The linguistic objects, which cannot be considered with neither an exactly defined philosophical theory nor taking into consideration their specific character concerning the language approach, include specific meaning and other problems bound with it.

Now it is rather difficult to calculate even approximately, what number of linguists devoted their fundamental research to the solution of the problem of meaning. But one can imagine that the number of opinion is not reduced, but grows, in spite of the fact that "the ory of meaning has not gone out of the initial stage of its elaboration yet. Various conceptions of meaning that partly have additional relations with one another explaining various aspects of meaning but partly with respect to mutual exclusion, when one conception denies another" [Nikitin 1983, p. 4].

On the other hand one cannot state that for all the possible varieties of formulation only one definition of the concept of meaning can lay claim to be trustworthy. Moreover, such a plurality of views is an evidence of baffling complexity and diversity of researches of this phenomenon.

If in 1936 English linguists Ogden and Richards mentioned in their monograph "Meaning of the Meaning" 23 different definitions of the term "meaning" [Svadost 1968, p. 52], today even the framework of one special research does not allow any at least skin-deep survey of a noticeably increased number of these definitions.

The task of this work does not include the analysis of theories of meaning, neither as the creation of our own one, or the classification of different conceptions. Therefore let us dwell on only one definition of lexical meaning, which synthesizes numerous points of view. This definition belongs to Smirnickij: "meaning of a word is a well-known representation of an object, phenomenon or attitude in the consciousness and (or analogically to its character of mental formation that is constructed from the reflection of some elements of the reality), which is a part of a word as its so called internal side with regard to the sound cluster of which, a word play a part of the material covering, which is necessary not only for the expression of the meaning and for its transmitting to other people, but also for its rise, formation, existence and development" [Smirnickij 1955, p. 88; 1956, p. 162].

From this characteristics, one can come to the conclusion that the meaning of every lexical unit is immediately correlated with the corresponding unit of the reality; it does not exist in the reflection of objects, but it reflects those essential general features and properties that are objectively peculiar to this object.

Lexical meaning belongs to the categories of linguistics, in consideration of which it is impossible to neglect the clearly defined philosophical theory as well as the specific nature of the linguistic approach.

This question turned out to be so complicated and controversial that some linguists indeed refused to interpret meaning as a purely linguistic problem. Bloomfield particularly wrote that every expression can be completely described in terms of lexical and grammatical forms; we should remember that meaning cannot be defined in terms of our science [Nikitin 1983, p. 6].

Of course such an opinion is debatable, because linguistics as a separate science cannot exist without consideration of the problem of meaning. The solution of this problem consists chiefly in the clear definition of the place and amount of the linguistic meaning within the framework of general semiotic scientific cognition. In our opinion, Worf was closer to the truth here. He considered that linguistics is mainly the search of meaning [Novoe v lingvistike 1960, p. 201].

Many much fundamental researches are devoted to the solution of this problem but in spite of this, the number of points of view to this problem is not reduced but, to the contrary, continues to be increased.

One can imagine that the ory of meaning is still on the very initial stage of its elaboration. Various conceptions either deny or supplement each other considering various aspects of meaning.

At the same time one cannot state that any separate opinion lays claim to the absolute trustworthiness and completeness. Such a great a number of views confirms the extreme complexity and diversity of the phenomen under investigation. Moreover different linguists often consider absolutely different sides of the linguistic sign as meaning. Here a purely mechanic question may occur: which property of the linguistic sign should the term "meaning" be ascribed to (if to be ascribe indeed)?

During the last time the number of definitions and theories of meaning has grown in linguistics to such a great extent that today it is quite impossible to give a skin-deep survey even at least within the framework of one particular research.

Relying on different authors’ opinions and statements mentioned above, we can propose such a classification of the available conceptions of meaning (the scope of this work does not allow us to reveal all the peculiarities of the approaches, schools, theories etc):

As a base, we take Smirnickij’s definition of meaning because this conception is the most complete and precise characteristics of this complicated interconnection. However some moments, which were not represented in this definition, should be marked thereby. Particularly we consider that meaning is not merely "a mental formation based on the reflection of some elements of the reality; " it is (or must be) also an objective reflection of the reality, a socially conditioned category stable in synchrony but potentially changeable in diachrony.

The meaning of a word or a word combination is defined by necessary and sufficient features of a concept, to which this word or word combination corresponds, irrespective of the condition whether these signs are reflected in the components of this lexical unit or not. Therefore that meaning as a whole can be fixed in explanatory or terminological dictionaries. In our opinion, such an approach characterizes the categories of meaning in linguistics as a whole and in semantics in particular more clearly. It becomes possible to define the place and function of its other sides and properties (contents, form, understanding and things like that) in a linguistic sign.

Judging by the problem in meaning, one should touch upon the question about the possibility of its description or explanation. Some linguists deny the expediency of both giving and researching definitions in the function of word meaning [Golovin 1979, p. 15; Pravdin 1983].

But in such a case the possibility of the scientific description of meaning indeed is also denied; it confines itself only to the possibility of the semantic analysis of a word in linguistics, whereas definition can however (to some extent) reflect the main informational characteristics of an object, that is can point to it without ambiguity, determining its place among the other objects; it can define the system peculiarities and things like that. Definition requires a linguistic description of meaning only; moreover these indicators turn out to be sufficient for many research. The definitive description and definitive analysis of meaning and lexical units are necessary on the base of the dictionary meaning based upon the language reality, not on the whole contents of the concept. The majority of linguists also proceed from the fact that any description or explanation of meaning of a word is an attempt of deriving its definition [Apresân 1963, p. 6; Bilan, Borkun, Piotrovskij 1977, p. 55; Birviš 1981, p. 179; Kiselevskij 1979; Rey, Delesal 1983, p. 239; Stepanov 1975, p. 11; Ufimceva 1984, p. 134-140].

Meaning should not be understood as something always clearly outlined and limited in advance: here an original language antinomy may take place just in the same way. That becomes apparent in the relative uncertainty of the whole amount of meaning, in the amorphism of its components, in the complicated structure of their hierarchy and so on, and at the same time, in the actualization of its virtual (possible) meaning in the context, which eliminates this relative vagueness "prompting" to the semantic components of this lexical meaning.

Û.S.Stepanov wrote: "Meaning of a word reflects common and simultaneously essential features of an object, which are perceived in people’s social experience. The meaning of a word can be developed into a sentence or an integral totality of sentences" [Stepanov 1985, p. 11].

It is an explanatory dictionary, which makes this its aim to objectivate the meaning of a word and fix it in the form of a definition. The main point of this operation consists in the fact that the meaning of a word or word combination defined, is characterized with the help of a word, the meaning of which is considered as well-known.

Here we do not touch upon the methods of the correct definition of a word because this is beyond the objectives of our research. For the practical needs of the experiment, we use definitions from well-known dictionaries compiled by competent groups of authors. These dictionaries should be reliable informers about the meaning of a word and its semantic structure. In our opinion, an explanatory or terminological dictionary fixes a totality of features of an object that are necessary and sufficient for its specification among other objects. Its other features belong to the sphere of encyclopaedic data about the object and should not be indicated in such dictionaries. Therefore we join the sis that the minimal definition of meaning of any unitis a list of semantic components necessary and sufficient for the separation (in the paradigmatic plan) of this meaning from the meanings of all the other units of a language [Benedix 1983, p. 76].

The classification of the conceptions of meaning proposed a above is conditional to some extent: many linguists sometimes touch upon some other theories, and their views are not determined within the framework of the conditional subgroup only. Any conception of the meaning touches upon a set of other important language categories such as ‘contents, ‘ ‘understanding’, ‘concept’ and things like that.

Especially acute these discussion are around the problem of correlation between meaning and concept. In this question we do not support any unconditional delimitation of these categories, that is we do not consider meaning as a purely linguistic problem only; we admit that it can be related with logic too.

