This paper examines the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms to evaluate its effectiveness as a resource for identifying and analysing neonyms. Neonyms, or terminological neologisms, are distinguished from general neologisms by their systematic and deliberate creation for specific terminological needs. The research reveals that a significant portion of neonyms is derived from indigenous Lithuanian elements. The analysis also identifies prevalent word-formation patterns, while noting the emergence of hybrid neonyms and blends. Despite certain limitations in the Database's search functionalities, it remains a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners in the field of Lithuanian neonomy and terminology overall.
The terminology of the Lithuanian language dates back to the 16th century. Since then, numerous
dictionaries have been published, and legal terminology has been the focus of significant scholarly
attention. Today, terminology is considered a major branch of linguistics and an area of practical
activity. Like other interdisciplinary sciences, it poses several challenges. The integration of digital
technologies for the collection and identification of terms, as well as for the development of
terminographic resources and the learning of specialized terminology have become common
practices. There is an ongoing search for more user-friendly and efficient digital tools for the
recognition, extraction, management and analysis of terms, such as terminological databases,
specialized text corpora, ontologies, etc. [
The development of the scientific language is invariably accompanied by the need to create clear,
precise and linguistically correct new terms. This is usually due to extra-linguistic conditions, such
as technological and social changes. “The most representative linguistic units of this change are
lexical units, as advances of all kinds, especially scientific and technological innovations are
expressed through terms” [
The aim of this research is twofold: firstly, to ascertain whether the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms (hereinafter, the Database) is a suitable source for the search and analysis of neonyms, and secondly, to determine the linguistic features of the creation of the new terms found in this Database.
Despite the existence of numerous studies that have used the Database as a foundation [
2.1.
Neology, understood as the study and application of new words and terms, is a field that is becoming increasingly diverse. This diversification is characterised by the proliferation of its various aspects and studies in different languages, as well as the emergence of a growing number of names for neology concepts. Since the late 20th century, the term “neonymy”, later „neonym“, has been proposed as a designation for new terms. While the novelty of neonyms is accentuated (“Neonyms are understood as terms in the neologistic phase of the lexical life cycle” [9]), their designation as real neologisms among all lexical innovations is arguably the most suitable for them, as they are the most probable candidates to become fixed in language. In the ISO standard [10], the new term is also referred to as “neonym”, “neoterm” and “terminological neologism”. In this article, these terms are used interchangeably. These terms are distinguished from “neologisms” by their deliberate nature, the need for specialists in a particular field to name a newly emerging concept, and the observance of systematicity, stability, correctness, and other characteristics [11], [12], [13].
The term “neonymy” is particularly apt for the analysis of names of the new concepts, as it is in these databases of new words and dictionaries that neonyms are documented in the first instance and have not yet been lexicalized elsewhere. For this reason, it is more accurate to speak of neonyms as terminological candidates rather than new terms. It should be noted that the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms has been maintained for more than 10 years, and it is possible to guess, or to ascertain by checking various terminographic resources that some neonyms should be, and are, already included in the specialised dictionaries or the Lithuanian Term Bank (e.g., jutiklis, nanoplastikas, spausdintuvas, spinduliuotė – Eng. sensor, nanoplastics, printer, radiation, etc.), and can, therefore, be referred to as actual newly coined terms rather than potential terms. 2.2.
The search engine in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms produced an initial list of 430 new words by mid-January 2025 based on the criteria “scientific text”, “administrative text” and “noun”. Following a review of the list, 26 words with the additional tag “not new but unfixed” were immediately filtered out. However, given that not all features in the database are automatically 5 https://ekalba.lt/naujazodziai/apie/ND%20%C4%AEvadas%20EN searchable, it was necessary to manually refine the list through the following steps: 1) merging grammatical or spelling variations that were presented in separate database items, e.g., tinklalapis (Eng. webpage) and tinklapis counted as one term; 2) excluding 35 neosems, i.e., words with new meaning; 3) eliminating neologisms, which are figurative names for festivals found in administrative texts, but are certainly not neonyms (e.g., šokoladienis, pižamadienis – Eng, Chocolate Day, Pyjama Day, etc.); 4) eliminating non-normative terms (new loanwords are not required in terms of terminology because they already have existing Lithuanian equivalents).
The Database, where permitted by standard language norms and usage trends, provides normative evaluations of neologisms along with recommendations on the use of new loanwords. Nine incorrect terms (e.g., apletas, longseleris, pičas, spaikbolas – Eng. applet, longsaler, pitch, spaykball) have been excluded, even though they have already been used in scientific and administrative sources.
In the context of evaluating the suitability of a general database for term analysis, the consideration of term usage emerges as a pivotal element. The Database possesses the capability to undertake automated searches for neonyms, with the parameters including usage, source type (news, blogs, social media, book, etc.), and source.
