he dis inc ion o p ima y and seconda y e m o -
ma ion seems o ha e gained gene al accep ance as he ele an model o
accoun ing o new e ms (c . also ISO 704 2002: “neo e ms”) on he
highes le el o gene alisa ion, bu he e is no ag eemen in e minology
o wha should be emphasised as a ounda ion o building heo y – p i-
ma y o seconda y e m o ma ion o bo h. The p io i y is pa ly de-
cided by he esea che ’s own heo e ical posi ion.
I is u he an impo an ques ion o which ex en and in wha espec
he dis inc ion o p ima y s seconda y is dependen on and con e ges
wi h he dicho omy o desc ip i e s p esc ip i e. Tha seconda y e m
o ma ion akes place in s anda dising commi ees (wi hin o ac oss lan-
guages) and in e minological language planning ac i i ies is a i ial ac ,
hence he conclusion is made ha seconda y e m o ma ion o a g ea
ex en is delibe a e and conscious and connec s o p esc ip i e ac i i ies.
The ques ion o conscious e m c ea ion wi hin p ima y e m o ma ion
is sligh ly mo e complex and will no be discussed in de ail (c . Humbley
2018a: 96 . o discussion).
The e a e a lo o se s o p esc ip i e and qui e o en con adic ing
p inciples o delibe a e e m c ea ion wi hin language planning, s an-
da disa ion and e minology (mainly, bu no es ic ed o, seconda y).
de ailed discussions o hese se s mus be le aside he e. The basic ques-
ions o be answe ed in e m c ea ion may in ac be educed o h ee:
2 1Te minologija | 2020 | 27
as a means o con eying concep ual con en by means o manipula ing
elemen s o exp ession. These wo dimensions a e no incompa ible (c .
Lau én, myking, Pich , Sigu ðu 2008: 186 .). by emphasising mo i a ion
he e is a la ge deg ee o con inui y wi h p e ious wo k, c . e.g. R. Ko-
cou ek’s ypology o mo i a ions, abo e.
In sho : I does no seem p oduc i e o exclude ques ions o p esc ip-
ion and s anda disa ion om he heo e ical s udy o e m o ma ion i
he aim o his s udy is o p o ide an answe o he ques ion o “why”
(Humbley 2018b, abo e). Fo ms o e ms do no choose hemsel es, and
e m choices a e o a la ge ex en connec ed o use s ( e m c ea o s and
ecei e s) wo king wi hin p esc ip i e se ings. The same applies o mo-
i a ion, which is no only a e min e nal (signin e nal) p ope y: Fo ms
o mo i a ion mus also be assessed wi h espec o use s and needs.
7. THe “nO FIxeD bOunDARIeS” APPROACH
The heo e ical ques ions discussed abo e aised some in e es in he
yea s ollowing 2000, amongs o he s a he IITF colloquium in 2001,
“Te minology a he c oss oads” (TSR 2002) and in a book w i en by
Ch. Lau én, H. Pich , Johan myking and Jónsson (Lau én, myking, Pich ,
Jónsson 2008), in oducing he “no Fixed bounda ies” app oach. Two o
he heses om he la e publica ion ead as ollows (Lau én, myking,
Pich , Jónsson 2008: 45 ., 68 .):
- The e a e no ixed bounda ies be ween specialised communica ion
and o he o ms o communica ion.
- The e a e, consequen ly, no ixed bounda ies be ween e ms and
ocabula y and ph aseology in gene al.
And, u he , pleading ha language managemen is a legi ima e ac i i y:
- Bo h language usage and language sys em a e subjec o manage-
men (op. ci ., 140 .)
To hese heses we migh add a ou h:
- The e a e no ixed bounda ies be ween desc ip i e and p esc ip i e
implica ions o one and he same p inciple.
P esc ip i e measu es mi o o some ex en empi ical ac s, and s.
The p inciple o mo i a ion is one s iking example: used as a basic p in-
ciple o e m o ma ion, c . R. Kocou ek 1991 (abo e), i is in ended as
a desc ip i e and explana o y p inciple. I does no map, howe e , he

Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?2 2
p esc ip i e p inciple o mo i a ion in he sense o “ anspa ency”, in
Ge man: “Du chsich igkei ”. I is p obably co ec ha mo phoseman ic
mo i a ion is he mos equen and mos salien way o o ming anspa -
en e ms, bu e ms mo i a ed o he wise also dese e o be assigned
impo ance wi hin e minology, c . he example qua k, abo e.
