XVIII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2026

This study is devoted to the analysis of acronymia as a key linguistic process in the term system of modern military discourse in English. The relevance of the work is determined by the dominance of abbreviated lexical forms in military documentation and communication, which is a direct consequence of the requirements for efficiency, compactness, and unification of information. The focus of the analysis is the structural classifications and functional specifics of acronyms and abbreviations extracted from the normative sources of the U.S. Department of Defense (Joint Publications, directives). As a result, it is proven that acronymia surpasses other word-formation models (compounding, affixation) in productivity and functional load, acting as the central mechanism for the formation of military terminology. The practical significance of the results lies in their application in the field of linguistic support, translation activities, and professional training of military specialists.

The specialized language of the military sphere is a strictly regulated communicative system characterized by terminological density and a striving for formalization [4, p. 45]. In the context of the need for rapid decision-making, complex organizational structure, and the technological sophistication of modern armed forces, the principle of linguistic economy comes to the fore [6, p. 312]. Within this system, the act of creating acronyms and initialisms has evolved from a secondary technique into a leading, system-forming method of replenishing the terminological fund [1, p. 25].

Normative documents of the U.S. military department (Joint Publications, DoD directives) were chosen as material due to their reference status for terminological regulation within NATO and among partner countries [2]. The aim of the study is to conduct a structural-functional analysis of units of acronymia and to provide verifiable data confirming their priority status in the term formation of military discourse. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are consistently addressed: 1) classification of structural types of acronyms, 2) determination of their semantic domains, 3) comparative assessment of the productivity of acronymia relative to other word-formation strategies, 4) description of key functions in professional communication.

Theoretical Basis for the Prevalence of Acronymia in Military Terminology
From a linguistic point of view, acronymia is interpreted as one of the types of abbreviation [5, p. 98]. However, within military discourse, its role is transformed: from a compression tool, it becomes the primary generator of new terminological units. Source concepts often represent cumbersome names (e.g., "Joint All-Domain Command and Control"), whose use in a dynamic operational environment is impractical, which stimulates the process of acronymization.

This process is supported by a complex of interrelated factors:

• The Requirement for Operational Efficiency. Transforming a multi-word term into a concise code (JADC2) is critically important for the speed of command transmission and reporting under time constraints.

• The Unification Function. Through official directives [7], acronyms are institutionalized, becoming mandatory standard designations for all branches of the armed forces, which eliminates ambiguity in interpretation.

• The Cognitive Aspect. An acronym acts as a mnemonic anchor for a complex set of data, reducing the intellectual load on the specialist [5, p. 118]. Thus, the abbreviation C4ISR encapsulates an entire conceptual system (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) [2].

Analysis of Structural and Semantic Diversity of Acronyms in
DoD Documents

The empirical basis consisted of glossaries from Joint Publications containing normative lists of abbreviations [2].

Structural Typology:

1. Initialisms. Used as a sequence of letters: DoD, NSA, CJCS.

2. Acronyms proper. Phonetically formed as words: NATO, JADC2, SEAL.

3. Hybrid models. Include alphabetic and numeric components to denote repeating elements: *C2, C4ISR, C-RAM*. This model clearly demonstrates the potential of acronymia for ultra-dense semantic packaging [2].

Main Semantic Fields:

• Management and Planning: MDMP, COA, METT-TC (situation assessment scheme).

• Intelligence and Surveillance: ISR, SIGINT, GEOINT.

• Military Technology: UAV, EW, IED.

• Organizational Structures: JTF, SME.

Comparative Assessment of the Productivity of Term Formation Methods
To substantiate the leading role of acronymia, a comparison was made with other word-formation methods characteristic of military discourse [3].

• Compounding (battlefield, warship) is effective for basic concepts but cannot provide adequate compression for complex organizational and technical terms.

• Affixation (cybersecurity, antimissile) serves mainly to modify existing vocabulary, not to create fundamentally new nominations.

• Conversion (to secure a perimeter) expands the functionality of words but does not increase the nomenclature of core term-concepts.

Unlike them, acronymia promptly introduces capacious codes for complex phenomena into the language. A statistical analysis of glossaries (e.g., JP 1-02) reveals an absolute quantitative superiority of abbreviations over lexemes created by other means [2]. This serves as objective confirmation of its dominance as the primary term-forming mechanism.

The conducted research allows us to assert that acronymia is the predominant method of terminological word formation in English military discourse. The massive use of acronyms and abbreviations is a natural and managed response of the language system to the extralinguistic demands of the military sphere: the need for speed, unambiguity, and standardization of communication. Performing the basic compressive function, acronyms also play cognitive, socially integrative, and normative roles, which finally consolidates their system-forming status in this professional linguistic environment.

СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

1. Gryaznova E.V., Kormiltseva N.V. Modern Tendencies of Military Terminology Development (Based on English Language Materials) // Journal of Language and Education. – 2021. – Vol. 7, No. 1. – P. 23-35.

2. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Publication 1-02: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. – Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2021 (as amended through 2023).

3. Kalitkina, G.M. Productive ways of term formation in English military vocabulary // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. – 2018. – No. 1. – P. 132-139. (КалиткинаГ.М.)

4. Leychik, V.M. Terminology: Subject, Methods, Structure. – 5th ed. – M.: Lenand, 2019. – 256 p. (ЛейчикВ.М.)

5. Superanskaya, A.V., Podolskaya, N.V., Vasilyeva, N.V. General Terminology: Theoretical Issues. – 6th ed. – M.: Librokom, 2012. – 248 p. (СуперанскаяА.В., ПодольскаяН.В., ВасильеваН.В.)

6. Crystal, D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. – 3rd ed. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. – 582 p.

7. U.S. Department of Defense. Directive 5025.12: Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology. – 2020.