It is rather vice versa: we underline their permanent and immediate connection, its mutual enrichment and mutual penetration; that is one of the conditions for the development and enrichment of knowledges about the objective reality. As L. V. Uvarova stated, concept is also an image, an imprint of the objective reality [Uvarova, 1967, p. 86].

If we try to specify the main trends in the linguistic works concerning interaction s of these two categories, we can synthesize the following opinions:

From the linguistic point of view, one can agree with the statement that language meaning is the initial basis for creating a concept, that is its part, which is directed towards equality, but does not reach this stage because all the concept including scientific ones permanently evolutionize; they are permanently developed and improved.

The difference between meaning and concept of a lexical unit play an essential part in lexicography, particularly in composing articles for explanatory and encyclopaedic dictionaries. Meaning in our opinion, should not be understood as something clearly outlined and limited once and for all. Therefore, supplementing and specifying our understanding of lexical meaning mentioned above, we shall mark that functioning in a language and forming the nucleus of a concept, meaning is relatively more flixible instrument of perception representation of the reality. In the process of its evolution, it simultaneously exerts influence upon different varieties of the speech use of lexical units, often enriching this intensional of the concept and specifying the internal form of the corresponding words.

As W.Hartung underlined, meaning is certainly a complex concept, therefore one can state with certainty that it consists of components [Hartung 1979, p. 45].

Uluhanov also understands meaning of a word as a complex unit, in which semantic elements that are in particular contents relations, can be specified [Uluhanov 1977, p. 17-18].

Surely, the lexical meaning of a word can include several semantic constituents, each of which characterizes this integral unity from different sides (here the emotional, expressive and stylistic constituents are not taken into consideration).

The question consists is in the problem, WHAT features of an object characterize the meaning of a word.

Vetrov considered that the definition of a sign should remind only about the features, each of which is necessary, and all taken together are sufficient for differentiating this phenomen from the other phenomena [Volkov, Habarov 1961, p. 36]. Such features, which constitute the language meaning, are called the regular understanding. Analogically L.Bloomfield differentiates in a subject or a phenomen distinctive and non-distinctive features [Bloomfield 1968, p. 144].

One should note that the similar opinion is supported not by all the linguists. Therefore different conceptions of contents are observed in linguistics. Let us try to systematize them without deepening into consideration of these approaches.

Taking into consideration all the conceptions of contents mentioned above and interpreting them in the light of the practical purpose of our research, we tried to elaborate our own conception without claims for its impeccability or inconsistency of other theories and views. As well as in the case with the conceptions of meaning, different explanations occur because of its multiformity. This or that approach can find its confirmation depending on the methods and the objectives of the research.

Defining "understanding", we are guided by the fact that it is neither a concept nor an imagination a purely psychological phenomen, nor a sum of semantic differential features. The most appropriate consideration of "understanding" is not concerning the whole complex of features of an object, but only one separate semantic differential feature called by Û. D. Apresân"a content atom" [Apresân 1981, p. 110].

Similar opinions are expressed by T. Kunihiro, G. P. Mel´nikov, M. V. Nikitin, H. Patnem and other linguists.

Thus, understanding plays a part of a separate semantic unit that cannot be segmented into other features, and that is realized in speech, although some understandings are constituents of meaning in the language plan.

One should note that meaning that consists of language regular understandings, does not include all the possible understandings of a language unit or expressions realized in speech. These understandings may also lay claim to the representation of reality. Social conditionality, permanence, objectiveness, conventionality can also be peculiar to them.

Therefore, along with regular understandings, which are constituents of meaning, irregular ones should be specified too. These irregularities are possible to be revealed in speech only.

It is the totality of understandings only, due to which meaning can be realized in speech. Through the medium of understandings, a combination of language units is actualized in a speech chain. This "mutual exchange" of understandings takes place in this chain, creating thereby new understandings. As a result, a new meaning may occur, which does not consist of a simple sum of initial meanings. thus, the complete totality of all the elementary understandings usually possesses more lexical meaning of a language unit [Gal´perin 1974, p. 9] and becomes closer to the contents of a concept.

Understanding, which can be revealed in speech comparatively easily, is difficult to be specified from the lexical meaning without its corresponding explication. This takes place because meaning is finally correlated with denotatum and is not related with understanding as a category of pithiness [Avetân 1968, p. 114].

The linguistic categories of concept, meaning and understanding closely connected with the category of contents.

I.R.Gal´perin considered that it is appropriate to consider contents as a totality of understandings, that is something like a finished integrity, in which an author’s imagination about the facts is reflected as well as about events in their development, their characteristics and interconnection [Gal´perin 1974, p. 42].

Thus contents, unlike meaning, is able to encompass the whole totality of understandings of a language unit, which are apparent in the language plan or realized in the speech plan.

Therefore we consider it possible to differentiate:

1. the linguistic contents, relatively permanent, which equals to the amount of meaning by its volume; it is objective, obligatory and called paradigmatic;
2. the speech contents, more dynamic, variable, with all the facultative elements, which consists of both regular and irregular (often subjective) understandings; it is called syntagmatic (confronted with the contents of a concept);
3. the actual contents, which consists of one understanding or a group of actual understandings as a realization of the lexical meaning in a separate act of communication.

Similarly Lewis differentiated the language meaning as an intensional that is constituted by the model of relation of the definition of this or that expression in to other expressions; and contents meaning that is manifested through the medium of the use of this expression concerning a particular object and situation [Semyotyka 1983, p. 221].

Thus, we are not disposed refer contents to the speech plan only, separating it from meaning, which is not not admittable taking a sign character of a language into consideration.

Like a language itself, contents should be bipronged, that is it should correspond to meaning in language and be a reflection of meaning in speech. Thus the meaning of a lexical unit is a part of the contents plan of a language, but its complete set of understandings is a part of the speech plan.

As it was already stated above, the volume of contents in speech does not usually coincide with the meaning of a lexical unit. . A. Sternin considered that in the act of speech, meaning of a word is never represented in corpore, but with only one part of it [Sternin 1980, p. 60]. However the linguistic contents as a permanent category is directed towards revealing all these contents constituents, which determine the meaning in a particular context. Therefore one can state that contents in language is (or should be) identical with the lexical meaning. At the same time, due to discrepancies of the contents side of speech with language units, according to V.S.Panfilov, thinking can always exceed the limits of the contents of these language units creating thereby a possibility of influence of thinking upon the contents side in language units, as well as their coming into being and development [Panfilov 1971, p. 231].

First, one should not confuse such concepts as "internal form" and "etymology". What is the difference between them? Above all, it consists in the fact that the internal form is a literal meaning of a word; it is its motivation. Etymology is the origin of a word. For instance, let us analyse the word bankrupt. It originates from the Italian word combination banca rotta, that literally means "a broken bench". Thus, the corresponding Italian word combination is just the etymology of this word, but the literal meaning of this word combination is the motivation of the word bankrupt, that is its internal form.

Characterizing the internal form of a word, Oleksandr Potebnâ wrote: "In a word, we differentiate the external (outer) form, that is an articulate sound; the contents, which is objectivated through the medium of sound; and the internal form, or the closest etymological meaning of the word, that is the devise, which expresses the contents" [Potebnâ 1926, p. 134].

Hence, defining the internal form as the closest etymological meaning (the italicizing is ours), O.Potebnâ first of all understood the method means of the formation of a nomen in its synchronistical consideration, not obligatory taking into account its etymological peculiarities.