One s iking example o his “mi o ing” is he “analogue p inciple” in
seconda y e m o ma ion, as o mula ed by K. aleon is and e. man za i:
Acco ding o he analogue ule, “when o ming a e m in a a ge language in
o de o name a new concep ha has been p ima ily named in he sou ce
language, he name ’s i s choice should be o apply a e m- o ma ion
mechanism analogous o he e m- o ma ion mechanism used o he sou ce
language e m”. ( aleon is, man za i 2006)
In e es ingly, ISO 704 also indica es a “coun e analogy” p inciple:
E en hough bo owing om o he languages is an accep ed o m o e m o -
ma ion, na i e-language exp essions should be gi en p e e ence o e di ec
loans. (ISO 704 2002: 41)
Con lic ing p esc ip i e goals a e no news in language managemen .
mo e impo an is, howe e , he ac ha he analogue p inciple has a
desc ip i e coun e pa in he spon aneous o ma ion o loan ansla ions
o o he ypes o analogously mo i a ed e ms.
The o ma ion, dominance o ailu e o e ms can p obably o a la ge
ex en be explained by cogni i e mechanisms, also in hose cases whe e
nei he a me apho no a complex e m p e ails. Accoun ing o such
mechanisms is su ely a legi ima e ask o e m o ma ion in he TF2
concep ion o e m o ma ion.
One pa icula ins ance o seconda y e m o ma ion could illus a e
his poin . The e is a lo o ex book and anecdo al e idence ha second-
a y e m o ma ion in languages such as Ge man, Scandina ian o Ice-
landic esul s in mo phologically anspa en and, as such, “no malized”
and non-analogous a ge e ms. In he No wegian case o oil e minol-
ogy such p inciples ha e been elabo a ed. much o he discussion on
language quali y and “good” e m o ma ion cen ed a ound some ew
double s and iple s o wo ds (Ande sen, myking 2018: 542):
kelly d i ø “d i e + pipe” kelly
a hole d i ø shylse “d i e + pipe + case” o ehull
mousehole ø koplingshylse “pipe + coupling + case” musehull
2 3Te minologija | 2020 | 27
The igh column illus a es a minimal No wegian adap a ion o mally
o seman ically (mixed mo i a ions) i.e. sub ypes o in e linguis ic mo i-
a ion, whe eas he mid column con ains “o icial” e ms, i.e. e ms ha
a e in ha mony wi h he quali y c i e ia based on mo phological anspa -
ency in he o m o compounds. Fu he e idence can be ound in o he
languages, such as he Icelandic equi alen s o danish biog a “cinema”:
biog a k ikmyndahús (“ as + pic u e + house”)
bíó
Based on hese examples he ollowing p obable ou comes o seconda y
e m o ma ion may be o mula ed, and hey ha e also o some ex en
been alida ed by analysis o la ge co po a (c . myking 2008: 13 .):
– no malisa ion: e ms adap o he equen and unma ked gene al
pa e ns o he a ge language;
– Deme apho isa ion (as a consequence o no malisa ion): a leas
wi h English as he sou ce language and language o p ima y e m
o ma ion s some so o syn he ic a ge language and language
o seconda y e m o ma ion.
Ta ge e ms hen g oup in o wo clus e s, he ea u es o which a e:
Clus e 1: me apho ical, analogous, desc ip i e (kelly, musehull, o ehull; bíó)
Clus e 2: mo phological, na i e, p esc ip i e (d i ø , -shylse, ø koplingshylse;
k ikmyndahús)
I he a ge e minology is in ac eally cha ac e ised by a highe de-
g ee o mo phological mo i a ion ollowed by excessi e leng h – a popu-
la ye s ill no ully co obo a ed hypo hesis – his migh be explained
by a cogni i e unbalance due o an asymme ical communica ion si ua ion.
