As Eugen Wüster stated, the external (outer) form of terminological units is the main object of language planning in general and terminological planning in particular. It is actually a term configuration, its physical form, which is correlated to the internal form being a link between its external form and its definition. The external form consists of a phonetic form and a written form; it is determined by the origin of a term, its etymology, not by its meaning (Wüster 1985, 34-35; Kiâk 1988, 12; Maslov 1987, 113). Language form depends upon the contents of the scientific idea (Budagov 1974, 124). The external form of a term may be also understood as an external appearance of a term, which includes the etymological and the graphic aspects. Conscious planning brings harmony between the internal form and the lexical meaning of a term (Kandelaki 1977; Kiâk 1988).

In European languages the morphological level is actually the main object of terminological activity especially in the sphere of coining new terms (Drozd / Roudný 1980, 38). The spelling of terminological units is another aspect of the external form. It also concerns the choice of a source of borrowing as well as the choice between international and national variants. Much attention to the external form was also paid by Thorsten (Thorsten 2002).

After Ukraine had gained its independence, and the Ukrainian language had acquired a status of an official language, the terminological activity in Ukraine was intensified. The absence of a centralized management in the sphere of terminological planning in the today’s Ukraine results to the fact that all the terminological dictionaries issued nowadays, actually contradict each other. The fact that the branch terminological systems have not been codified yet, is a reason for promiscuity and misunderstanding. This situation is complicated with an abuse of anglicisms, which is typical now not only in Ukrainian, but also in many other languages of the world (Barbera 2003).

The etymological aspect of the external form of terminological units consists in the ways of coining new terms (gap filling): direct borrowing of terminological elements or their translation. The translation of terminological elements, in its turn, also has several varieties: calques, coining new words, composition of terminological phrases, deepening of polysemy. In this case one should take into consideration that calque takes an intermediate position between direct borrowings and translation of terminological elements: an internal form is thereby borrowed whereas an external form is translated. It is a special way of assimilation, an adaptation to the peculiarities of a corresponding language (Volodina 1993, 39).

The way of gap filling depends first of all upon particular circumstances. When a language community wants to express a concept for which there is no appropriate word in this language, in this case this language either borrows a necessary word from another language, or coins a new word for a new concept. Thus there are two possible variants: a language may borrow either both a form and a meaning, or a meaning only (Columas 1989, 15).

Thus, new terms can be created either owing to direct borrowings, or owing to solely internal resources, or by combined methods (either through the borrowing of an internal form only, or through the combination of antive roots and borrowed affixes, or vice versa).

Etymology, unlike motivation, exists beyond the synchronistic state of lexical meaning (Kiâk 1988, 12-13). The direct borrowing of terminological elements is based solely upon the zero motivation (Drozd / Roudný 1980, 39). In case of creating new terms by means of calque the international motivation is preserved.

Gajda defined three types of motivation of terms depending on the three ways of coining new terms: word-formative (the morphological derivation), connective (the derivation by means of composition) and merithorical (the semantic derivation). Sometimes the phonetic motivation (onomaetopoeia, phonosymbolism) is also possible (Gajda 1990, 89-92).

Depending on the etymology, Wüster has defined the four types of external forms of terminological elements: 1) root words (Erbwörter); 2) loan words, or borrowings (Fremd- und Lehnwörter); 3) metonymic words (übertragene Benennungen); 4) abbreviations (Kurzwörter) (Wüster 1985, 34-36).

There are some isolated cases when Greek and Latin words in their English or French variant became an internationalism and is used in the majority of the European languages exactly in the English or French graphic appearance. For instance the English word service looks like Service in German too. The pronounciation is also alike. International terminological elements (mostly of the Greek and Latin origin) and native terminological elements often co-exist in most languages as synonymic duplicates. There are also hybrid words that have for instance Latin root stems and suffixes belonging to the languages these borrowings are immediately taken from (Lotte 1982, 64). Of course, new terms coined in a target language, should meet some particular requirements (Beloded 1980; 111-112). Any term should be created with regard for its physical substance and its technical idea (Lotte 1982, 7).

In any language linguistic methods of designation can be subdivided into three great groups: a) the use of the resources available in a language; b) the modernization of those available resources; c) the use of new resources (Sager / Nkwenti-Azeh 1989, 11). The first principle consists in the use of the lexical and morphological potential of a language through the formation of particular morphological combinations that were theoretically possible before (Budagov 1974, 147). Thus, internal resources of a language serve as lexical "raw materials" for such derivatives. They may include both roots and fully assimilated loan affixes. The extension of the terminological vocabulary in any language is obligatorily accompanied with the process of borrowing of separate words, especially together with borrowing the corresponding scientific concept (Skorohod´ko 1963, 58-86). One of the specific ways of coining new terms is the invention of artificial words with neither etymology nor motivation (Budagov 1953).

