journal of linguistic studies

One of the reasons for this occurrence is that manuals and reference books demand
more attention from authors, and part of that professional attention will be dedicated to
which words should be used. This is not the case with price lists where we can see copy
and paste in action. Manuals, reference books and catalogues also have more neologisms
which can be a good practice but we must not exaggerate since the “artificial” creation of
neologisms is not a desirable method, but an option.
Other types of professional literature contain a huge number of Anglicisms, which
comes as natural, since most of the people using this sort of literature are expected to
know enough about asembler and kompajler. So, while reading this type of literature a
sufficient level of expertise is required and consequently most of these experts do not
need translation equivalents. Additionally, most of software they use is in English, so
probably translation into Montenegrin would make little sense. But, on the other side, we
have laymen who claim everything or most of the things should be fully translated in
order for this literature to be accessible to everyone.
When compared to Montenegrin, the English language exceptionally easy creates
new lexical elements, or expands semantic fields to the existing words.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In the end, we will shortly address the situation in neighbouring countries when it
comes to Anglicisms. According to some of publications, which can be found in
references, numerous authors consider this period as a “flood” time of Anglicisms. What
they point out as the most troublesome effect is that those Anglicisms are nonsystematically
taken from English and that is causing further problems to grammatical
issues and rules, thus creating chaos in some languages. It is more or less explicitly stated
that media and newspapers are partially guilty for this situation, since they promote
Anglicism in their texts, in order to make them more credible. To be more precise, some
authors stated texts in print media contain numerous Anglicisms since Anglicisms are
considered “better”, “stronger”, “fancier” words than their domestic counterparts.
Whatever is correct, it is good to see that extremist purist views have lost their
momentum and the topic of Anglicisms or any other “-isms” is considered purely from
expert – linguistic view. This, in turn, will provide more quality to any discussion related
to this topic and enable finding of long-term solutions and policies. We have more and
more publications on this topic, and, one common idea behind all of them is that we
cannot be passive when it comes to the future of our language. Part of Anglicisms must
be adapted and the other part must be adopted as an inevitable reality of lexical evolution
of our language.
Moreover, it is necessary to establish competent bodies which would monitor the
quality of language and react where it deems appropriate. More and more experts from
different areas have to join together in order to obtain quality translations. This was more
than obvious during the recent process of the EU Questionnaire translation where the
European Council sent questions to our Government. Many experts from different fields
were gathered together, and as a result we have quality translations which would help
Montenegrin to get the place it deserves in the European language family. This is one
good examp0le how Montenegrin may be put into more prominent place. This would
enable our language to systematically deal with lexical borrowings.
To summarise, we can say that the use of Anglicisms is very frequent in the
Montenegrin language. This is mainly caused by:
21