Then we could es ablish
Symme ical communica ion (sende – ecei e ) > analogy p inciple >
sho /opaque e ms
Asymme ical communica ion (sende – ecei e ) > na i e p inciple >
longish/ anspa en e ms
In his way we a i e a explaining unc ional p ope ies o e ms by
p agma ic ac o s. This ype o insigh was p esen in he wo k o Val e
Tauli (Tauli 1968). Among . Tauli’s p inciples he ollowing wo a e
pa icula ly ele an :
E2 The exp ession mus be he sho es possible;
E3 The mo e equen he exp ession he sho e i mus be.
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?2 4
This is he same ype o insigh ha was exp essed by Zip ’s law in
1935 and is oday well in eg a ed in p agma ic heo y (G ice’s ‘coope a i e
p inciple’ (G ice 1991) as well as in usagebased linguis ics (c . Tomasello
2003, o u he elabo a ion, myking 2008: 248). Al hough . Tauli’s
heo e ical app oach o language planning was soon o go en, i con eys
insigh s suppo ed by mode n heo ies ha should no be neglec ed. Al-
hough he ou come o language managemen can ne e be gua an eed,
language managemen is s ill a legi ima e ac i i y (Lau én, myking, Pich ,
Jónsson 2008: 139 ., 197).
Applied on a ‘comple e domain’ (c . Kageu a 2002), we could hope o
demons a e pa e ns o seconda y e m o ma ion explained by p agma ics,
i.e. he assump ions o backg ound knowledge o he use g oup(s). I mus
be said, howe e , ha when applied on he ‘comple e domain’ o oil e mi-
nology, K. Kageu a’s c i icism owa ds anecdo ical ex book examples seems
easonable. The endencies ou lined abo e ha e been subs an ia ed o some
ex en (c . myking 2008), al hough mo e esea ch is needed.
Admi edly all o hese p inciples, including ISO 704, could o cou se
be ejec ed as pu e common sense o ein e p e a ions o linguis ic pu -
ism. Being a linguis ics-based discipline, e minology also has o deal
wi h elemen s o “ olk linguis ics”, pe haps no ably in (delibe a e) sec-
onda y e m o ma ion, dealing wi h “good” and “bad” p ope ies o
e ms. Such alleged p ope ies o e ms a e o en explained by pu ely
idiosync a ic a i udes.
Ne e heless, al hough hey should no be in e p e ed as an ex ensi e
lis , he elemen s o heo y p esen ed abo e ep esen insigh s abou e -
minological g ow h; hence, hey ep esen heo y abou e m o ma ion
which is ele an o, bu no iden ical o, s anda disa ion and language
planning measu es. These ypes o elemen s dese e a place in he scien-
i ic discou se abou e m o ma ion p ecisely because hey a e ele an
o heo is s as well as o p ac i ione s.
8. TeRmInOLOGy: “LInGuISTICS” OR “ACTI ISm”?
When heo ising e minology, i is impo an o ake in o accoun i s
mul i- ace ed na u e. One ype o heo y, hypo hesis o esea ch ques ion
does no necessa ily con adic o he ypes. Acco ding o he “no ixed
bounda ies” app oach e minology mus be ega ded as linguis ics, al-
2 5Te minologija | 2020 | 27
hough in a “libe al” sense, e minology is a scien i ic ac i i y dealing
wi h language (Lau én, myking, Pich 1998: 353). I J. Humbley (Hum-
bley 2018b: 437) is igh in claiming ha e m o ma ion has been pushed
aside as an issue o heo e ical deba e o lack o p ac ical applica ion
alue, hen he ques ion a ises on how o ( e)include i in o he heo-
e ical de elopmen o e minology.
P ima y s seconda y e m o ma ion c osses he dis inc ion o spon-
aneous s delibe a e e m o ma ion. While some new app oaches insis
ha p ima y e m o ma ion should be gi en p io i y and s udied on a
desc ip i e linguis ic basis, he posi ion exp essed in his a icle is s ill
ha “delibe a e” seconda y e m o ma ion is pa and pa cel o any e -
minological de elopmen wi hin a gi en socie y and he e o e canno be
excluded om a heo y o e m o ma ion, despi e he di icul ies o
de eloping a consis en heo y.
Building heo y and o mula ing hypo heses o he ype ou lined in
sec ion 7 is di ec ly ele an o he e minological p ac i ione because,
amongs o he s, such ac i i ies allow o assessing his o he p ac ical
esul s and may p e en alse conclusions abou indi idual sho comings.