The problem about the correlation of the international and national elements in the process of terminological activity is bound first of all with the problem of the definition of the criteria of internationalisms and differ international words from ordinary national borrowings. Internationalisms have always similar meanings, whereas the resemblance of forms may rest upon a particular number of indications (Akulenko 1971, 256).

Especially important is the problem of the criteria of definition of international elements and a simple borrowing in the scientific and technical terms (Gajda 1990, 98-106; Volodina 1993, 31-41). Because there is a natural question, if each loan term is international. And, to the contrary, if any translation of international terminological elements is always a manifestation of purism.

The exact criteria of the definition of the concept of internationalism are unfortunately absent, therefore different scientists explain this concept differently. Beloded affirmed that it is especially important forms of lexical community; they should be interlingual synchronistical categories that are revealed only by the collision or comparison of languages (Beloded 1980, 13). Thus internationalisms are not obligatorily loan words: any word of the native language may become an internationalism (Kyjak 1992, 144 — 145).

The problem of predominance of international and national elements in internal internationalisms, as well as the problem of manifestation of purism in calques is still being discussed. The percentage correlation of international and national elements are not identical in different languages. All depends upon preferential tendencies in each particular language. However noe threr is a trend in many languages of the world to abuse the anglicisms (Zelinsky-Wibbelt 2002)

The graphic aspect of the external form of terminological units consists in the external graphic appearance of these terms, i.e. in the principle of their spelling. The spelling principles of the terminological units depend upon such factors as the principles of a writing system this or that language uses (Wüster 1985, 70 — 75), phonetic and grammar peculiarities of a particular language etc. Particular traditions bound with this or that writing system also play an important role here. Literary languages are subordinated to writing systems they use (Columas ²1989, 184 — 185). This, in its turn is reflected in the external forms of lexical units including terms; namely in their graphic appearance. Depending on the writing traditions of this or that language, the spelling of scientific and technical terms acquires particular specific features bound with their specific indications of the corresponding writing system.

On the other hand, the graphic appearance of any term can be influenced by some linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Among the linguistic factors one may mention the peculiarities of the phonetic and syllabic structure of a language (a set of phonemes, possible types of syllables, the phonetic distribution), its grammar (particularly morphological) structure etc. The extralinguistic factors, which influence the external form, may be realized in particular orthographic traditions of the corresponding language. If to take into consideration the fact that writing systems, unlike other aspects of a language, are more moveable, more capable for changing (Fierman 1991, 261), one may come to the conclusion that the orthographic rules are regulated and changed much easier, than the vocabulary of a language, to say already nothing of closed systems, especially grammar. Absolute internationalisms may also possess different graphic peculiarities depending upon the type of the internationalisms (Nedobity 1989, 173).

All the terminological units can be subdivided into two large groups: monocomponent terms, which consist of only one lexical unit (terminological words), and multicomponent terms (terminological phrases).

Multicomponent terms consist of several lexical units, one of which is a key word. Compounds, such as German Zolldeklaration (customs declaration) are also considered multicomponent because the way whether the words are written together or separately, depends on the spelling traditions of a particular language.

It is an international internal form, not an external form in a particular language, which is a criterion whether this or that terminological unit is monocomponent or multicomponent. When the international internal form consists of one component whereas in one or another particular language consists of several words, this term is nevertheless considered one-component. Monocomponent and multicomponent terms are characterized with different structural peculiarities, therefore each of these two types should be characterized separately from each other (D’jakov / Kyjak / Kudeljko 2000, 98 – 103).

Monocomponent terms may be referred to one of the following types:

