Iberica 13 Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 ISSN: 1139-7241 / e-ISSN: 2340-2784 https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.369 Abstract This article focuses on acronyms and related items, namely abbreviations, alphabetisms, blends, and clippings in the language of photography, a field that has not been previously examined. Numerous studies have dealt with these word-formation processes in the general language and, although to a lesser extent, in the different specialized languages. To date, despite the ubiquitous presence of photography in the modern world, no research has addressed the use of these categories in the language of photography, as one of the many fields of esp. This paper intends to fill this gap and to identify, analyse and classify acronyms, alphabetisms, abbreviations, blends, and clippings in photography discourse focusing on their structure and characteristics. To meet this objective, a corpus-based approach was followed. The data were gathered from professional photography blogs providing authentic up-to-date lexis. The results suggest that these categories abound in the language of photography. Although to differing extents, there are acronyms (e.g., lomo, gobo), alphabetisms (e.g., DSLR, HDR), abbreviations (e.g., Mpx, mm), blends (squinch, bit), and clippings (e.g., photog, cam), in addition to peripheral cases (e.g., B&W, RAW, L*a*b*) and hybrid categories (e.g., PNG, Jpeg). Keywords: acronyms, abbreviations, blends, clippings, photography. Resumen Acrónimos y categorías vecinas en el lenguaje de la fotografía este artículo se centra en los acrónimos y en categorías vecinas, en concreto, las abreviaturas, alfabetismos, cruces léxicos y acortamientos en el lenguaje de la fotografía, un campo que todavía no ha sido examinado. Numerosos estudios han tratado estos procesos de formación de palabras en el lenguaje general y, en menor medida, en los distintos lenguajes especializados. Hasta el momento, a Acronyms and neighbouring categories in the language of photography Iryna Mykytka Universidad de Alicante (Spain) iryna.mykytka@ua.es 369 Ibérica 44 (2022): 00-00 IryNA MykyTkA pesar de la omnipresencia de la fotografía en el mundo moderno, ninguna investigación ha abordado el uso de estas categorías en el lenguaje de la fotografía, entendido como uno de los numerosos campos de Inglés para Fines específicos. este artículo pretende cubrir esta laguna e identificar, analizar y clasificar los acrónimos, alfabetismos, abreviaturas, cruces léxicos y acortamientos en el discurso de la fotografía, con especial atención a su estructura y características. para cumplir con este objetivo se siguió un enfoque basado en corpus. Los datos se recopilaron de blogs de fotografía profesionales que muestran un léxico auténtico y actualizado. Los resultados sugieren que estas categorías abundan en el lenguaje de la fotografía. Aunque en diferente medida, existen acrónimos (p. ej., lomo, gobo), alfabetismos (p. ej., DSLR, HDR), abreviaturas (p. ej., Mpx, mm), cruces léxicos (squinch, bit) y acortamientos (p. ej., photog, cam), además de algunos casos periféricos (p. ej., B&W, RAW, L*a*b*) y categorías híbridas (p. ej., PNG, Jpeg). Palabras clave: acrónimos, abreviaturas, cruces léxicos, acortamientos, fotografía. 1. Introduction The study of word-formation processes is not new and researchers have long been interested in this topic (see e.g. Adams, 1973, 2013; Bauer, 1983; Bloomfield, 1935 [1933]; Jespersen, 1942; Marchand, 1969; plag, 2018). As Algeo (2010) remarks, “most new words come in one way or another from older words”, for example by compounding, derivation, conversion, or other word-formation devices, and creating a word out of nothing is a very rare phenomenon (p. 224). Thus, except for a few cases (e.g. Kodak) that were arbitrary combinations of letters, the majority of new words are made from other existing words. Although there is no single theory of word making, as pointed out by Bauer (1983, p. 1), it appears that some word-formation processes have received more attention than others. If compounding and derivation are treated with special interest from linguists (see, e.g., Adams, 1973, 2013; Bauer, 1983, 2017; Marchand, 1969; O’Grady et al., 1997), blending, acronymy, or clipping, for example, usually make a brief appearance in books on english word-formation. Labelled as “oddities” (Aronoff, 1976, p. 20), “unpredictable formations” (Bauer, 1983, p. 232), “extra-grammatical” formations (Dressler & Barbaresi, 1994, pp. 36-41; Mattiello, 2013), these phenomena have often been considered of “minor” importance (Huddleston & pullum, 2002; scalise, 1984, p. 98) and, therefore, marginalized. 