One may, again, ecall V. Tauli, whose p inciples a e a use ul and heo y-
based ame o e e ence o language planning al hough hey do no allow
o s ic p edic ions.
This means pleading o he inclusion o p esc ip i e as well as desc ip-
i e app oaches wi hin he scope o e minology. A heo e ical discou se
o e m o ma ion will ha e o sa is y a wide se o p e equisi es:
– Recognise ha heo ising e m o ma ion mus include p ima y as
well as seconda y e m o ma ion as al eady s a ed; nei he is less
impo an ;
– Be able o accoun o c osslinguis ic pa e ns, di e ences and simi-
la i ies;
– Accoun o p oblems o a ia ion and diach ony;
– Recognise ha cogni i e analyses (e.g. analysis o me apho ical pa -
e ns, c . Temme man 2000) a e easible and also apply o seconda-
y e m o ma ion, and, con e sely, ha
– Te m dynamics based on mo phological complexi y ha e p o en
easible on seconda y e m o ma ion (c . Kageu a 2002) bu may
also be ex ended o p ima y;
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?2 6
– Recognise ha he e a e no ixed bounda ies be ween cogni i e
and p agma ic explana ions o e m- o ma ion pa e ns and, hence,
ha p agma ics is ele an o e minology heo y;
– And hence, ecognise ha he e a e no ixed bounda ies be ween
heo ising e ms as such and heo ising e ms wi hin some so o
no ma i e se ing.
In esponse o J. Humbley’s ques ion ci ed in he in oduc ion o his
pape , “Is a speci ic heo y o e m o ma ion needed wi h i s own pa -
icula c i e ia, a he han one o simply wo d o ma ion?” he e a e
se e al posi i e answe s.
In esponse o TF1, a heo y o e m o ma ion will ha e o accoun
o heo e ical ques ions ha a e no always accoun ed o wi hin heo ies
o “wo d o ma ion” in a s ic sense, such as e.g. ph asal e ms in con as
o compounds. I is, u he , a ma e o de ini ion and delimi a ion whe h-
e loans and me apho be included o no . These a e all phenomena ha
a e easily explained by linguis ic heo y, so in ha espec he ques ion
is i ial. I “wo d o ma ion” is de ined as “ o ma ion o designa ions”
all such phenomena become ele an , as is signalled by he shi o e -
minology om “wo d” o “designa ion”. Te m o ma ion canno be e-
s ic ed o inc emen al and discu si e p ocedu es.
F om he pe spec i e o T2 he answe is also a i ma i e, al hough i
is no e iden ha he ou come will be a cohe en heo y. In his a icle
i has been a gued ha he ques ion o unc ional p ope ies o e ms is
non- i ial and impo an , especially in he amewo k o seconda y e m
o ma ion, which, in i s u n, is he co e o all so s o no ma i e e mi-
nology ac i i ies.
9. COnCLuSIOnS
The i le o his a icle has wo inspi a ions: a longlas ing in e es in
p oblems o e m o ma ion in he con ex o language planning and
e minology heo y, and a speci ic inpu om eading he ecen wo ks
o J. Humbley (Humbley 2018a, Humbley 2018b), as indica ed in he
in oduc ion in sec ion 1, abo e. The main a gumen s ha e been based
on a se o i m belie s:
1) mos e minologis s wi h a linguis ic backg ound app ecia e heo-
e ical e o s and p e e o ha e as solid heo e ical ounda ions o

2 7Te minologija | 2020 | 27
hei pe o mance as possible. Assessing p ac ical wo k by means o
pa e ns, hypo heses o heo ies o how hings come in o being is
use ul and necessa y.
2) no e minology ac i i y can a oid he emphasis on seconda y e m
o ma ion, a leas no ou side o he English-speaking communi ies.
This is simply wha cons i u es he e y aison-d-ê e o p esen -day
wo k. Theo ising abou seconda y e m o ma ion mus , consequen -
ly, be conside ed as a legi ima e ask on equal e ms wi h p ima y
e m o ma ion.