1. Absolute internationalisms, i.e. terms made up through direct borrowing of an external form with a preserved international meaning: English annuity, German Annuität, Russian annuitet; English domicile, German Domizil, Russian domicil´; English reproduction, German Reproduktion (but Russian vosproizvodstvo).
2. Inner internationalisms with partial purism, i.e. terms made up through direct borrowing of an internal form with different (non-international) external forms: English insert, German Einlageblatt, Russian vkladyš (all the three equivalents have a common motivation but different external forms); as well as English at sight, German bei Sicht (but Russian avista, from Italian à vista, that means literally ‘on presentation’).
3. Non-international terms coined by means of a descriptive translation with no international motivation preserved (full purism): English share (that means literally ‘a part(icle)’) (but German Aktie Russian akciâ; from Latin actio i.e. ‘an act’, ‘a deed’); German Fragebogen (that means literally ‘a sheet with questions’) (but Russian anketa, from French enquête ‘an investigation’, from enquérir ‘to inquire’, ‘to investigate’ < Latin inquirere ‘to search’).
4. Non-international borrowings, i.e. terms made up through a direct non-international borrowing of an external form without taking an international internal form into consideration: English exchange (a French borrowing) (but German Börse, Russian birža, from Late Latin bursa ‘a purse’; cf: Italian borsa, Spanish bolsa); Russian tovar (from Turkic tavar that means literally ‘cattle’).
5. Partial internationalisms made up through direct borrowing of an external form, but with another suffix: Russian èkonomika (but English economy German Ökonomie); English emitter (but German Emittent, Russian èmitent); German Agentur (but English agency, Russian agentstvo).
6. Partial internationalisms made up through the use of an international word for a new non-international meaning: German Filiale (in the meaning ‘an agency’); English association (in the meaning ‘a bloc’); Russian obligaciâ (in the meaning ‘ a bond’).
7. Descriptive terminological phrases with a use of an international element. According to their nature they are rather multicomponent terms; however they are equivalents of monocomponent terms, therefore they are considered among these monocomponent terms: English commercial discount (but German Dekort, Russian dekort); German Warenkontrolle (that means literally ‘goods control’) (but English sorting, Russian brakeraž); Russian bankovskij bilet (but English banknote, German Banknote).
8. National elements that became international (a particular case of absolute internationalisms): English behavio(u)rism, blockade, blue chip, boycott, vendorlease, hiring, deadweight etc.; German Ersatz (cf: English ersatz) and some others.
9. Terms made up through a direct non-international borrowing of an external form, but with the corresponding internal form preserved (a particular case of internal internationalisms): English exhibition (a Latin borrowing) (cf: German Ausstellung, Russian vystavka); Russian veksel´ (from German Wechsel, literally ‘an exchange’) (cf: Italian cambiale, from cambiare ‘to exchange’; Spanish letra de cambio).
10. Hybrid terms made up from international elements and those of a native language (roots, prefixes or suffixes): German Hedgegeschäft (the word formed with the English word hedge (a antional element that has become an internationalism) and the German word Geschäft) (cf: English hedging, Russian hedžirovanie).
11. Terms made up with a foreign (not international) element (a root, a prefix, a suffix) and an element of the native language (internal lexical units): English shortage (deficiency) (the word formed with the help of the English word short) and the French suffix -age); Russian brakeraž (formed with the help of the same suffix).

Besides, the graphic appearance of monocomponent both international and merely borrowed terminological units are also taken into consideration. In particular, such graphic shadows can be differentiated:

1. Foreign elements with a complete preservation of the original spelling (for the languages using the Latin script only): English àgio, agiotage, bureaucratism, del credere, de jure, ersatz etc.; German Jury, Aval, Aviso, Allonge, Underlying, Businessman, Bordereau, Vendorlease etc.
2. Foreign elements with a partial preservation of the original spelling (for the languages using the Latin script only): German Akquisiteur, Akkreditiv, Aktiva, Valvation etc.
3. Foreign elements with no preservation of the original spelling (for the languages using the Latin script only): English debtor (from Latin debitor), absenteeism (from Latin absentismus), attack (from French ataque) etc.; German Attacke, Bilanz, Börse, Bürokratismus, Prozent, Delkredere etc.
4. Foreign elements with an artificial reconstruction of the original form: English advice (an artificial reconstruction of the original Latin form from which an Italian word avviso originates); German Havarie (from Italian avaria, which was derived from the Arabic word ‘avâr that means ‘a disaster’), Baratt (from Old French barat, that means literally ‘deception’).
5. Terms borrowed through some third languages: English acquirer (through the French medium); Russian deval´vaciâ (probably through the German medium: German Devalvation < Latin devaluatio), distrib´ûtor (through the English medium: English distributor < Latin distributio).
6. International terms with national variants of Latin suffixes: English actuary, Russian aktuarij (Latin actuarius); English anticipation, German Antizipation, Portuguese anticipação, Russian anticipaciâ (Latin anticipatio); English depression, German Depression, Russian depressiâ (Latin depressio); English annuity; German Annuität; Russian annuitet (Latin annuitas) etc.
7. International terms with non-international suffixes added: English discounting, sorting, producer; German Demonetisierung, Administrieren, Diskontierung; Russian assignovaniâ, bankrotstvo, vizirovanie, grûnderstvo etc.

Multicomponent terms can be classified depending on the presence or absence of an international internal form as well as on the presence or absence of international roots.

The internationality of internal forms of multicomponent terms consists in the common character of the general scheme (pattern) and the presence of common constituents that may be both international and national.

In this case the word order, endings, ways of combination of the components (coining of composites or making-up terminological phrases) and some other features bound with grammar peculiarities of a particular language, are not taken into consideration. The degree of internationality of an external form is determined by the presence or absence of international roots.

Thus, the multicomponent terms depending on the degree of their internationality, can be subdivided into the following groups (and subgroups that depend upon the two nuances, namely upon adding national elements to international terminological phrases and upon the removal of one or several elements from an international terminological phrase):

1. Terms made up by means of word-for-word translation of international phrases, i.e. direct calques of international internal forms, with a complete preservation of international roots: English capital export, German Kapitalexport (but Russian vyvoz kapitala); English bank group, German Bankgruppe, Russian bankovskaâ gruppa.