A notable feature of the database is its ability to provide illustrative examples of usage. These examples are invaluable in comprehending the new terminological item, even when a definition is provided. For example, the neonyms for music are beltingas, honkitonkas, konsortas, kumbia (Eng. belting, honky tonk, concort, Span. kumbia); for transport, aštuonsraigtis, evakuatorius, survejeris (Eng. octocopter, evacuator, surveyor); for medicine, gydūnas, rankystė, malformacija (Eng. healer, handedness, malformation), etc.
The majority of all neonyms are unambiguous, narrowly specific in meaning and devoid of stylistic connotations. However, it is notable that some neonyms are marked as being used in several fields, e.g., eurolektas (Eng. Eurolectus) – ‘administration, linguistics, law’. If such a wide range of usage could be more specified, it would facilitate the identification of the primary field of usage of a neonym.
It should be noted that selection bias in the Database could also affect the linguistic analysis and results but this aspect is outside the scope of the current paper, and could be considered in future research.
Following a review and subsequent cleansing of the automatically compiled list of neonyms in the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms, the sample of the study was reduced to 352 terminological items. They are analysed in the following section in the light of the possibilities offered by the Database and the traditions of neologism research, from the point of view of origin and formation, as is usual in the study of the ways in which new terms are coined.
3.1.
One of the more challenging questions in neology and neonymy concerns the origin of neologisms and neonyms. While the etymology of a word is typically determined by the language it is being used in, in neology and neonymy, the primary question is whether a new word is more or less an adaptation of a new borrowing, or whether it was made in a particular language, in this case Lithuanian, and can be considered a new word. It is crucial to note that a neonym can be created not only from the base words and formants of one’s own language, but also from roots, suffixes and other affixes borrowed from other languages according to the Lithuanian patterns of formation.
The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms does not yet have a fully accessible option to automatically filter terms by type (whether they are a new formation or a new loanword), but it is possible to select words by the language. Thus, the total number of neonyms created in the Lithuanian language is 217 (61.6% of all examples). Of these, 135 (38.4%) are considered to be new borrowings, of which 111 (82.2%) are derived from English (e.g., disneilendizacija, fleimingas, genderlektas – Eng. disneilendisation, phleiming, genderdialect). The remaining terms originate from other languages, e.g., French (6.7% of borrowings – 9 terms, e.g., enfloražas, parafarmacija (Eng. enflorage, parapharmacy), and borrowings from other languages (15 neonyms from Japanese (surimis), Latin (aviariumas), German (rotbandas), etc.), which account for 11.1% of the new loanwords.
Among the 217 neonyms created in Lithuanian, 180 (83%) lexical items are created from elements that are purely Lithuanian, e.g., veltūnai (Eng. dreads); šlapbalė (Eng. ‘a place installed on the street to soak up rainwater, as well as for it to evaporate’); ženklodara (Eng. branding), etc. There are also 35 (16%) words of mixed origin, i.e., hybrids, where one element is Lithuanian and the other is from another language (agromiškininkystė, biodegalai – Eng. agro-forestry, biofuel). There are also two neonyms (2%) in Lithuanian that are derived from loanwords: adhominizmas (from Latin ad hominem) and ksenotradicija (from Greek ξένος – foreigner and Lat. traditio).
This distribution only proves that when Lithuanians create new names for concepts, they first look for resources in their own language and are inventive with indigenous words and formants. It is also clear that, if they decide to borrow a neonym, they prefer English. 3.2.
Morphological word formation is traditionally considered one of the most common ways of creating new Lithuanian terms, and suffixation significantly exceeds prefixation and paradigmisation in the number of derivatives [14], [15]. Morphological-syntactic formation, on the basis of which many compounds are formed, also plays an important role. It is, therefore, understandable that there is a need to search the database of new words for neonyms that have been formed in one way or another. However, this is not possible in this Database. Therefore, in order to find out whether the trends of word-formation are changing, the received list of neonyms has to be marked manually.
Following a thorough investigation, it was determined that of the 180 Lithuanian derivatives, 76 (42.2%) are suffixal neonyms (e.g., atidėjinys, stindiklis, pastoliavimas, tartuvas – Eng. provision, gelling agent, scaffolding, pronouncer), 73 (40.6%) are compounds (balsadėžė, brūkšniažodis, jausmaženklis – Eng. ballot box, hyphen-word, emoticon), 20 (11.1%) – flectional derivatives (e.g., įveika, stabdas, perbrauka – Eng. overcoming, emergency brake, strikethrough) and 11 (6.1%) terminological items have been made with prefixes (e.g., antbačiai – Eng. boot swaps).