3) On he gene al le el i should be kep in mind ha some so o
common ame o e e ence in ac eally is a condi ion o con-
solida ing a e minological “discou se communi y” ac oss linguis ic,
cul u al, o ganisa ional and scien i ic bo de s. I e minology as a
discipline is in e na ional, a common discou se is necessa y o
ensu e i s cohesion. Ins ead o d awing a line o dema ca ion be-
ween applica ion and scien i ic e minology, he ques ion should
be aised o how o de elop a heo y ha migh be help ul o ap-
plica ion as well as p o iding new insigh s o science. Such a emp s
a in eg a ion ha e in ac been a hallma k o e minology o
decades and should also be aken in o accoun in he sub ield o
e m o ma ion.
In sec ion 6 i was a gued ha he new app oaches o e minology we e
“ esea ch p og ams” a ec ing all aspec s o e minology, also including
ha o e m o ma ion. I seems ai o conclude ha his discussion has
e y li le ac ual ele ance and does no a ac much in e es . The deba e
i sel has no le any deep oo p in s, bu e minology seems o ha e
mo ed in o some so o Kuhnian “no mal science”, as exp essed by a
ecen publica ion:
Whe as he Wüs e ian adi ion had been s ic ly onomasiological, he al e na-
i e app oach was semasiological and hus mo e like adi ional lexicog aphy in
his espec . As e idenced in p oceedings o mos LSP p oceedings a e he
millennium shi , semasiological e minology inc easingly ely on elec onic
co po a, using s a is ics and oken equency. (Simonnæs, Ande sen, Schube
2019: 10)
I i is ue ha his no mal s a e o a ai s comp ises empi ical and
co pus-based s udies and an inc eased semasiological emphasis, i also
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?2 8
seems ai o conclude ha he eme gence o he al e na i e app oaches
discussed in sec ion 6 mus ha e been among he d i ing o ces behind
his change.
In u u e su eys he e is a possibili y ha his “change” may be seen
as an expansion o he scope o e minology ins ead o he eplacemen
o one app oach wi h ano he . The use o co po a does no make (p e-
sc ip i e) e minology de elopmen edundan , bu simply o e s an
expansion o e minology’s oolki . Te minology pe o med as empi ical
linguis ic esea ch helps o inc ease he awa eness o e minology and
does no as such make onomasiological measu es edundan . I is s ill
oo ea ly o assess whe he o no e minology has mo ed owa ds a
s a e o co-exis ing app oaches and me hods ins ead o one domina ing
pa adigm.
Whe e does his lea e he ques ion o e m o ma ion – is he e a s a e
o he a o no ? J. Humbley’s answe o his own ques ion, as ci ed in
sec ion 1, eads: “ he ques ion o a speci ic heo y o e m o ma ion
a he han wo d o ma ion emains open” (Humbley 2018b: 448). Ins ead
o o e ing an allegedly new app oach o e m o ma ion, J. Humbley has
himsel made a majo con ibu ion by assessing all exis ing me hodologies
and models based on empi ical esea ch in o F ench e minological neol-
ogy, so in one espec , J. Humbley’s wo wo ks 2018 a and b in ac
cons i u e he p esen s a e o he a . His solu ion, ha he ques ion is
s ill open, becomes e en mo e e iden i “ e m o ma ion” is unde s ood
as a sub ield TF2 and no es ic ed o neology in he sense o TF1.
The p esen a icle does no con ibu e o a solu ion o his p oblem,
and he conclusions may appea unsa is ac o y. The subjec is oo la ge
o be co e ed by jus one a icle. S ill, i mus be main ained ha heo y
de elopmen helps o p omo e a common discou se communi y, ha
heo y is help ul o p ac i ione s and, consequen ly, ha any answe mus
ake in o accoun ha e minology consis s o wo main aspec s: i is a
ield o esea ch and ye i ne e escapes he unc ion o p ac ice. Con-
ibu ions om di e en angles and app oaches make a use ul mix; no
single heo y gi es all he answe s; no all app oaches a e incompa ible.
Pe haps he modes ambi ion o “ heo ising” ins ead o “ heo y building”
could p o ide a meaning ul common g ound o anybody in e es ed in
e m o ma ion.
2 9Te minologija | 2020 | 27
REFERENCES
Ande sen Øi in, myking Johan 2018: Te minology wo k o speci ic p oblem a eas and issues: he case o oil
e minology, In Humbley John e al., 535–547.