0. with adding of a national component u: Russian analiz finansovyh aspektov (but English financial analysis, German Finanzanalyse).

1. Terms composed by means of word-for-word translation of an international phrase, i.e. direct calques of international internal forms, with a complete preservation of international roots: English tax anticipations, German Steuerantizipation, Russian anticipaciâ nalogov.

0. with adding a national component: Russian associaciâ delovogo sotrudničestva (but English business association, German Geschäftsassoziation).
1. with a removal of some components: English marketing services (but German Tätigkeit des Marketingdienstes, Russian deâtel´nost´ marketingovoj služby).

1. Terms made up by means of literal translation of an international phrase, i.e. direct calques of international internal forms, with no international roots: English Treasury bills, German Schatzwechsel, Russian kaznačejskij veksel´.

0. with adding a national component: Russian ispytaniâ v rynočnyh usloviâh (but English market tests, German Marktversuche).
1. with a removal of some components (in the research process such terms were not encountered).

1. Terms composed by means of the descriptive translation of international phrases without preservation of international internal forms, but with a partial conservation of international roots: English trading profit, Russian vyručka ot realizacii produkcii.
2. Terms, made up by means of the descriptive translation of international phrases without conservation of both international internal forms and international roots: German Ausgaben des Staatshaushalts, Russian gosudarstvennye rashody.

In order to make the Ukrainian equivalents more successive, we compared the equivalents in other languages, mostly English German and Russian, and selected the most successive variant. We have investigated the correlation of the international and national elements of marketing terms in all the three languages. For this purpose, we analysed over 2,000 marketing terminological in the languages mentioned above. To avoid the subjectivism in the selection of these units for the analysis, we split the whole bulk of the material under the analysis into groups à 600 units in each one. We took arbitrarily any 600 units parallel in English, German and Russian. In the process of the analysis, we noticed that the percentage correlation of different terminological units in each arbitrary group consisting of 600 selected terminological units, is approximately alike. The discrepancies in the statistic data make up under 5%.

Thus, we ascertained, what types of terminological units fall on each 600 units selected. Monocomponent and multicomponent terms were analyzed separately. The discrepancies in the number of the units under investigation in each of the groups is explained with the fact that any terminological unit in any language may have one or more synonyms. These synonyms were also taken into consideration. In some other cases, to some monocomponent terms in one language, multicomponent equivalents may correspond in other languages. Monocomponent and multicomponent synonyms may also co-exist within one and the same language. These statistic data were applied in the compilation of multilingual dictionaries (D’jakov 2001; Drozd / Dubičynsjkyj / D’jakov 1997).

The amount of the English equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 717 for each 600 terminological units. The synonymy may take place mostly because of the co-existence of English and borrowed elements (trade—commerce; goods—commodity) and because of the variations in monocomponent terms (freightage—affreightment; sorting—grading) as well as multicomponent ones (deficient financing— deficit financing; marketing management—marketing control). There are even some cases when a multicomponent terminological unit has a monocomponent synonym (agency firm—agents, retail trade—retailment) and vice versa (storno—entry reversing).

The amount of the English monocomponent equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 266 for each 600 terminological units. The criteria for the definition of monocomponent and multicomponent terms are rather transparent because the word composita in English look like terminological word combinations (phrases) rather than compounds. The correlation of international and non-international monocomponent terms can be observed in the next subchapter.

Absolute (complete) internationalisms among the monocomponent terms in the English marketing terminology constitute in average 59.4%. Such terminological units are absolute internationalisms like accelerator, amalgamation, basis, balance, bankrupt, volume and some others. Many English words also became international: barter, badlands, boom, budget, dealer, outsider etc. The antipodes of complete internationalisms are manifestations of the complete purism. In English such terminological units are load, shareholder (Russian akcioner), stock-jobbing (Russian ažiotaž), survey (Russian anketirovanie), income and some others. In the present investigation not only national elements on the place of international foreign equivalents are considered as manifestations of purism, but also all the non-international terms in general. The intermediate position is taken by inner internationalisms with partial purism, i.e. calqued internationalisms where the internal form only is international: at sight (Russian avista), holdings (Russian avuary), up to date (Russian ažur) etc. Among the non-international borrowings, such terms can be mentioned as average (Russian avarija), exchange (Russian birža), sorting (Russian brakeraž), gross (Russian brutto), issue (Russian ėmissiā) etc.

According to the degree of their internationality, all the monocomponent terminological units can be subdivided into the three large groups: international terminological units, partly international terminological units and non-international ones.

The first category will include the direct international borrowings of external forms only (complete internationalisms), the third one will include descriptively translated terminological units without preserving the international motivation (complete purism), non-international borrowings and terms made up with a foreign (not international) element (a root, a prefix, a suffix) and an element of the native language. All the rest of the terminological units will be included into the second group, because in this case it is actually impossible to calculate the degree of the presence of both international and non-international elements. Partial internationalisms include both international and national elements, moreover there are no exact borderlines between international and non-international elements in them.