In the modern linguistics, there is no uniform opinion concerning the problem of interaction between the internal form and etymology of lexical units. More logic is not to confuse these two categories because according to V. G. Varina, we consider that there is no immediate interconnection between the internal form and etymology [Varina 1976, p. 237]. At the same time on a particular level as its precondition, the internal form can analyse the etymological meaning of the corresponding units, especially with the purpose of a grounded confirmation of its existence (this is peculiar first of all to simple (non-derived) units like desk). The main difference between the internal form and etymology consists in the fact that that the latter one is mostly considered as hypostated, irrelative of the synchronous state of the lexical meaning, whereas the internal form that is immanently peculiar to each slovu, is not always obscure for a speaker in spite of any possible subjectivation of its shades, especially in case of the perception of the idea of interpretation a priori.

Saying in a language of mathematics, the internal form lies on the horizontal datum line, whereas etymology, on the vertical one. The more the internal form of a lexical unit is developed, the more distant its primary form and meaning become. This primary form can be revealed thereby with the help of etymology only.

Therefore one can also state about the existence etymological internal form, which is revealed with the help of special researches on a particular stage of the development of a language ad hoc. The usual internal form of a lexical unit is the one that functions in a language nowadays.

The internal form of a word bound with etymology has ontogenetic properties. It could be preceded by the first communicational devises, which, according to F. Clicks, are based upon the transformation of the movement co-ordination into gestures, mimics, sound signals acquire absolutely new meanings. As a result, they start their independent existence, which is more and more differentiated [Clicks 1983, p. 82].

The sound communicative signals, primarily only concomitant phenomena, something like sound pantomime, sound communicative signals, due to their rationalism, universalism and differential capabilities, become important communicational devises; they are specified as conventional signals, prototypes of of language signs.

Along with simple signs, complex sign constructions occur, which are more particular, with more visual contents characteristics. Taking the complexity of the sign structure into consideration, it is appropriate to differentiate the implicit and explicit internal forms.

The implicit internal forms are usually represented by simple words that belong to in its majority to the primary vocabulary. Except the grammatical aspects, one can state that the arbitrariness of the expression plan with regard to the contents plan is peculiar to non-derived language units from the positions of the today’s state of language, as well as the relative independence of the choice of an attributor from the character of the determinate. In the linguistic literature, on the other hand, one can encounter an opinion that language in its initial form was a completely defined and transparent sign that tried to be similar to them and to reflect them in its form [Fucot 1977, p. 83].

One of the manifestations of the implicit character of the internal forms of non-derived units is their relative subjectivism. Therefore the term "internal form" can be perceive as a little unfortunate, because it is not words themselves that possess the internal form, but it is people, who ascribe it to these words. Speakers of this or that language specify distinctive features from the lexical meaning as an internal features; they structure it from the contents of a unit known for them. The commonness of such internal forms facilitates the mutual understanding by specifying the most relevant features from the corresponding meanings.

The conclusion derived from it consists in the fact that the lower word-building level of a lexical unit is, the higher degree of community it has and the closer its internal form to the meaning is. On the contrary, simultaneously the reduction of the extensional of this concept causes not only the extension of its intensional, but also the particularization of the corresponding internal form. One can state that root words as a whole are concepts that are much more abstract and richer in their volume than derivatives. At the same time they are poorer in their contents, because the volume and the contents of a concept are inversely proportional to each other [Beleckij 1981, p. 16; Buslaev 1977, p. 129-130].

Therefore we also consider that words in general use as a whole, possess greater volumes of concept than terminological units; but on the contrary, they possess narrower contents, which provides relative proximity of internal forms of words in general use to their lexical meaning.

This peculiarity is used in explanatory dictionaries: units with a rich extensional are included into the explanation of lexical units with a rich intensional as general features.

Therefore it is quite important that the "prompted" objective internal form corresponded to the requirements of mutual understanding as much as possible. It also confirms the fact that language itself, in order to improve the communication, has chosen the way of creating new denominations: the absolute majority of new formations consists of derivatives. Their weight continues to grow.

However the internal form is in the final result a synchronous phenomenon. This peculiarity is defined by its lexical meaning this internal form compared with. The etymological researches are able to reveal the searched or to reconstruct an entirely different internal form compared with most probably with a different meaning. But the distinctive feature of these internal forms corresponds to different periods of development of a language. According to these differences, they will be motivated in different ways. The unchangeable constituent of an internal form will of course redice its correspondence to the permanently evolutionizing meaning. In this respect non-derived words have more flixible internal forms. Thus the main point of this antinomy consist in in a relative stability of the internal forms of derivatives on the one hand; and, on the other hand, in the considerable flixibility but relative subjectivity of internal forms of root words.

Depending upon the situation of communication, different features (contents) of a denotatum can be relevant. For instance a student majoring in physics can perceive the concept "electricity" differently during the examination (as a special physical phenomenon) and in the everyday life (as a modern convenience). But among these contents one can always reveal one of the features, which is regular, and a determinative actualized feature.

The internal form of simple words mainly points to their lexical meaning. Moreover one can state that in a root word familiar for the participants of communication, the internal form is included into its lexical meaning as a constituent. The internal form of non-derived lexical units depend upon numerous extralinguistic factors (the state of a subject, its experience, knowledge, age and so on).

However such things lie beyond the objectives of our ressearch. Therefore the main object of our attention is the more objective internal form. This form is represented by derivatives and compounds, which are more transparent.

If the understanding of the internal form of root words mentioned above may cause some doubt, the motication of derivatives and compounds is more transparent and therefore it can be revealed comparatively easily and without ambiguity.

Such an internal form is actualized through different word-building devises, particularly morphemes. But for all that, one should not forget that it is morpheme only, which can be a word-building formant, which gives a word a new meaning, not a new shade. It concerns conversion too (a zero morpheme), which facilitate the transformation of a word into another part of speech. Here we speak not about different internal forms but about different varieties of the internal form, which correspond to different grammatical meanings (not lexical ones). Thus, in this case one should speak about grammatical, but not about semantic derivatives. Such word-building devises are considered by E. Coseriu as modifiers [Coseriu 1977, p. 49-60], because they are not full-fledged semantic components of language units; they only modify the internal form, specifying and enriching it.

We propose to differentiate such modifiers:

It is quite clear that the one and the same modifier can belong to different types depending on the function it possesses.

For instance, in German, semi-sufixes -zeug, -frau, -arm and some others (except semantic modifiers), can play a part of word-building formants, as well as zero formants, ablaut, umlaut, that is those word-building devises, which are able to create new words with new lexical meaning; they frequently change the part-of-speech meaning too; they may also create a new internal form. Some formants may sometimes (similarly to modifiers) lose its main semantic function. This takes place particularly in those cases, when the formant of an agent is ascribed to a "word" that is not used beyond the combination (for instance, Federhalter).

The internal form of a derivative lexical unit define is determined first of all by its morphemic structure. In this case, either a root word or a morphemic substitute in the form of a word-building formant is able to play a part of a linguistic devise of representation of a morpheme. The modifier cannot thereby represent a separate morpheme, therefore its function in creating a new internal form is purely auxiliary.

The internal form, being a semantic characteristics of a word, is bound immediately with word-building peculiarities of a lexical unit. At the same time one cannot equate the word-building meaning and the internal form, because, as everybody knows, it is formant, which is a bearer of the word-building meaning. It determines the internal form only partly: the word-building meaning can be peculiar to a number of words with a common morphemic structure, whereas the internal form of a word individual in its nature.

Modifiers, as well as formants, underlie the word-building modelling, which conditions the linguistic status and structure of the internal form. Therefore the task of the clear differentiation of models, that include different types of word-building devises, is also important from the point of view of the semantic characteristics of a lexical unit. In this plan, the classification given E. Coseriu is interesting and prospective [Coseriu 1977]. He differentiates in the German word-building system (this scheme can be applicable to other languages too):

In spite of all its originality, of the classification probosed by E. Coseriu reflects not all the possible word-building types, nor does it draw any clear differentiation between modifiers, formants with different functions, which is a consequence of the abuse of formal characteristics of word-building elements to the prejudice of the semantic peculiarities of a lexical unit.