Cab é ma ia Te esa 2003: Theo ies o e minology: Thei desc ip ion, p esc ip ion and explana ion. – Te -
minology 9:2, Ams e dam: benjamins, 163–199.
D ozd L[ubomi ], Seibicke W[il ied] 1973: Deu sche Fach- und Wissenscha ssp ache, Wiesbaden: b ands e e .
Gaudin F ançois 1993: Pou une socio e minologie. Des p oblèmes séman iques aux p a iques ins i u ionelles,
Rouen: uni e si é de Rouen.
G ice H[en y] P[aul] 1991 [= 1974]: Logic and Con e sa ion. – P agma ics. A Reade , ed. S. da is,
Ox o d uni e si y P ess, 305–315.
Humbley John 2018a: La néologie e minologique, Limoges: Lambe Lucas.
Humbley John 2018b: Te m o ma ion and neology, In Humbley John e al., 437–452.
Humbley John, Ge ha d budin, Lau én Ch is e 2018: Languages o Special Pu poses. An In e na ional
Handbook, be lin, bos on: de G uy e mou on.
ISO 704 2002: P inciples and me hods o e minology, 3 d edi ion, Swi ze land: ISO.
Kageu a Kyo 2002: The Dynamics o Te minology. A desc ip i e heo y o e m o ma ion and e minological
g ow h, Ams e dam, Philadelphia: benjamins.
Kocou ek Ros isla 1991: La langue ançaise de la science e de la echnique, 2. éd., Wiesbaden: b ands e e .
K is iansen ma i a, Gjesdal Anje mülle 2018: Lexical Dynamism and Language Planning. The Case o he
Clima e Change Subjec Field in No wegian. – TOTh 2017 – Te minology & On ology: Theo ies and ap-
plica ions, Édi ions de l’uni e si é Sa oie mon blanc, 235–246.
Lau én Ch is e , Pich He ibe 1993: e gleich de e minologischen Schulen. – Lau én Ch is e , Pich
He ibe (Hg). Ausgewähl e Tex e zu Te minologie, Wien: Te mne , 493–539.
Lau én Ch is e , myking Johan, Pich He ibe 1998: Te minologie un e de Lupe, Wien: Te mne .
Lau én Ch is e , myking Johan, Pich He ibe wi h Sigu ðu Jónsson 2008: Insik e om insik . No diska es-
e om e minologi och ackkommunika ion, Insigh s abou insigh . No dic Theses abou Te minology and
Special Communica ion, Oslo: no us.
myking Johan 2008: mo i asjon som e mdanningsp insipp. ein eo e isk diskusjon base på no sk olje e -
minologi. – Mo i a ion as a p inciple o e m- o ma ion. A heo e ical discussion based on No wegian oil e -
minology: ph.d. diss., aasa: uni e si y o aasa. (= Ac a Wasaensia 191).
myking Johan 2009: ye ano he axonomy o mo i a ions. – Te minology Science and Resea ch. Jou nal o
he IITF 20, 39–53. A ailable a : h p://www.ii . i/cms/componen / emosi o y/?I emid=108. Accessed
July 2017, inaccessible June 2019. C . Ande sen & myking 2018: 547.
Pich He ibe , D askau Jenni e 1985: Te minology. An in oduc ion, Guild o d: uni e si y o Su ey.
Rondeau Guy 1984: In oduc ion à la e minologie, Quebec.
Sage Juan C., Dungwo h Da id, mcDonald Pe e F. 1980: English Special Languages: P inciples and P ac-
ice in Science and Technology, Ams e dam, Philadelphia: benjamins.
Sage Juan C. 1990: A P ac ical Cou se in Te minology P ocessing, Ams e dam, Philadelphia: benjamins.
Simonnæs Ing id, Ande sen Øi in, Schube Klaus (eds.) 2019: New Challenges o Resea ch on Language
o Special Pu poses. Selec ed p oceedings om he 21s LSP-Con e ence, 28–30 June, be gen, no way,
be lin: F ank & Timme. (= FFF se ies 154).
Tauli al e 1968: In oduc ion o a heo y o language planning, uppsala: Almquis & Wicksells.