The table data demonstrate a rather high degree of internationality of the English monocomponent terminological units (59.0%). However the percentage of non-international elements of the English terminological units is also rather high (22.19%)It can be explained with the fact that the English marketing terminology (as well as other branch terminological systems) contains a great deal of non-international borrowings. These elements are of course loan words, however their shadows of meaning do not coincide with the corresponding lexical parallels in other languages.

Borrowed terminological elements are characterized in English by a number of specific features, one of which is the trend to preserve the original spelling of borrowings. Another feature is a wide application of derivatives with native suffixes added. To be more exact, it can be qualified as a substitution of a Latin or Greek suffix with a native one, E.g. the suffix ­atio with the suffix ­ing.

The statistic data indicate that in average seven terminological elements without the preservation of the original form correspond to six elements with the preserved original form. The cases of the partial preservation of the original form were not found. Among the terminological elements of the Latin and Greek origin borrowed through the third languages, some cases of an artificial reconstruction of the original form may take place (2.63%), e.g. in the word advice. The terminological elements borrowed through the tird languages constitute about 10.53% of the total number.

Multicomponent terminological units, as well as monocomponent ones, can be also subdivided into the three groups, i.e. international, partly international and non-international terms. The first group will include the terminological units formed by means of the literal translation of international phrases (a direct calquing of the international internal form) with a complete preservation of the international roots. Such terms are analogical to the one-component absolute internationalisms because they consist of absolute internationalisms by the complete preservation of the international internal form (motivation). The third group includes the antipodes of the complete internationalisms, i.e. terminological units made up by means of the descriptive translation of the international phrase without the international internal form preserved. The presence of the international roots is thereby not taken into consideration in this case because the international external form is impossible without the international internal form. All the other multicomponent terms are included into the second group.

The statistic data indicate that the greatest percentage among the English multicomponent terms is constituted by the partial internationalisms (71.4%), the basic layer of which is made up by the terminological phrases with the preservation of the international internal form and the partial preservation of international roots.

Comparing the percentage correlation of international and national elements in monocomponent and multicomponent terminological units, it is possible to derive the average percentage of the general correlation of international and national elements in the English marketing terminology (Table 1).

Thus in the English marketing terminology monocomponent terms are more international than the multicomponent ones. On the other hand, there are more partial internationalisms among the multicomponent terms. In general, the correlation of international and national elements in the English marketing terminology is characterized by the prevalence of international elements (36.69% vs 18.41). Partial internationalisms, the degree of internationality of which is next to impossible to be defined unambiguously, constitute about a half of the whole material investigated (44.92%).

The total amount of the German equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 734 for each 600 terminological units. The synonymy, as well as in English, may take place mostly because of the co-existence of German and borrowed elements (Wechselbürgschaft—Aval; Vertretung—Agentur; Anpassung—Adap(ta)tion; Erzeuger—Produzent) and because of the variations in both monocomponent and multicomponent terms (Werbeagentur—Werbeorgan). As well as in English, there are some cases of co-existence of monocomponent and multicomponent synonyms of one and the same terminological unit (Agiotage—Agiogeschäft).

The amount of the German monocomponent equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 286 for each 600 terminological units. The criteria for the definition of monocomponent and multicomponent terms, unlike their English equivalents, are more obscure because the word composition is a rather productive way of coining new terms in German, moreover compound words (German Komposita) are more peculiar for the German terminological systems rather than terminological phrases (Kyjak 1992, 144). Therefore it is rather difficult to define whether a compound word is a monocomponent term, or nevertheless a multicomponent one. Therefore the main criterion for this way of definition in this paper was the international internal form of the corresponding terminological unit. When it is monocomponent, the corresponding German term is considered monocomponent too.

Absolute (complete) internationalisms among the monocomponent terms in the German marketing terminology constitute in average 53.5%. It is 5.9% less than in English. Such terminological units are absolute internationalisms like Abandon, Aviso, Aktie, Bilanz, Badlands, Variante, Garant and some others. Some German words (Ersatz and some others) became internationalisms. The manifestations of the complete purism in the German marketing terminology are such terminological units as Vorschuss, Erzeuger, Wechselbürgerschaft, Guthaben and some others. The cases of calquing are also rather frequent: Begünstiger (Russian beneficiar), Geschäftsmann (Russian biznesmen), Vergütung (Russian bonifikaciâ) etc. Among non-international borrowings, misleading words and pseudointernationalisms such words are worth mentioning as Filiale (in the meaning ‘agency’), Sorte (in the meaning ‘an article’), Fusion (in the meaning ‘amalgamation’) and some others.

