Structural and Functional-Semantic Features of Aviation Neologisms in English

2026

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.55491/2411-6076-2026-3-198-211
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The article examines the structural and functional-semantic features of aviation neologisms in contemporary English professional discourse, focusing on their emergence, consolidation, and variation in use. The study aims to determine how aviation designations are distributed across thematic domains, which structural models and discourse functions they realise, and how their status changes across professional contexts. The material comprises 96 neological units identified in official and industry-specific texts of ICAO, FAA, EASA, and IATA from 2021–2025 and checked against a 2016–2020 baseline and established terminological resources. The analysis combines lexical-semantic and contextual procedures, structural and functional classification, temporal comparison, coding of terminological variants, pragmatic crosscontext checking, descriptive statistics, and Pearson’s chi-square goodness-of-fit test. The thematic distribution did not differ significantly from an equal five-domain pattern, χ²(4) = 2.54, p = .637, although unmanned aircraft systems, advanced air mobility, and digital management and navigation were descriptively prominent. Functional-semantic differentiation was significant, χ²(4) = 9.94, p = .041, Cohen’s w = .32, with object-, process-, and technology-oriented units forming the largest groups. Multi-component phrases and abbreviations were recurrent structural patterns. The findings distinguish absolute lexical novelty from later terminological consolidation and link stable professional uptake to repeated use across regulatory, technical, and operational contexts.