The problem of the internal form of international derivatives and compound words belongs to the range of debatable questions.

How, for instance, to define the internal form of such words like morphology or stereotype or some other words like that? For all that it is appropriate to differentiate subjectivated (implicit) and semi-explicit internal forms. In the latter case, the internal form is easily defined through the morphemic analysis of an international word considered as a derivative.

From a non-specialist’s point of view, international words have the implicit internal form only, similar to non-derived words of the mother tongue. For a specialist majoring in the international lexicology, who is keen in international morphemes, especially if he knows several foreign languages, a compound word acquires a clear internal form as a result of motivation [Kyjak 1985, p. 18].

Therefore we propose to refer internal form of international compound words and derivatives to a separate type called semi-explicit internal form.

The linguistic status of such a type is confirmed by a special phenomenon of folk etymology, so called contamination, when the internal form is established by speakers of this or that language artificially: Russian kupirativ instead of kooperativ, mazilin instead of vazelin, gul´var instead of bul´var.

Contamination as a manifestation of folk etymology is especially peculiar to the language of illiterate people, as well as for the children’s speech. Some contaminated borrowings entered the literary language. For instance, the Russian word odinarnyj is a result of the interaction of the words ordinarnyj (from Latin ordinaris) with the numeral odin ‘one’; the Ukrainian word verstat is the result of interaction between the German word Werkstatt and the verb verstaty. The English word cockroach is a result of rapprochement of the Spanish word cucaracha and the English words cock and roach. The word admiral can be also considered as a manifestation of folk etymology, . e. the rapprochement of the Arabic word combination amir-al-(bahr) (a lord of the sea) with the Romance verb admirare (to admire).

Internal forms are only intermediaries between the lexical meaning and the material language covering. Concerning this, O. Potebnâ wrote: "The internal form of a word pronounced by a speaker, directs the audience’s idea, but it only excites this audience, it gives only a device for the development of meanings without determining the borders of their understanding of a word" [Potebnâ 1926, p. 140]. Thus, the analysis of the internal form of a word does not always help to define its meaning and vice versa.

Hence there are hardly any grounds to state that the internal form of a word is a language motivation (moreover all its varieties). It would be more correct to consider motivation as a peculiarity of the internal form, as a result of the corresponding to its meaning; but the internal form should be considered as a base of motivation of a lexical unit.

Therefore it is difficult to agree with a confident opinion that the internal form is a morphosemantic structure of a word, which includes the morphemic structure of the motivation meaning expressed by it and conditions the rationality of the connection of its sound cluster and lexical meaning [Blinova a 1981, p. 32].

First, the motivation meaning includes the meaning of morphemes and the semantic interaction between them. Second, the concept of the "rationality of connection" also causes some doubt: does the internal form always create only the rational connection between sound cluster and meaning (there are, for instance, numerous cases of misleading designations (this term was introduced by D. S. Lotte).

In our understanding of the internal form, the sis that the "internal form of a word is an expressed sign of motivation" [Golev 1978, p. 7] is not always confirmed.

The absence of the identity of the concepts of the internal form and motivation is clearly confirmed by the analysis of multilingual word combinations [Kyjak 1981] and especially by the phenomen of lexicalization and idiomatization of meanings. So, one cannot state that the idiomatic formations do not possess any internal form because they really possess no motivation. The matter is that according to A. V. Kunin, the internal form of a phraseological unit is a totality of literal meanings of its components denoting the signs of designations within the structure of the image-bearing phraseological meaning. This form is bound with it by derivatiional interrelations [Kunin 1984, p. 187]. Due to such a differentiation of the internal form and motivation, both the explicit imagination of the internal form and the elaboration of quantitative evaluations of the motivation of lexical units become possible.

As it was stated above, it is the internal form of non-derived units only (if their linguistic status is recognized), which can be always included into the lexical meaning; derivatives, some constituents are often present, which do not facilitate and even prevent the understanding of the meaning of the whole expression.

At the same time, the internal form does not lay claim (and cannot lay claim) to the revelation of the whole meaning of a linguistic formation. Its principal function is a clear orientation on a denotatum prompting the main peculiarities of its meaning, that is to be one of the key features, which is separated in the meaning. The lexical meaning of a word combination or a derivative is not merely an arithmetic sum of meanings; it cannot be deduced from the meanings of semantic elements, which are constituents of a word.

Thus one can state that the internal form of a lexical unit is unambiguously associated with neither etymology of a word, nor with its lexical meaning, nor with its motivation, nor with a simple sum of meanings and constituents of a morpheme. The internal form is a complicated category; as well as all the other language categories, it cannot be completely embraced by one simple definition.

The internal form of a lexical unit is represented by the morphemic structure and makes up not merely a totality of meanings and a usus of its constituents, but a defined systemu of mutually bound mutually conditioned elements. The internal form is a system characteristics of a word or word combination, which plays the part of a bridge from the sound cluster to meaning. One can also suppose that lexical units are fixed in our memory in the first place not as sets of phonemes and even not as meanings, but through the medium of internal forms. No connections between the expression plan and the contents plan can take place without them, though the act of communication does introduce some amendments here.

The internal form incarnates the trace, which preserves a word in the human memory. A word refers people to the corresponding object (that is a word has some meaning for it) because it has the internal form. Unfamiliar words are not marked by the internal form, they do not cause any reaction in the consciousness of a communicant.

Let us underline once again: our understanding of an image includes only those features, which are included into the internal form as a possible constituent of the whole body of features of the lexical meaning. Therefore, being an act of representation with the help of language devises of a feature (features) of a denotatum, the internal form, from the point of view of apperception, simultaneously plays a part of both imagination [Kudrâvskij 1913, p. 39; Migirina 1977, p. 6; Potebnâ 1926, p. 108].

Taking into consideration all the speculations mentioned above, one can propose such a draft definition of the internal form of lexical units: the internal form is mental interiorized image, which potentially abstracts and reflects in the form of the apperceptional imagination, one or several distinctive features of a denotatum, caused and fixed in a language speaker’s memory by a conditioned morphemic structure of a word or expression.

The investigation of the dialectic connection between meaning and the internal form attracts particular interest both in the theoretical and applied aspects. This connection between the contents plan and the expression plan of a lexical unit determines particularly such a language universal as the motivation of a lexical unit. One should mark that motivation does not merely depend upon the interaction between the form and the contents of a sign, but also upon the connection with all the other units of the contents plan of the whole language, because the creation of each new linguistic sign is conditioned by the state of the whole system achieved. F. M. Berezin and B. N. Golovin stated that sign is in no way a casuality even regarding the object, since some real connections between the objects exist, which point to the plurality of the connections between words, particularly between already existing words and lexical neologisms [10; c. 116].

These peculiarities of motivation already illustrate the whole baffling complexity of the problem, and hence, the possibility of different approaches to its solution. At any case the main point of these approaches as a whole is one and the same: this language phenomenon is an act of representation of one or several features of an object in its nomination by the language devises, even if we accentuate first of all derivational relations between derivatives and prodicing words.

Therefore it is not appropriate to consider (as it was done by H. Wolf (1730) or F. Oliveira (1536)) that signa derivata (derived signs) are motivated only beyond the language (by the properties and interrelations they denote) [81, p. 54].

In spite of the whole visibility of correctness of such an opinion, one should not underestimate the function of the linguistic devises of manifestation of these features. At the same time, it is also not sufficient to understand the motivation only as speakers’ feeling of the formal semantic associative connection of this word with other vocabulary units [26, p. 61], because associations do not occur with other words, but with other phenomena, facts of the reality, represented in a language by other vocabulary units.

Many scientists affirm that the absence of motivation connection between the form and the contents of language units contradicts the definition of the interconnection between the form and the contents.