The table data demonstrate a lower degree of internationality of the German monocomponent terminological units in comparison with their English equivalents (53.5% in German vs 59.0% in English). The percentage of non-international elements of the German terminological units is correspondingly higher (27.62% vs 22.19% in English) which proves a great disposition of the German LSP to purism (although the German marketing terminology is more internationalized than, for instance, the German technical terminology).

The statistic data indicate that the greatest percentage among the German multicomponent terms is constituted by the partial internationalisms (76.57% vs 71.4% in English), the basic layer of which (as well as in English is made up by the terminological phrases with the preservation of the international internal form and the partial preservation of international roots.

Comparing the percentage correlation of international and national elements in monocomponent and multicomponent terminological units, it is possible to derive the average percentage of the general correlation of international and national elements in the German marketing terminology (Table 2).

Thus in the German as well as in the English marketing terminology, monocomponent terms are more international than multicomponent ones (in spite of a greater percentage of cases with complete purism). On the other hand, there are more partial internationalisms among the multicomponent terms.

The total amount of the Russian equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 623 for each 600 terminological units. The synonymy in Russian, as well as in English and German, may take place mostly because of the co-existence of Russian and borrowed elements (buk-vėl´ū—buhgalterskaâ stoimost´) and because of the variations in both monocomponent (rashody—zatraty—izderžki) and multicomponent terms (tovarnyj akkreditiv—dokumentarnyj akkreditiv; akceptnyj dom—akceptnaâ kontora). The distinctive feature of numerous Russian multicomponent terminological units is the co-existence of many variants of one and the same terminological phrase (assortiment tovarov—tovarnyj assortiment). As well as in English, there are some cases of co-existence of monocomponent and multicomponent synonyms of one and the same terminological unit (arbitr—tretejskij sud´â; banknota—bankovskij bilet).

The amount of the Russian monocomponent equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 220 for each 600 terminological units. The criteria for the definition of monocomponent and multicomponent terms are more transparent than in German but more obscure than in English. It can be explained with the fact that the Russian parts of speech are very rich in different flexions, with very clearly expressed grammar forms of nouns and adjectives. However, there are some Russian compound words that correspond to English terminological phrases.

Absolute (complete) internationalisms among the monocomponent terms in the Russian marketing terminology constitute in average 77.27%, which confirms the excessive cosmopolitization of the Russian terminological vocabulary once more (Cf. 53.5% in German and 59.4 in English). Such terminological units are absolute internationalisms like auditor, bazis, beneficiar, valorizaciâ and some others. The manifestations of the complete purism in the Russian marketing terminology are usually present actually in the same cases as in English and German, i.e. when the international internal form is absent at all. The cases of calquing are such terms as bezrabotica (English unemployment, German Arbeitslosigkeit), «byki» (English bulls, German Bulls) etc. Among non-international borrowings in Russian there are numerous non-international loan words of the English, German, French, Turkic origin: f´ûčersnaâ (birža, operaciâ), grossbuh, tovar etc. There are also numerous misleading words: assignaciâ (bank note) etc.

The table data demonstrate an extremely high degree of internationality of the Russian monocomponent terminological units in comparison with their English and equivalents (77.27% in comparison with 53.5% in German and 59.0% in English). The percentage of partly international elements of the Russian terminological units is rather low (only 9.53%).

The data concerning the original spelling of loan words in Russian are not taken into consideration because the Russian language uses a different (Cyrillic) script system. However some recent borrowings are not subjected to the Russian spelling and morphological rules.

Comparing the percentage correlation of international and national elements in monocomponent and multicomponent terminological units, it is possible to derive the average percentage of the general correlation of international and national elements in the Russian marketing terminology (Table 3).

The general results of the analysis of the degree of internationality among the monocomponent terms in all the three languages are given in the comparative table (Table 4).

The comparative percentage correlation of monocomponent terminological units according to their degree of internationality looks like in the table given below (Table 5):

The analysis of the statistic data concerning the spelling peculiarities of direct borrowings is given in the following table (Table 6):

The characteristic features of English, German and Russian multicomponent terminological units are shown in Table 7:

The comparative percentage correlation of English, German and Russian multicomponent terminological units is shown in Table 8.

On the basis of the simple average from the percentage correlation of the degree of internationality among the monocomponent and multicomponent terms in all the three languages, it is possible to derive a general comparative Table 9:

Thus, on the basis of the average data concerning the comparison of monocomponent and multicomponent terms, it is possibe to come to the conclusion that the highest indices concerning full internationalisms is in the Russian marketing terms (47.82%) and the lowest one, in German (33.56%). Among partial internationalisms, German equivalents have the highest indices (47.73%) and Russian, the lowest ones (41.86%). Non-international terms have the highest percentage in German (18.72% vs 18.41% in English and 10.09% in Russian). This correlation can be also shown as a diagram (Figure 1):

On the basis of the analysis given above, it is possible to characterize the influence of these or those language interferences towards the marketing terminology in English, German and Russian.