370 One of the reasons is the lack of predictable rules in many processes, and lack of agreement among scholars on terminology, definitions, taxonomic arrangements, not to mention their fuzzy boundaries that make many word- formation processes poorly defined. In the case of acronyms, alphabetisms, abbreviations, blends, and clippings the inconsistency is especially apparent. For instance, McArthur et al. (2018) use the term “abbreviation” as an umbrella term for “initialisms” –those composed of initial letters where each letter is pronounced individually (FBI)–, “acronyms” –where the letters in the abbreviated form are pronounced using english reading rules (radar)–, and “clippings” –words formed by removing one or more syllables (pro < professional)–. cannon (1989, p. 99), in contrast, uses “initialism” as a superordinate comprising “acronyms”–items “created from the first letter (and infrequently the second or even third letters) of all or most of the 3-9 constituents of an existing compound […] pronounced syllabically”– and ‘abbreviations’ –“items created from one or two first letters of all or most of the 1-5 constituents of an existing item [...] pronounced letter by letter” (p. 116)–. To Quirk et al. (1972, p. 832), cannon’s (1989) abbreviations and McArthur et al.’s (2018) initialisms are “alphabetisms”. kreidler (1979) regards acronyms and clippings as ‘shortenings’ and blends as ‘multiple clippings’. Blends are also known as ‘portmanteau words’ and there exist as many as twenty-nine synonyms for them (Wentworth, 1933). For the purpose of this study, I will mainly follow the terminology and typology suggested by López rúa (2002, 2019) who presents exhaustive research on acronyms and the neighbouring categories and proposes a parameter-based description and classification for each type: acronyms (laser), alphabetisms (BBC), abbreviations (Mr.), clippings (lab), and blends (motel). I will also take into consideration studies by Beliaeva (2014, 2016) that help to draw a clearer distinction between blends and compound clippings. In addition, taking into account that all have in common the loss of material, I will refer to them all as ‘shortenings’ following cannon (1989): “we will propose […] the common term shortening as the name of the division that produces blends, acronyms, abbreviations, and other reduced items” (p. 107). Despite a great deal of variation concerning terminology or typology and other discrepancies, these formations are so common in the english language (Bauer, 1983, p. 232) that they deserve more attention. researchers agree that shortenings, in general, have become increasingly productive throughout the second half of the 20th century and they continue proliferating in the 21st (Ayto, 1999, p. ix; kostina et al., 2015, p. 706; AcrONyMs AND NeIGHBOurING cATeGOrIes IN THe LANGuAGe OF pHOTOGrApHy Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 371 Mattiello, 2013, p. 2) especially in fields related to technology, for example, computer-mediated communication contexts (McArthur et al., 2018). In recent decades, numerous studies appear to pay more attention to acronyms and the neighbouring categories not only in the general language (Gries, 2004a, 2004b; Harley, 2004; López rúa, 2002; Mattiello, 2013; silaški, & Đurović, 2013) but also in specialized languages. For example, there are studies in medicine (e.g. kuhn, 2007), business and finances (Mirabela & Ariana, 2009, 2014), and computer science and technology (e.g. Tavaglione, 2020; Vlietstra, 2001), just to mention a few. yet, not all esp discourses have received the same degree of attention and the discourse of photography is one such case where little work has been done so far. Despite the vast amount of literature on photography from different perspectives –historical (Newhall, 1984; rosenblum, 1997), anthropological (sontag, 1977), artistic (Bourdieu & Whiteside, 1996; Duchemin, 2012; scharf, 1990) and technical (evening, 2015; kelby, 2018)–, research into the language of photography in english is limited. There are a few studies of metaphors in photography in english (Assfalg et al., 1999; keats, 2010; Mykytka, 2016; pollen, 2013), of noun compounds (Mykytka, 2020a), of its lexical and semantic features (Mykytka, 2020b; Navab, 2001), and english loanwords in the language of photography in spanish (Mykytka, 2017). yet, to my knowledge, no work exists that deals with acronyms or other shortenings in photography discourse. The lack of empirical studies on the lexis of photography indicates that there is a clear need for research in the area. The current study, therefore, aims to partially fill this gap. The main questions addressed are whether the language of photography makes use of acronymy, alphabetisms, abbreviations, blending, and clipping and, if so, which terms are present and to what extent, how they were created, and how they could be classified. This study will thus benefit both lexicology and photography. The popularity of the latter is growing and its significance should not be overlooked, since it is embedded in our daily lives. If in 1982 Burgin pointed out that it was “almost as unusual to pass a day without seeing a photograph as it is to miss seeing writing” (my emphasis) (Burgin, 1982), nowadays it is impossible to spend a day without seeing a photograph. The arrival of the Internet and social networks, as well as other forms of communication (e.g. online magazines, blogs, and forums), has enabled the sharing of photographs on a truly massive scale. photography can be an art, a technique for capturing IryNA MykyTkA Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390372 moments in our lives, a resource or tool for other disciplines, a profession, or a hobby. It has become an essential part of our society, and its language, without a doubt, also deserves attention. 