The interrelation between the internal form and the meaning within the framework of the problem of motivation is similar to the interconnection of the the whole and a part of a language expression. A. A. Reformatskij considered that one should not understand understood the whole without knowing its constituents; on the other hand, one cannot interpret these constituents correctly without understanding the whole [49, p. 5].

Considering these interactions, one should proceed from the fact that both the whole and its parts belong to one and the same linguistic sign; if it is a question of the semantic signs, they cannot contain parts without meaning [60, p. 73].

Within the linguistic whole, the defined features of the concept reflected become apparent (or should become apparent). Other features of the parts are not lost within the framework of the whole, but appear as possibilities potential but not applied in this period of time.

The internal form has also many features peculiar to the concept of a part within the framework of the linguistic whole, if the whole is understood as the lexical meaning. The form (as well as a part) reveals the properties necessary for the formation of meaning (the whole). However, between these categories, there are some contradictions consisting in the fact that the meaning of a word is directed toward the affiliation of this unit with the language system; that is, it reflects the necessary interconnection between the lexical units within the framework of the contents plan of the whole language, whereas the internal form orientates mainly toward the corresponding meaning only. Hence there is the presence of different formative and reflective components in these two categories.

Therefore it is not the meaning, but the designation (or more exact, its internal form), which becomes a devise of the motivation process. It can be interpreted as the "motivation base" [79, p. 90].

Z.Z.Maslova-Lašanskaâ affirms that the motivation of designation should be clearly differentiated from the meaning of a word [39, p. 26]. The difference between them consists in the independence of meaning, hypostating its function with regard to the motivation of the linguistic expression. The consequence of such a peculiarity of a sign, according to D.A.Safarova, is the fact that by a clear motivation, it is not the meaning of a word, which is easily deduced, but vice versa, in most cases, motivation can be revealed only by a well-known meaning of a word: the clarity of motivation is far from leading to the understanding of meaning of a word [52, p. 255].

Motivation serves as a link between the form and the contents of a sign, one of its important characteristics. Therefore, saying about the difference between meaning and motivation, one should not forget about different gnoseological functions of the internal form and motivation. The internal form is an obligatory semantic characteristics of any word, a "mental image" of an object, created by the social experience of people and "prompted" them by structural peculiarities of the word itself, whereas motivation is far from being peculiar to each lexical unit, or, to be more exact, to its internal form.

Revealing the motivation of a word, it is necessary take the comparative characteristics of its meaning and its internal form into consideration. The borders of motivation are defined by that part of the lexical meaning, which is analysed in the internal form.

The semantic constituents of the internal form that have occured casually and lost (or did not possess) the interrelation with the corresponding lexical meaning, do not reveal the motivation of word, but on the contrary, they reduce or weaken it, giving a word a wrong motivation.

The motivation as a characteristics, is always potentially included completely to the internal form, without revealing thereby all its necessary sides. Moreover, motivation should be not merely a holder of common characteristics of the internal form and meaning; it should certify the presence of semantic connection between them. It also serves as an original indicator of both quantitative and qualitative peculiarities of these common constituents, of their informative particle within the framework of the whole lexical meaning.

Thus, the motivation of language signs, particularly words, should be considered as one of the elements that facilitate the system; hence it also fnacilitates the reliability of functioning of the most complicated part of language, that is its vocabulary [45, p. 163].

On the level of motivation an associative connection between the semantic elements of a nominative unit and the corresponding lexical meaning is performed. If such a connection is not reconstructed through the medium of mental operations of a communicant, this word possesses no motivation for him. At the same time, even if a non-motivated lexical unit nevertheless causes some casual and apperceptive imagination non-immanent for this denotatum, it is an evidence not of the actualization of this motivation, but rather of its absence, though the internal form is preserved thereby.

Motivation is both a quantitative and a qualitative characteristics of the internal form. The internal form (at least historically) is peculiar to any lexical unit, whereas etymology does not facilitate the revelation of motivation. Completely right is those investigators, who consider that motivation as a synchronous concept, which should not be confused with etymology [26, p. 61; 82, p. 91].

We also cannot accept the position of those linguists, who identify the internal form of a word and its motivation. Particularly L.R.Sinder affirms that motivation in linguistics is understood a semantic analysis of a determinate, a semantic structure of a sign or its internal form [21, p. 347]. Such a conclusion is also come by some other investigators to [8, p. 35; 27, p. 67; 30, p. 88-100; 33, p. 101-114]. We can agree with the point of view that the semantic structure of a sign incarnates its internal form; however it in no way defines the semantic analysis of a determinate, and consequently it does not still reveals the motivation.

It is only the comparative analysis of the form and the contents of a semantic sign (the internal form and the lexical meaning), which allows us to reveal the presence of motivation.

Reasoning from our definition of a sign, it is necessary to state that under motivation, one should not understand the structural and semantic peculiarity of a word, which allows to realize the rationality of the connection between meaning and sound cluster of a word on the basis of its lexical and structural interrelation [11, p. 30]. Such a property of a word can be peculiar to the phonetic motivation, but except it, we did not reveal any other semantic connection between the pronounciation of a word and its lexical meaning. Therefore O..Blinova had to introduce another concept, which reflects only the semantic characteristics of a word, that is the "motivational meaning" of a word defined by her as the meaning expressed with the help of the morphemic structure of a word; it is differentiated from the word-building and grammatical meaning by the fact that as well as the lexical on, this meaning is individual concerning this or that word [11, p. 31].

According to O..Blinova, the internal form is a morphosemantic structure of a word, which includes the morphemic structure and motivational meaning expressed by it. It conditions the rationality of the connection between its sound cluster and lexical meaning [11, p. 32].

The concept of motivation belongs to complex and compound morphemic forms only; it is not peculiar to root words; this is another difference between motivation and the internal form. A..Smirnickij particularly noted that the principle of conditionality belongs to simple units, in fact to morphemes. In complex and compound formations the principle of motivation takes place together with the principle conditionality, because complex an compound formations include simple units too [3, p. 88]. Non-derived lexical units, .e. morpheme, can be motivated only through the semantic transfer or sound associateion (sound imitation) [14, p. 34].

Motivation is revealed to be more explicit in derivative and compound words, acquiring a little latent character in their universalized variants (for instance, derivatives). Therefore D.N.Šmelëv considered that on the level of a word, no matter whether it concerns the meaning of a derivative or a derivative meaning, it is always a partial motivation… The motivation on the level of a word combination is a complete a motivation as a rule. This is the main point of word combinations as they are… [71, p. 269].

The motivation of derivatives is mainly a result of a purposeful word-building process, which is determined by the presence of at least one word-building formant in a lexical unit together with its non-derived root morpheme. .Z.Uluhanov understood this formant as the minimal word-building devise (devises) in the formal and semantic respect among the devises that differentiate any word from the words in the motivational interrelation with it [65, p. 8.].

Comparing the motivation of compounds and derivatives, one should note that actually all the peculiarities of motivation of derivatives are more or less peculiar to compounds too. Therefore we consider it appropriate to deduce the identical criteria of the objective evaluation of motivation for all the lexical units.

Motivation can be of different types depending on the side of an analysed concept the corresponding expression underlines.

S.Ullmann proposed to differentiate three types of motivation:

1. the phonetic, or natural motivation (for instance, for interjections);
2. the morphological motivation (sometimes it is called morphematic because she it is peculiar to compounds and derivatives only);
3. the semantic motivation (which takes semantic connections between the components of designation and the phenomena of change of meaning into consideration) [66, p. 255].

In accordance with this well-known classification, Toropcev specified three ways of motivation:

1. motivation through imitation;
2. motivation through a feature;
3. motivation through the contents [64, p. 59-60].

V.H.Hak considered the phonetic motivation as the absolute (or external) motivation; other types are the relative (or internal) motivation that can be morphological (the meaning of a compound/derivative word depends upon the meaning of its constituents) and semantic (a new meaning appears through the change of meaning or deepening of polysemy) [14, p. 34].