First of all, it is necessary to indicate that all the three languages belong to the European cultural and historical area. To be more exact, German and English belong to its Western (Roman, Atlantic) branch, and Russian, to the Eastern (Byzantic) one, however, with a strong Western influence (especially beginning from the 18^th century).

Concerning particular languages, one may affirm that in English it is communicative language interferences that played the leading part in the formation of its word stock, i.e. the intensive contacts with French facilitated the adoption of a great number of words of the Romance origin by the English vocabulary. Consequently it affected the development of the marketing terminology.

Besides communicative language interferences, a great part was also played by religion (the influence of the Roman Catholic religion and the Latin language). The religious language interferences have essentially determined the place of the English language in the European cultural and historical area. From the positions of the psycholinguistic principle of classification, almost all the contacts with French were mostly subconscious. The influence of the Roman Catholic religion and the Latin language was also subconscious rather than conscious.

A great number of the English terminological variants (the abundance of synonyms) and a great number of non-international borrowings may be explained by the fact that for many centuries the development of the English economic (especially marketing) terms was spontaneous, and the attempts to regulate and systematize it, had no success.

German, as well as Russian, was developing under the strong influence of the Roman Catholic religion and the Latin language, but under entirely different conditions. First, German did not undergo any considerable influence of other languages. Second, it had some language contacts mostly with French and English during the last two centuries, which resulted in the adoption of a number of terms borrowed from the languages mentioned above.

In the marketing terminology, a considerable role was also played by the Italian language. A complete preservation of their spelling forms is the evidence of the fact that all these terms are non-assimilated recent borrowings, which are not objected to the German spelling and grammar rules. The formation of branch terminological systems in German was more conscious. Such was for instance, the artificial purification of the German vocabulary, i.e. the struggle against the Latin influence. A smaller number of synonyms in the German marketing terminology can be explained with the fact that the measures in the regulation and standardization of the German terminological units were more successful than in English.

Russian belongs to the Eastern branch of the European cultural and historical area; therefore it was Greek (Byzantic) and Old Slavonic (Church Slavonic), but not Latin, which were sacral languages for Russian. The Latin influence is being observed approximately since the 17^th century. However, these interferences were for Russian not religious but rather political (especially in Peter the Great’s lifetime) and even communicative.

For the last three centuries, the Russian language experienced (through the political orientation and language contacts) a mighty influence of various West European languages: German, Dutch, French, English, Italian and some others. The geographic position of Russia between Europe and Asia facilitated the contacts between Russian and some Oriental languages, mostly Turkic ones. It was indicated, for instance, in the non-international borrowing of a number of Turkic words.

In the process of formation and development of the Russian economic terminology, both conscious and subconscious interferences took place. The examples of subconscious interferences are, for instance, numerous uncritical borrowings from foreign languages, the excessive cosmopolitization of the Russian vocabulary (Braun 1989, 165). A good example of such an excessive cosmopolitization is a great number of uncritical borrowings from English during the recent years. In some periods, conscience interferences in the form of "purges" from unnecessary borrowings, also took place.

The external form of terminological units includes the etymological and the graphic aspects. The etymological aspect of the external form of terminological units consists in the ways of coining new terms (gap filling): direct borrowing of terminological elements or their translation. The graphic aspect can be explained as the graphic appearance of these terms, i.e. in the principle of their spelling. On the basis of these two aspects, marketing terminological units in English, German and Russian were analysed with the purpose to reveal their degree of internationality through the percentage correlation of international and national elements. All the units were subdivided into two groups: monocomponent and multicomponent terms. According to the degree of their internationality, those terms were distributed among the three categories: completely international units, partly international and non-international ones.

Die Außenform terminologischer Einheiten schließt einen etymologischen und einen graphischen Aspekt ein. Der etymologische Aspekt der Außenform terminologischer Einheiten kommt in den Möglichkeiten der Bildung neuer Fachwörter zum Ausdruck (Lückenbeseitigung): direkte Entlehnung terminologischer Elemente oder ihre Übersetzung. Der graphische Aspekt kann als orthographische Gestaltung dieser Fachwörter verstanden werden. Die englischen, deutschen und russischen Fachwörter aus dem Bereich Marketing wurden einer kontrastiven Untersuchung im Hinblick auf die beiden genannten Aspekte unterzogen. Dabei sollte der Grad ihrer Internationalisierung durch die Feststellung der Prozentsatz-Korrelation von internationalen und nationalen Elementen eruiert werden. Alle Einheiten wurden in zwei Gruppen eingeteilt: Monokomponent- und Multikomponentfachwörter. Je nach Grad ihrer Internationalisierung wurden diese Fachwörter in drei Kategorien eingeteilt: internationale, teilweise internationale und nicht internationale terminologische Einheiten.