2. Language of photography To begin with, it should be noted that “photography language” or “the language of photography” commonly refers to the means of expression or communication, i.e., the capacity of photographs to convey messages and ideas (see Burgin, 1982; chandler & Livingston, 2016; Fairey & Orton, 2019; scott, 1999, 2020). However, it may also refer to the verbal language used by photographers. The latter is the focus of this paper, which addresses the different types of shortenings of this particular register. photography lies at the crossroads between art, science, and technology. It is the result of a centuries-long collaborative effort by artists, scientists, and technological advances. Artists were the forerunners in promoting first the camera obscura and then the camera lucida, two precursors to the photographic camera. However, when artists used it solely as an aid in the creation of their paintings, scientists went further and dedicated themselves to discovering how to make a camera capture images by itself without the intervention of an artist’s hand. After numerous scientific experiments with different photo- sensitive chemicals and materials, they managed to create permanent prints and to invent photography (see, e.g., Newhall, 1984, for a detailed history of photography). Once invented, thanks to technological advances, it began its remarkable development which continues at present. As a result, art, science, and technology have left their mark on the history and lexis of photography. The diverse nature of photography entails, on the one hand, the lexis shared among different disciplines, such as painting, computing, chemistry, optics, physics, geometry, astronomy among others, providing photography with an interdisciplinary character (Mykytka, 2020b). On the other hand, the technological facet of photography involves the continuous incorporation of new words, since technology is advancing at a great pace, as is photography. photography is now at the centre of continual growth, seeking greater quality, more megapixels, new effects, and new possibilities. As a result, new realities emerge that require naming. For example, the incorporation of a camera in a smartphone (specifically the front-facing camera) has enabled us to take selfies. The appearance of Instagram, a popular photo-sharing AcrONyMs AND NeIGHBOurING cATeGOrIes IN THe LANGuAGe OF pHOTOGrApHy Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 373 application, yielded the word instagrammer. The term reels, which traditionally referred to “film reels” in photography, acquired new meanings: on Instagram or TikTok reels are short videos. photoshop, the popular image editing software, gave rise to the verb to photoshop. similarly, the proper noun plotagraph, a software released recently whose purpose is to create a dynamic image from a still one, seems to be established as a common noun: plotagraph (“so having done my first plotagraph earlier, I’ve been playing around some more”; Batty, 2016). Therefore, the lexis of photography is constantly changing and incorporating new terms. Although there are numerous dictionaries of photography (e.g. Herschdorfer, 2015; Lynch-Johnt & perkins, 2008), as well as encyclopedias (e.g. peres, 2013), very few have devoted themselves to researching the language of photography from a linguistic perspective and most writings on this subject are brief and tangential to other research concerns. Apart from the works mentioned in the introduction (Assfalg et al., 1999; keats, 2010; Mykytka, 2016, 2017, 2020a, 2020b; Navab, 2001; pollen, 2013) to date no research has addressed the acronyms and other shortenings in the language of photography. The present study, therefore, seeks to address this gap. 3. Method The purpose of this study is to identify the abbreviations, alphabetisms, blends, and clippings used in the language of photography and classify them following a corpus-based methodology. As pointed out by Biber et al. (1998, p. 1) a corpus is the ideal means for examining how language is used in naturally occurring texts rather than exploring what is theoretically possible. The data used in this study were gathered from the Internet. photography blogs were chosen as the source material from the variety of genres available because they provide authentic usage of language, they are up-to-date, free, and easily accessible. six blogs were selected for the study, namely Beyond Megapixels (BM; Joyce, 2007), Photofocus (pF; Harrington, 2008), Roesch Photography (rp; roesch), Scott Kelby Photoshop Insider (sk; kelby, 2007), Strobist (sT; Hobby, 2006) and The Urban Exploration Photography Blog (uX; roesch). After the texts were identified, their contents were manually downloaded into text files. each blog and each post was tagged with its own reference, which is used throughout this article to indicate the source of the items. The tags are formed with the initials of the