For many words, different combinations of these types of motivation can be peculiar. For language of science, the phonetic motivation is not typical. It is simultaneously changeable and subjective, therefore it is, unlike the morphological motivation, more difficult to be precisely analysed. As A.E.Suprun underlined, the phonetic motivation is less applicable for language unit that constitute the expression plan of a sign [45, p. 163]. These peculiarities are the reason for the fact that in this research, the problems of the phonetic motivation are not considered in this research. The whole attention is paid to the problems of the two other types of motivation.

It is also worth while marking that it is not always possible to differentiate the types of motivation, which are differentiated in linguistics. Here there are several typical examples. K.A.Timofeev considered that the lexical motivation (here the author does not make any difference between the terms ‘motivation’ and ‘motivatedness’) concerns some words, which constitute a word-building range. The lexical motivation is typical mainly for derivatives. The word-building motivation is peculiar to all the notional words with a morphemic structure [62, p. 33]. This definition contradicts in some way to another well-known explanation: "The word-building motivation is an interrelation between cognate words, the meaning of one of which is either determined through the meaning of another word, or it is identical with the meaning of another word in all of its components except the grammatical meaning of a part of speech…" [51, p. 133]

Another example. V.V.Levycjkyj calls the semantic motivation the conditionality of the meaning of this or that designation (nomen) by the meaning of the nomen of a different object (that is change of meaning). The morphological motivation is defined by him as an interconnection between the meaning of a word and its morphological structure [31, p. 21].

Everything this is an evidence of the absence of clearance of borders between these types of motivation, which is simultaneously a consequence of their close interconnection. The reason for some discrepancies and irrational conglomeration of terms can be explained by the absence of differentiation of semiotic functions of motivation and the internal form, as well as by the non-recognition of its special categorial status by some linguists. One should also note that Ullmann’s classification of types of motivation mentioned above does not possess any sufficient argumentation. It incurred considerable changes, which are sometimes irrational; besides they complicate the metalanguage of linguistic theories.

Let us try to systematize the main approaches to the definition of the category under consideration, and build a brief typology of motivation of lexical units. First, we consider it appropriate to differentiate the two plans of motivatedness: language motivatedness and speech motivatedness. In the speech plan we deal with valent or referent (the terms are completely conditional) motivatedness, that is considered by G.P.Mel´nikov as the "contents motivatedness". He affirms that the choice of a linguistic sign for the concept assigned is motivated, but in a special way, through the association of concepts and actual meaning with the supporting meaning of this linguistic sign [41, p. 4].

On the linguistic level, we differentiate the three types of motivatedness:

1. the sign (semiotic) motivatedness;
2. the formal (word-building) motivatedness;
3. the contents (intensional) motivatedness.

The sign motivatedness can be understood as a motivatedness in a weak contents; it is peculiar to all the lexical units functioning in a language in the form of language signs. For all that, the structure of a sign cannot be an unmotivated structure of determinative elements of the objective world [20, p. 28-29]. This type of motivation does not require any quantitative dimensions or logic verification. Word here is motivated by the fact of existence and application itself. The matter is that in a language there are no absolutely non-motivated words. All of them are bound with the corresponding meaning at least on the level of the common lexical-semantic category.

Even Paracels affirmed that there are no latent things in the nature, and even if defined things are in the latent condition, nevertheless they are not deprived of external visible signs with special marks. It is similar to a person burying some treasure: he marks this place in order to be able to find it [67, p. 72]. And the clearer this mark is, the easier this treasure will be revealed without confusing with the others.

Thus, if a word is not motivated by its subject interrelationship, it is are able to be motivated by some system characteristics although it is quite clear that the desired particular interrelationship of the form and the contents of a linguistic sign is provided by other types of motivation of lexical units.

Reasoning from our understanding of a linguistic sign and its two forms, we divide the formal motivatedness into two types:

1. the motivatedness by the external form (that is the phonetic or absolute, or explicit motivatedness);
2. the motivatedness by the internal form.

Since the phonetic motivatedness is beyond our consideration, let us dwell on the second type more in details. The internal form is an apperceptive image determined by the morphemic structure of a word or an expression. It provides taking into account their morphological and semantic peculiarities. Therefore, speaking about the motivatedness by the internal form, one should differentiate respectively the morphological and the semantic motivation.

The morphological motivation is determined first of all by the word-building model of a lexical unit, whereas the semantic one is a result of the interaction between word-building formants and a stem, between a new and a previous meaning, between different modifications of internal forms (for instance, intensification, quantification, reduction and so on).

The difference between the morphological and the semantic motivation is especially apparent in derivative and compound words, where the structural peculiarities recede into the background. The determinative role in this case is played by the "semantic reading" of the interconnections between word elements.

Changes of meaning should be referred to the semantic type of motivation too. Here the structural model of a new formation is preserved without changes, that is the morphological motivation is not apparent in this case. But taking into consideration simultaneously the interconnection and degraded borders between these subtypes of motivation, it is appropriate to combine them in one type, the semantic-morphological motivation, which characterizes the structural and semantic peculiarities of the word-building architectonics of a lexical unit.

Abbreviations are special varieties of the semantic-morphological motivation. E.S.Kubrâkova considered that the abbreviated variants of words or expressions are motivated by their full form [23, p. 13; 18, p. 36]. This phenomen can be conditionally called the intermediary motivation.

The brief analysis of the typology of motivatedness can be depicted in the form of a scheme, where all the types specified are arranged according to the level of their hierarchy.

The process semantic-morphological motivation as a base for the formation of the internal form of derivative and compound lexical units, functioning on the word-building level, is however far from conditioning the representation of the most relevant elements of meaning in the internal form. Therefore the concept differentiation of the term "motivation" and "motivatedness" seems to be actually grounded.

We consider that "motivation" is a purposeful process whereas "motivatedness" is a desired result of representation in a lexical unit by means of the language of a defined feature (features) of a denotatum, which is (are) a part (parts) of the feature body of its lexical meaning. Differentiating similarly the concepts of motivation and motivatedness, I.Z.Toropcev wrote: "being an inseparable peculiarity, the motivatedness of words can be lost, which cannot be imagined with respect to motivation" [64, p. 124]. Thus, using the terms proposed, any process of creating a new internal form is simultaneously a process of motivation but still not of motivatedness as a result of this process.

The semantic-morphological motivatedness corresponds to the concept of motivation, but motivatedness is as the contents (intensional) motivatedness.

On the contents level, motivatedness is revealed as a linking element between the form and the semantic contents of a linguistic sign. We completely agree with R.Bart, who stated that sign is motivated if some analogy is present between the attributor and the definition [8, p. 136]. In other words, motivatedness on the contents level is a peculiarity possessed by the expression plan of a sign, which reveals the inarbitrary interrelation with its contents [80, p. 22]. According to our interpretation, the internal form with relation to onomasiology, is immediately bound with the the expression plan, but in respect to semasiology, with the contents plan. The contents motivatedness characterizes the ability of the internal form to reflect the most relevant features of the linguistic contents of a word or expression; that is it reveals its structural-semantic peculiarities compared with the lexical meaning. The intensional motivatedness synthetically takes into consideration both the word-building structure and the contents side of a linguistic sign, which conditions the systematic research of form and meaning. Such a type of motivatedness defines the degree of corresponding of the internal form to the lexical meaning. Hence, motivatedness is a volume of information, which is included into the internal form, which is reflected in the corresponding meaning of a lexical unit. Reasoning from everything mentioned above, one can propose such a definition of the contents motivation used by us in the practical work: the contents motivatedness is a structural-semantic characteristics of a lexical unit, which explicates by means of language, the rational lexical-semantic connection between meaning and the internal form of this unit.