Akulenko V.V. (1971): Internacional´nye èlementy v leksike âzykov. In: Nacional´noe i internacional´noe v literature, fol´klore i âzyke. Kišinëv: Štiinca 1971, 251 — 264.

Barbera, M. (2003): Manfred Görlach, ed. A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. A Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in Sixteen European Languages. In: International Journal of Lexicography. Vol. 16, Issue 2, 2003, 208—216.

Beloded I.K. (1980): Internacional´nye èlementy v leksike i terminologii. Har´kov: Viŝa škola 1980.

Braun P.: Internationalisms: identical vocabularies in European languages. In: Language Adaptation. Ed. by Florian Columas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 158 — 167.

Budagov R.A. (1953): Očerki po âzykoznaniű. Moskva: Izdatel´stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR 1953.

Budagov R.A. (1974): Čelovek i ego âzyk. Moskva: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universitetata 1974.

Columas F. (1989): Language Adaptation. In: Language Adaptation. Ed. by Florian Columas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 1 — 25.

Columas F. (²1989): Democracy and the Crisis of Normative Linguistics. In: Language Adaptation. Ed. by Florian Columas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 177 — 194.

De Schryver, G.-M. (2003): Lexicographers' Dreams in the Electronic-Dictionary Age. In: International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 16, Issue 2, June 2003, 143 — 199

D’jakov A.S. et al. (2001): Ukrajinsjko-rosijsjko-anglijsjko-nimecjkyj tlumačnyj ta perekladnyj slovnyk terminiv rynkovoji ekonomiky / Ed. By Taras Kyjak. Kyjiv: Oberehy, 2001.

D’jakov A.S./ Kyjak T.R./ Kudeljko Z.B. (2000): Osnovy terminotvorennja: semantyčni ta sociolingvistyčni aspekty. Kyjiv: KM Academia, 2000.

Drozd L./ Roudný M. (1980): Language Planning and Standardization of Terminology in Czecho-Slovakia. In: International Journal of Sociology of Language. Vol. 23. Standardization of Nomenclature. The Hague — Paris — New York: Mouton Publishers 1980, 29 — 42.

Drozd O.M./ Dubičynsjkyj V.V./ D’jakov A.S. et al. (1997): Slovnyk-posibnyk ekonomičnyx terminiv: Rosijsjko-ukrajinsjko-anglijsjkyj / Ed. By Taras Kyjak. Kyjiv: KM Academia, 1997.

Fierman W. (1991): Language Planning and National Development. The Uzbek Experience. Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter 1991.

Gajda S. (1990): Wprowadzenie do teorii terminu. Opole: WSP 1990.

Kandelaki T.L. (1977): Semantika i motivirovannost´ terminov. Moskva: Nauka 1977.

Kiâk T.R. (1988): Motivirovannost´ leksičeskih edinic (količestvennle i kačestvennye harakteristiki). L´vov: Viŝa škola, 1988.

Kyjak T.R. (1992): Naukovo-texničnyj pereklad (teoretyčni ta praktyčni aspekty). In: Inozemna filolohija 104/1992, 141 — 150.

Kyjak T.R. (1994): Problemy ukrajinsjkoji terminografiji. Stari uroky v novyx umovax. In: Vestnik Har´kovskogo politehničeskogo universiteta 19/1994, Vypusk 1, 191 — 198.

Lotte D.S. (1982): Voprosy zaimstvovaniâ i uporâdočeniâ inoâzyčnyh terminov i terminoèlementov. Moskva: Nauka 1982.

Maslov Û. S. (1987): Vvedenie v âzykoznanie. Moskva: Vysšaâ škola 1987.

Nedobity W. (1989): International Terminology. In: Language Adaptation. Ed. by Florian Columas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 168 — 176.

Sager J.C./ Nkwenti-Azeh B. (1989): Terminological Problems Involved in the Process of Exchange of New Terminology between Developing and Developed Countries. Paris: UNESCO 1989.

Skorohod´ko È.F. (1963): Voprosy perevoda anglijskoj naučno-tehničeskoj literatury. — Kiev: Izdatel´stvo Kievskogo universiteta 1963.

Thorsten, R. (2002): "Besser wäre z.B. ‚JArbAnBMIdg‘". Übersetzungen zur Konzeption von sprachlicher Ökonomie in der terminologischen Grundsatznormung. In.: Fachsprache. International Journal of LSP. Heft 1 – 2, 2002, 36 – 50.

Volodina M.N. (1993): Internacional´noe i nacional´noe v processe terminologičeskoj nominacii. Moskva: Izdatel´stvo MGU 1993.

Wüster E. (1985): Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie. Wien: International Information Centre for Terminology (Infoterm) 1985.

Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (2002): Die anglo-amerikanische Wissenschaftssprache der Kognitiven Linguistik und Übersetzbarkeit ins Deutsche. In.: Fachsprache. International Journal of LSP. Heft 1 – 2, 2002.