blog and the date of IryNA MykyTkA Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390374 publication –year, month, day– of the post on the Internet. For instance, BM_090710 means that the item was extracted from a post published on the Beyond Megapixels blog on July 10, 2009. I compiled a corpus of about 900,000 words, composed of 1,644 blog posts on photography, written between 2006 and 2017 by professional photographers who are native speakers of American english. Once the corpus was compiled, the photography terms were manually extracted. Two factors were considered while identifying photography terms: frequency and meaning. In terms of frequency, the corpus-comparison approach proposed by sutarsyah et al. (1994) and adopted by Mihwa chung (2003a, 2003b) shows that technical terms are more common in the discipline to which they belong and are rare in general english. Therefore, the British National Corpus (BNc) was employed for comparison, as well as the Sketch Engine (kilgarriff & rychl, 2003) to determine the frequency of the words. The Technicality Analysis Model (TAM) proposed by Ho Ha and Hyland and based on frequency and meaning was also applied (see Mykytka, 2018 for the detailed explanation of procedure). Different tools were used to check specialized meaning, mainly the Oxford English Dictionary Online (2019) and specialized dictionaries on photography, such as the Illustrated Dictionary of Photography (Lynch-Johnt & perkins, 2008) and the Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Photography (Herschdorfer, 2015). Other dictionaries were also consulted occasionally. As a result, 1,144 photography terms were extracted and then the photography acronyms, abbreviations, alphabetisms, blends, and clippings were manually selected and classified mainly following the parameters proposed by López rúa (2002, 2019), and taking into account studies by Beliaeva (2014, 2016), especially when distinguishing compound clippings from blends. 4. Analysis and results 129 items were identified. The analysis shows that the most common type of shortenings in the language of photography are alphabetisms (67 items; 52%) with clippings in second place (23 items; 18%) and abbreviations in third (17 items; 13%). Other groups were less common: acronyms (7 items; 5%) and blends (5 items; 4%). The final group comprises hybrid items that could not be included in any of the categories since they combine AcrONyMs AND NeIGHBOurING cATeGOrIes IN THe LANGuAGe OF pHOTOGrApHy Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 375 characteristics from different groups (10 items; 8%). Within each group (except hybrids) the distinction has been made between prototypical, typical, and peripheral items, following the parameters suggested by López rúa (2002, 2019). 4.1. Acronyms in the language of photography Although not particularly common (7 items; 5%), acronyms do occur in the language of photography. Two prototypical acronyms were found in this sample: (1) gobo auto-focus > AF or automatic white balance > auto-white-balance > AWB). Pixel originated as a blend and ended as an abbreviation px or even p, as in MP (< Megapixel). Hence, it seems that the language of photography tends to shorten words, a tendency present in the current society, which aims at retrenching time in any possible way. In this regard, Marchand (1969, p. 447) explains that shortenings originate within specific groups of speakers “in the intimacy of a milieu where a hint is sufficient to indicate the whole”. AcrONyMs AND NeIGHBOurING cATeGOrIes IN THe LANGuAGe OF pHOTOGrApHy Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 385 To conclude, this study has shed light on the shortenings used in the language of photography, a field that had not previously been researched. The research questions posed at the start of this article have been answered. Firstly, it has been shown that the lexis of photography does make use of shortenings, found in 11.4% of photography terms in the selected corpus. secondly, a variety of shortenings in this particular corpus has been identified, and they have been classified and explained in detail. specifically, acronyms (5%), alphabetisms (52%), abbreviations (13%), blends (4%) and clipping (18%) have been identified. cases whose dividing line was not clear have been gathered under the title of “hybrids” (8%). The results are based on a limited sample that may not fully capture the variety of shortening in the language of photography. This could be remedied by analysing larger corpora and by considering genres other than blogs, such as photography magazines, forums, or manuals. researchers are encouraged to continue studying the lexis of photography, which still has much to offer. Article history: Received 04 February 2022 Received in revised form 06 July 2022 Accepted 22 July 2022 References IryNA MykyTkA Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390386 Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to modern English word formation. Longman. Adams, V. (2013). Complex words in English. Routledge. Algeo, J. (1977). Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech, 52, 47-64. Algeo, J. (1987). The taxonomy of word making. Word, 29(2), 122-131. Algeo, J. (2010). The origins and development of the English language (6th ed.). Wadsworth Engage Learning. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. MiT Press. Assfalg, J., Del Bimbo A., & Pala, P. (1999). The photographer metaphor for content based image retrieval. in B. Werner (Ed.), Proceedings of 10th international conference on image analysis and processing (pp. 680-685). iEEE Computer Society. Ayto, J. (1999). Twentieth century words. Oxford UP. Batty, P. (2016, July 31). More plotagraphs. Small world, live large. [Accessed online on January 10, 2022]. Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge UP. Bauer, L. (2012). Blends: Core and periphery. in V. Renner, F. Maniez & P. J. L. Arnaud (Eds.), Cross- disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending (pp. 11-22). De Gruyter Mouton. Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and compounding. Cambridge UP. Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, i. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford UP. Beliaeva, N. (2014). A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again. Word Structure 7(1), 29-54. AcrONyMs AND NeIGHBOurING cATeGOrIes IN THe LANGuAGe OF pHOTOGrApHy Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 387 Beliaeva, N. (2016). Blends at the intersection of addition and subtraction: Evidence from processing. SkASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13(2), 23-45. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge UP. Bloomfield, L. (1935) [1933]. Language. George Allen & Unwin. Bourdieu, P., & Whiteside, S. (1996). Photography: A middle-brow art. Stanford UP. Brandes, P. (2009, June 22). A tribute to Kodachrome: A photography icon. [Accessed online on January 10, 2022]. British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC xML Edition) (2007). University of Oxford. [Accessed online on September 10, 2021]. Burgin, V. (1982). Looking at photographs. in V. Burgin (Ed.), Thinking photography (pp. 142-153). Red Globe Press. CamSolo (2011, March 9). El origen de Nikon. [Accessed online on January 10, 2022]. Cannon, G. (1989). Abbreviations and acronyms in English word-formation. American Speech, 64(2), 99-127. Cannon, G. (1986). Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24(4), 725-753. Chandler, L., & Livingston, D. (2016). Reframing the authentic: Photography, mobile technologies and the visual language of digital imperfection. in M. Heitkemper-Yates & K. Kaczmarczyk (Eds.), Learning to see: The meanings, modes and methods of visual literacy (pp. 227-245). Brill. Chung, T. M. (2003a). A corpus comparison approach for terminology extraction. Terminology, 9(2), 221-246. Chung, T. M. (2003b). identifying technical terms. PhD dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington. Dressler, W. U., & Barbaresi, L. M. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Walter de Gruyter. DuChemin, D. (2012). Photographically speaking: A deeper look at creating stronger images. New Riders. Evening, M. (2015). The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC/Lightroom 6 book: The complete guide for photographers. Adobe. Fairey, T., & Orton, L. (2019). Photography as dialogue. Tailor & Francis. Gries, S. T. (2004a). Some characteristics of English morphological blends. in M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha & K. Yoshimura (Eds.), Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (Vol. 2, pp. 201-216). Chicago Linguistics Society. Gries, S. T. (2004b). Shouldnt it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics 42(3), 639-667. Gries, S. T. (2006). Cognitive determinants of subtractive word formation processes: A corpus- based perspective. Linguistics 17(4), 535-558. Ha, A. Y. H., & Hyland, K. (2017). What is technicality? A technicality analysis model for EAP vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28, 35-49. Harley, H. (2004). Why is it the CiA but not *the NASA? Acronyms, initialisms, and definite descriptions. American Speech, 79(4), 368-399. Herschdorfer, N. (Ed.). (2015). The Thames and Hudson dictionary of photography. Thames and Hudson. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge UP. Hurley, P. (2017). Four years later and it’s still all about the squinch. [Accessed online on January 10, 2022]. Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part vI. Morphology. George Allen & Unwin & Ejmar Munksgaard. Keats, P.A. (2010). The moment is frozen in time: photojournalists’ metaphors in describing trauma photography. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 23(3), 231-255. Kelby, S. (2018). Photoshop for Lightroom users. New Riders. Kilgarriff, A., & Rychly,́ P. (2003). Sketch Engine. [Accessed online on August 30, 2021]. Kostina, N., Zerkina, N., & Pesina, S. (2015). IryNA MykyTkA Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390388 Abbreviational worldview as part of linguistic worldview. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 703-709. Kreidler, C. W. (1979). Creating new words by shortening. Journal of English Linguistics, 13, 24-36. Kuhn, i. F. (2007). Abbreviations and acronyms in healthcare: When shorter isn’t sweeter. Pediatric Nursing, 33(5), 392-398. López Rúa, P. (2002). On the structure of acronyms and neighbouring categories: A prototype-based account. English Language and Linguistics, 6, 31-60. López Rúa, P. (2004). The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies, 86(1), 63-76. López Rúa, P. (2019). From Carmageddon and invizimals to SimCity and Digimon: Blending patterns in videogame titles. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 27, 183-204. Lynch-Johnt, B., & Perkins, M. (2008). Illustrated dictionary of photography: The professional’s guide to terms and techniques for film and digital imaging. Amherst Media. Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic- diachronic approach (2nd ed.). Beck. Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-grammatical morphology in English. De Gruyter Mouton. McArthur, T., Lam-McArthur, J., & Fontaine, L. (Eds.). (2018). Oxford companion to the English language (2nd ed.). Oxford UP. Mirabela, P. A., & Ariana, S. M. (2009). The use of acronyms and initialisms in business English. Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, 1(1), 557-562. Mirabela, P. A., & Ariana, S. M. (2014). Business English outside the box. Business jargon and abbreviations in business communication. Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, 1(2), 111-119. Mykytka, i. (2016). Metaphors in photography language. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 32, 59-86. Mykytka, i. (2017). The influence of English on the Spanish register of photography: an empirical study. ESP Today, 5(1), 68-90. Mykytka, i. (2018). Una aproximación lexicológica al inglés de la fotografía. Unedited PhD dissertation, University of Alicante. Mykytka, i. (2020a). Noun compounds in photography. Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies,42(2), 72- 98. Mykytka, i. (2020b). interdisciplinariedad y agresividad. Características del lenguaje de la fotografía en lengua inglesa. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 26(2), 87-100. Navab, A. D. (2001). Re-picturing photography: A language in the making. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 35(1), 69-84. Newhall, B. (1984). The history of photography from 1983 to the present (5th ed.). The Museum of Modern Art. O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F. (Eds.) (1997). Contemporary linguistics: An introduction. St. Martin’s Publishing. Oxford English Dictionary Online (2019). [Accessed online on September 10, 2021]. Peres, M. R. (Ed.) (2013). The focal encyclopedia of photography (4th ed.). Taylor & Francis. Plag, i. (2018). Word-formation in English (2nd ed.). Cambridge UP. Pollen, A. (2013). Moving targets: Photography and its metaphors. Modernism/Modernity, 20(1), 123-127. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman. Rosenblum, N. (1997). A world history of photography. Abbeville Press. Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Foris. Scharf, A. (1990). Art and photography. Penguin. Scott, C. (1999). Spoken image: Photography and language. Reaktion Books. Scott, G. (2020). New ways of seeing: The democratic language of photography. Routledge. Silaški, N., & Đurović, T. (2013). Of ‘siliconaires’ and ‘millionerds’ – How ESP learners understand novel blends in English. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 25, 85-105. Sontag, S. (1977). On photography. Palgrave Macmillan. Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P., & Kennedy, G. (1994). Iryna Mykytka holds a ph.D. in Arts and Humanities from the university of Alicante (spain). she is currently a lecturer and a researcher at the Department of english studies at the same university. Her research interests lie in the area of english for specific purposes, Lexicology, and word- formation processes, with a particular focus on the lexis of photography. she has participated in numerous national and international conferences, and she has published in high-quality journals. AcrONyMs AND NeIGHBOurING cATeGOrIes IN THe LANGuAGe OF pHOTOGrApHy Ibérica 44 (2022): 369-390 389 How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A corpus based case study. RELC Journal, 25(2), 34-50. Tavaglione, D. (2020). Acronyms and abbreviations of computer technology and telecommunications. CRC Press. Vlietstra, J. (2001). Dictionary of acronyms and technical abbreviations: For information and communication technologies and related areas. Springer Science & Business Media. Wentworth, H. (1933). Twenty-nine synonyms for ‘portmanteau word’. American Speech, 8, 78-79. Harrington, R. (Ed.) Photofocus (blog). [Accessed online on May 31, 2019]. Hobby, D. (Ed.) Strobist (blog). [Accessed online on May 31, 2019]. Joyce, T. (Ed.) Beyond megapixels (blog). [Accessed online on May 31, 2019; no longer available]. Kelby, S. Scott kelby photoshop insider (blog). [Accessed online on May 31, 2019]. Roesch, R. Roesch photography (blog). [Accessed online on May 31, 2019; no longer available]. Roesch, R. The urban exploration photography blog (blog). [Accessed online on May 31, 2019; no longer available]. Sources used in this study