The present data confirm the general trends in the formation of Lithuanian terms but simultaneously demonstrate the increasing prevalence of neonyms formed by combining two words. Given the rising number of composites, it is unsurprising that the analysed sample also contains derivative contaminants, which, not only in terminology, but also in general, are not considered true derivatives and their creation is not encouraged. However, nowadays, there is a real breakthrough in the creation of blends in various languages, including Lithuanian [16], [17], so the fact that only 3 examples (keistonomika, oropokalipsė, padangomatas – Eng. freakonomics, ‘a terrifying vision of the end of the world brought closer by air pollution’, ‘special container for collecting used tires’), were found among the hybrid neonyms already confirms that contamination as a way of creating terms is a good example of the economy and creativity of a special language, and that contaminated terms already exist and may become more popular in the future.
With regard to the Database’s capacity to search for neonyms by word-formation category, this is, regrettably, not a possibility, since other neologisms are not marked as the names of actions, characteristics, actors, places, tools, and so forth. Nevertheless, it is possible to select neoterms by entering the affix or neoclassical element with an asterisk in the search string. For instance, if it is known that in Lithuanian nouns denoting a place are frequently formed with the suffix -ynas, requesting *ynas will yield a list of neonyms with this ending (as the suffix -ynas is ambiguous, the list has also been checked for the meaning and definition): duomenynas, frazynas, išteklynas (Eng. electronic data collection, phrase collection, a set of resources), etc.
The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms proves to be a valuable resource for the identification and analysis of neonyms, despite certain limitations in its search possibilities. The Database is not comparable to the Lithuanian Term Bank which is a collection of approved terms by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. Nevertheless, the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms can be considered as a working tool for terminologists, linguists and language planners for initial insights into newly coined terms.
The importance of distinguishing between neonyms and general neologisms is obvious, and revealing the nature of neonyms in terminological contexts is crucial for the understanding of new concepts.
The findings reveal that a significant portion of neonyms is created from indigenous Lithuanian elements, showcasing the creativity and vitality of the Lithuanian language. Additionally, the prevalence of compounds and suffixal formations aligns with traditional Lithuanian formation trends in terminology, while the emergence of blends indicates evolving linguistic practices. Overall, the Database offers substantial insights into the dynamic process of new term creation in Lithuanian, contributing to the broader field of neology and terminological studies. Future enhancements to this unique digital resource could enlarge its utility for researchers and practitioners in the neonymy and terminology.
Declaration on Generative AI The author(s) have not employed any Generative AI tools. [9] T. O. Frank, Neonym analysis in the English language for tourism purposes, The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes 8 (3) (2020) 187–200. doi:10.22190/JTESAP2003187O [10] ISO 1087:2019(en) Terminology work and terminology science — Vocabulary.
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:1087:ed-2:v1:en [11] J. Humbley, Term formation and neology, in: J. Humbley, G. Budin, Chr. Laurén (Eds.)
Languages in special purposes. 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110228014-022 [12] R. Miliūnaitė, Neologijos terminija ir „Lietuvių kalbos naujažodžių duomenyno“ praktika [Terms of neology and the practice of "The Database of Lithuanian Neologisms"], Terminologija 27 (2020) 81–107. doi: 10.35321/term27-04 [13] R. Costa, M. Ramos, A. Salgado, S. Carvalho, B. Almeida, R. Silva, Neoterm or neologism? A closer look at the determinologisation process, in: A. Klosa-Kückelhaus, I. Kernerman (Eds.), Lexicography of Coronavirus-related Neologisms, 2022, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 237–259. doi:10.1515/9783110798081-012 [14] S. Keinys, Dabartinė lietuvių terminologija [Contempoprary Lithuanian Terminology], Vilnius,
Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla 2005. ISBN 9955704012 [15] S. Rackevičienė, L. Pogožilskaja, Formation of Constitutional One-word Terms in Lithuanian and English, Man and the Word, Didactic Linguistics 16 (1) (2014), 87–99. https://portalcris.vdu.lt/server/api/core/bitstreams/edbfcc6c-fe3e-460c-a7c84d1ae4fae44a/content [16] R. Miliūnaitė, Naujieji kontaminaciniai dariniai lietuvių kalboje [New blendings in the Lithuanian language], Acta linguistica Lithuanica 71 (2014), 246–264. https://etalpykla.lituanistika.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB0001:J.04~2014~1479052200123/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content [17] A. Aleksaitė, Lexical blends in the Lithuanian language: the case of the Database of Lithuanian Neologisms, Buletin ştiinţific - Universitatea de Nord din Baia Mare. Seria A, Fascicula filologie [Scientific Bulletin. A series, Philology Fascicle] 30 (2021), 17–34. https://bslr.ubm.ro/files/2021/01.Aleksaite_Agne_(17-34)_BSLR_2021.pdf