Our chief purpose is a more detailed examination of the contents motivatedness. For specifying the linguistic phenomenon highlighted, we consider the use of the term "the contents (or intensional) motivatedness" as fully appropriate, because it reflects the most important characteristics of the majority of the types of motivatedness mentioned above, analysing this phenomen from all the sides and creating the preconditions for obtaining useful practical results.

Such a kind of motivatedness is analogical to the conceptual motivatedness opposed to the scientific, or conceptual motivatedness as well as the linguistic or common motivatedness [7, p. 123; 37, p. 42; 50, p. 21-22].

In the similar approach concerning the definition of the contents motivatedness, it is the structural peculiarities of the internal form compared with the lexical meaning, not the method of the construction of a lexical unit itself, which is put in the forefront. The matter is that the reflective capabilities of a word include a feature (features) of the determinate into their structure.

The contents motivatedness seems to be the most important type because one of the preconditions of the language perfectness is the requirements that motivatedness should be not external and conditional, but internal and logic as far as possible, so that it revealed the substance of the concept itself [13, p. 76].

E.Wüster called this peculiarity of the form a visual aid of the concept or its independent understanding. Of course, such requirements are especially important the scientific and technical terminology and less appropriate in the basic vocabulary.

In contrast to the internal form, the contents motivatedness is far from being always in the direct dependence on the quantitative structure of stems in a stale expression. Such a phenomen on is especially peculiar to terminological units. Thus, between the internal form, motivation and motivatedness, some essential differences both in the gnoseological and in the functional plan are revealed. Let us try to systematize them:

1. Motivation is a process; the internal form is a devise; motivatedness is a result of the word-building act.
2. The internal form is a regular characteristics of any word, motivation is peculiar not to all the units of language (it is absent, for instance, in root words); motivatedness is an optional characteristics in word-building, that is by the presence of one and the same act of motivation, it can either be realized or lose its importance.
3. Motivatedness is a consequence of the interaction between the internal form and meaning, whereas motivation is directed mainly toward the internal form.
4. Motivation and motivatedness are synchronous phenomena; the internal form, to the contrary, can also admit the analysis of the etymology of a language unit.
5. The degree of motivation is changed on account of the evolution of word meaning, whereas their internal form is more stable.
6. Motivatedness gives the internal form the peculiarity of exocentricity, that is to the definition or elucidation of the most noticeable sides of a denotatum.
7. Motivatedness and the internal form (as well as motivation) can be differentiated by the volume of the information included into them.

Зобразимо схематично взаємовідносини між внутрішньою формою, мотивацією і вмотивованістю.

The interaction between the internal form, motivation and motivatedness can be demonstrated with the help of a scheme (Figure 2).

1. the full motivatedness of the internal form (when the form expresses a feature, which is an integral part of the meaning);
2. the partial motivatedness (when there is a part of the linguistic contents of a unit) common for the internal form and the lexical meaning;
3. the zero motivatedness (none of the morphemes within the internal form corresponds to its meaning);
4. the absolute motivatedness (rather rarely used), when the semantic features of the internal form and the lexical meaning coincide completely.

Similarly, E.V.Komina differentiates fully motivated, partly motivated and non-motivated words [26, p. 61].

With the help of diagrams, it can be demonstrated in the following way:

The absolute motivatedness of the internal form is a very rare phenomenon in the language, which is an evidence of its self-regulation abilities, because it would be impossible to communicate with the help of "monster words", the internal form of which would always coincide with their lexical meaning. One of the peculiarities of language consist in the homomorphous use of signs as realities that synthesize integral semantic "clots" conventionally used by all the speakers of this or that language. Concerning the full motivation (or motivatedness) of the internal form, it is necessary to underline the importance of this phenomen, since the form being completely co-ordinated with meaning, facilitates the mutual understanding better than the form that includes some characteristics "extra" or non-relevant for meaning.

The explanation of the concept of motivation would be incomplete without mentioning its another essential peculiarity: the contents motivatedness can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the linguistic usus. It concerns first of all the delimitation of a language into the general vocabulary and branch terminology. There are various requirements concerning language units with regard to their motivatedness, which is bound with the peculiarities of the functioning of words in these layers of vocabulary.

The difference of the contents motivation in the microlinguistic plan, that is on the level of the individual use or perception of lexical units.

The questions bound with these and other peculiarities of manifestation of the contents motivatedness are of great importance. Considering this problem, we did not try to obtain the final solution of this discussion about the internal form and motivation with clear definitions categories mentioned above. This was an attempt of the terminological and ontological differentiation of these interconnected concepts, with some generalizing approach to their research. All these concepts of motivation and motivatedness can be defined in a different way too.

There are many theories touching upon the problem of nomination. In the modern linguistics one can often hear some opinions about the casuality of the choice of a sign for designation. However the majority of linguists, practicing terminologists, users of branch terms, just language speakers more and more realize the necessity of the co-ordinated and centralized creation and application ofnomens, taking into consideration the corresponding internal form of their lexical meaning. This is already not merely a desire, but a requirement of the language communicat in any sphere of life.

Saying about the problem of a sign, the peculiarities of its form and contents, we specified the principal interrelations between the semantic and the acoustic signs of a lexical unit and a fact of the reality. So, there is an interrelation of determination between the sound cluster and meaning. This interrelation is realized through the internal form whereas meaning in its turn, has the function of reflection of the objective reality the acoustic image points to.

The demonstrative function has an immediate connection with the act of nomination. But such understanding is still insufficient since it does not reflect all the necessary sides of the rise and realization of this linguistic act. We keep to the opinion that indication is only a label, through the medium of which, facts of the reality are acoustically marked in a language.

Such a process does not orientate toward the conceptual side of an object at all. It only reflects the connection between an acoustic image and the reality, neglecting thereby the system of language meanings. Maybe therefore the act of indication as an integral function of nomination in the language, is observed rather seldom. The designations formed by the similarity of indication only, possess the properties adequate to the characteristics of proper names. As R.Campson stated, the fact of the full adequacy between a word and an object in proper names does not mean that they indeed possess any meaning [77, p. 14]. Therefore in language (especially it concerns exact sciences) it is necessary to avoid the creation of new forms by means of pure indication only.

The language nomination including the process of indication, also consists of the function of definition and the internal form, through which, nomination is reflected in the sphere of meaning. Thus, the language nomination in its wide sense, includes two functions: the function of indication and the one of definition. One (asemantic) sign with its signal and contents, and the form of a semantic sign (the respective internal form).

Although the meaning of a lexical unit has to be taken into consideration in the act of nomination, it is not a constituent of this process inasmuch as it does not immediately define any indication [47, p. 79].

With the help of only one indication, new non-derived units can make be created. As a whole, they occur independently; they are isolated from meanings. Actually they are labels of objects. It is quite clear that it is impossible to designate all the phenomena, facts, properties of the objective reality with the help of non-derived units only. First, it would transform a language into a set of symbols or labels. Second there would be no linguistic system connection between lexical units, that is the semantic side of language would be noticeably poorer. Third, the perception of language and its use would be too complicated, which would obligatorily tell upon the mutual understanding between language speakers. Human language itself would be simplified up to the level of machine languages.

In its initial stage of the rise and formation, language used to consist of exactly such simple units, the number of which would complete satisfy the communication needs in the primitive spheres of life. Wilhelm Humboldt, revealing the peculiarities of glottogenesis, admitted that the protolanguage used to consist of roots only. The number of the words was quite sufficient to describe any situation that occurred in the process of communication [17, p. 110-117]. However, the development of the society was accompanied by growing needs of representation of new forms of existence, results of experience, progress s, knowledge and so on, in the human language.