Temme man Ru h 2000: Towa ds New Ways o Te minology Desc ip ion. The sociocogni i e app oach, Ams e -
dam: benjamins.
Tomasello michael 2003: Cons uc ing a Language. A Usage-Based Theo y o Language Acquis ion, Cam-
b idge, mass: Ha a d uni e si y P ess.
TSR 2002: Te minology Science and Resea ch. Jou nal o he IITF 12:1–2, Wien: Te mne .
aleon is Kos as, man za i elena 2006: The linguis ic dimension o e minology: p inciples and me hods o e m
o ma ion: 1s A hens In e na ional Con e ence on T ansla ion and In e p e a ion T ansla ion: be ween
A and Social Science, 13–14 Oc obe 2006. A ailable a : h p://www.ele o.g /download/booksAnd
A icles/HAuCon e ence2006 aleon isman za ien.pd [accessed 20190729].
Wüs e eugen 1966: In e na ionale Sp achno mung in de Technik, besonde s in de Elek o echnik. Zwei e
e gänz e Au lage, bonn: bou ie u. Co. e lag.
Wüs e eugen 1985: Ein üh ung in die Allgemeine Te minologieleh e und Te minologische Lexikog aphie 2, Co-
penhagen: Copenhagen School o economics.
Johan Myking | Te m Fo ma ion – Is The e a S a e o he A ?3 0
TERMINų DARYBA: AR šIOjE SRITYjE jAU PASIEKTA PAŽANGA?
San auka
S aipsnyje klausiama, a pe pas a uosius me us e minų da ybos s i yje į yko okie
pa ys eo iniai pokyčiai, kaip i ki ose e minologijos mokslo s i yse, i a galima nu-
s a y i aiškią pažangą e minų da yboje. S aipsnio išei ies aškas y a du s a būs klausi-
mai, ku iuos užda ė John Humbley (Humbley 2018a, b): „P oblemą galima iškel i i
eo iniame lygmenyje: kaip bū ų galima paaiškin i isus šiuos naujus e minus?“. Jis
oliau klausia: „A eikia konk ečios e minų da ybos eo ijos su konk ečiais k i e ijais
a už ek ų i ienos, ku i bū ų iesiog žodžių da ybos eo ija?“
S aipsnyje apib ėžiamos d i „ e minų da ybos“ koncepcijos: pi ma, naujų pa a
dinimų (angl. designa ions) kū imo p ocesas naudojan leksikologinius mechanizmus
(TF1); an a, e minologijos mokslo s i is, dėmesį k eipian i į kū ybinį aspek ą i į
no minius i unkcinius e minų aspek us (TF2). Ap a iami esami e minų da ybos
modeliai (TF1), ypa ingą dėmesį k eipian į R. Kocou ek’o (1991) mo y acinę ipolo-
giją i ski ingas mo y acijos są okos implikacijas.
Apib ėžiamos i ap a iamos kai ku ios pas a ojo me o eo inės p ieigos, susijusios
su e minų da yba. K. Kageu a (2002) i R. Temme man (2000) nusipelno ypa ingo
dėmesio i y a laikomi s a biomis „ y imo p og amomis“, pab ėžiančiomis pi minės
e minų da ybos y imų s a bą i pasisakančiomis už e minologiją kaip desk ip y inę,
empi inę i ling is inę discipliną. S aipsnyje paneigiamas šiuose da buose iš eikš as
požiū is, kad p esk ip y inių aspek ų eo iniuose s a s ymuose apie e minologiją ne-
u ė ų lik i.
Požiū is „Jokių g iež ų ibų“ (Lau én e al. 2008) pab ėžia, kad a p e minų i
bend inių žodžių nė a jokių aiškių ibų, aigi nė a i g iež ų ibų a p desk ip y inių
i p esk ip y inių eo inių p incipų aspek ų. An inės e minų da ybos y imas kaip
s a bi e minologijos dalis u i bū i ęsiamas. Funkciniai e minų aspek ai (TF2) y a
įdomūs p ak ikams i odėl y a s a būs eo ijai.
Gau a 20200625
Johan myking
uni e si y o Be gen
uni e si y o be gen, P.O. box 7805, 5020 be gen, no way
[email protected]