A fullly logic consequence of progress and great self-regulating potentials of the language was constructing new language forms based upon the available ones, as well as the rise of word-building devise on the basis of universalization. It caused and continues to causing particular limitations in the reflecting capabilities of the internal form. If at the beginning, the forms of non-derived words had a function of proper names, that is their internal form as a whole was completely includeed to the meaning, such correspondings are more or less broken on the stage of word-building, since word combinations and word-building formants do not create any new meaning consisting of a sum of the meanings of their constituents. It is easy to guess that the specification of the internal form from the lexical meaning causes the phenomenon of motivatedness of language units. Therefore on the word-building level, on the level of derivation, where there is the objectivated internal form, the high degree of the contents motivation is quite necessary.

It is designation, which should orientate toward the corresponding meanings, incarnating one of the features of a concept in itself. Revealing the process of nomination, S.S.Maslova-Lašanskaâ wrote that the method of designation of objects on the basis of an available name of a feature, admits the presence of the three moments: first, the real motivational feature of an object, that is the extralinguistic base of the designation; second, the linguistic expression of the motivational feature; third, a method of the creation of a new nomen on the basis of the linguistic material, with the help of which, the motivational feature is expressed. The combination of these three moments determines the structure of designation [39, p. 27].

The designation of an object, a phenomenon, a property, must "prompt" the meaning, orientate toward the contents side, but not merely fix a unit in the language. Thus, revealing one of the sides of a concept, a word refers to the whole volume of the concept. The designations that orientate toward the contents of a concept, reflect simultaneously many system characteristics of lexical units, inasmuch as concept, as well as the facts of the objective reality, are interconnected. This is another mutually determinative connection between nomination and motivatedness. Thus, the necessity of the motivated creating of designations not only with point of view of convenience in preserving signs in memory, but also taking the requirement concerning the language as a system (which plays a leading part in conditioning the mutual understanding between the participants of communication) into consideration, becomes clear.

Special attention should be paid to the problem of normalization (standardization) of scientific and technical terminology, which constitutes a considerable part of the sociolinguistic stock nowadays. This amount ttrnds to permanent increasing. The terminological boom requires linguists’ greater attention. Terminologists should not only register, select and recommend terms that have been already coined, but also direct all the processes bound with the terminological activity in this or that branch of science, technology and social life. One can agree with the opinion that sciences well-organized languages as well as languages are still non-elaborated sciences [67, p. 142].

As modern and linguists consider, the absence of a well-ordered uniform normalized terminology complicates the training and communication scientists and technologists (both within one country and worldwide), the compilation of technical documentation often causes mistakes in the solution of scientific and technical problems. The modern language of science and technology requires the terminological units should possess no ambiguity within one branch; it requires the completeness in the representation of meaning, as well as conceptual precision and conciseness.

These tasks are bound immediately with the problem of regulating the contents side of language units and hence, their internal forms and lexical meanings. Therefore there is a necessity of the improvement of a language including the selection of internal forms directed toward meaning, banning of arbitrariness in the use and coining of language expressions.

Without the internal form of a lexical unit, the act of nomination is not full-fledged. A new designation should reflect one of the features (it is desirable that it would be the most important one) of the lexical meaning, clearly orientate toward the object specifying it from the totality of other objects. In order to build a word, it is necessary to know at least some features of the concept that becomes an object of nomination.

In our opinion, one should not state categorically that possessing a word-marker (or a marking word), people can already start to compare and generalize, which would result in the formation of a concept [29, p. 70]. The designation of a concept occurs at that time, when particular preconditions of a concept are layed; when its shape is already outlined. Otherwise such a marking word cannot lay claim to be an exact instrument of concept-building. The features reflected in it, will bear a purely casual character, whereas this word should already identify the respective concept with particular accuracy, accentuating simultaneously its originality and its relatedness with other concepts. In order to point to the denotated class of objects or concepts, this nomen should reflect at least one of their features.

Especially clearly, this process becomes apparent in the scientific and technical terminology. In the introduction to his dictionary, Ûšmanov wrote that by coining a new term or standardization of terminology, the contents of the corresponding concept is usually already well-known; its essential features are fixed. In the ideal, some direct connection should be present between the contents of a concept, features and structure of a term. That means that the choice of motivatedness of a term is conditioned by the features of the concept they express [73, p. 4-5].

These peculiarities are characteristic not only to coining new terms. The process of normalization of terminology usually takes place on the stage of the development of the respective technical branch, this normalization finishes its principal tasks. After that, one can start the conscious creation and regulation of motivated nomens.

D.S.Lotte underlined that the creation of really scientific terms should be preceded by the complete adoption of the corresponding scientific concept as well as specification of those generalizing features, which create its specificity [36, p. 13-14].

Concept is fixed in a language in the form of meaning. The latter one is marked with the help of the internal form. We differentiate such principal stages of language nomination:

1. the revelation and specification of some peculiarities of a new concept;
2. the rise of the previous marking word (this stage is optional);
3. the definition of the linguistic meaning in common features;
4. the specification of the internal form on the basis of the meaning;
5. the improvement of the concept in the process of its functioning, which in its turn is reflected in its meaning too;
6. changes in the sphere of meaning, which cause particular changes of the internal form that thereby begins to correspond to its linguistic contents (meaning) better.

Thus, word does not still exist, but its outline has already appeared, manifested descriptively, honed. Only after that some linguistic marks rise. These marks should be honed too, until the final variant is adopted, fixed and codified by corresponding dictionaries, although on this stage, the process of evolution of the internal form and meaning is not finished yet.

In the process of language nomination, there is also some interconnection between objective and subjective elements. Particularly for the audience, the perception of contents as a whole is objective, whereas for a speaker, this contents is subjective in many aspects [46, p. 13]. Although thinking as a product of mental activity, is material (it has been already proved with numerous experiments), nevertheless in the process of communication it is a subjective factor since human being (except a small number of people with extraordinary abilities) is not able to perceive the mental thinking of other people.

Mutual understanding requires maximal conformity of the objective and subjective factors in order to reach the maximal efect of speech contacts. Correct internal forms play a very important role here; they should orientate toward the meaning of lexical units and facilitate thereby the revealation of the contents of communication as well as the solution of many problems including translation, methods of language instruction, normalization of terminology and some other problems. Let us give only one statistic evaluation. Some information agency officers calculated that it takes on average 15 minutes a day for clarifying the meaning of this or that term or for searching a necessary term (when its meaning is known) [24, p. 117].

It is not difficult to understand how motivated internal forms could help in "prompting" a term or its meaning. In this connection, one can differentiate two types of internal forms: those, which orientate (orientated) and those, which do not orientate (non-orientated). The latter ones are subdivided into nejtral and misleading (terms proposed by D.S.Lotte).

O.I.Blinova, underlining a special practical importance of the phenomenon of motivatedness in the process of terminological nomination, wrote that one should use the functional charging of the internal form of terminological word to the maximum and treat the factor of its motivation in a proper way, inasmuch as a fortunate internal form of a newly created term, can serve as an instrument of cognition of the development of a scientific concept [11, p. 36] (the italicized font is ours).

A.D.Švejcer and L.B.Nikol´skij wrote that it is equally important for a sociolinguist both what is spoken and how it is spoken, i.e. the form of this or that piece of communication [69, p. 155]. Considering the motivational aspects of nomination, in the process of research of word-building problems, it is necessary to take into consideration not only its colligational (morphosyntactic) and collocational (lexical and phraseological) bases, but also such factors as the conceptual and sociolinguistic conditionality of word combinations [61, p. 14].

It is difficult to overappreciate the role linguists can and must play the full-fledged and viable creation and application of language forms. The well-known Polish linguist W.Doroszewski wrote about dictionary compilers: "The task for those, who works at language and especially at dictionaries consists in building bridges of mutual understanding between people".

An extremely great attention to the role of language in the social life was paid by political leaders. Especially it concerns political system, that were inclined to totalitarism. The correlation between the ideology of language and linguistics were usually considered in the two interrelated aspects:

1. the use of language by the ideology as an instrument of propaganda;
2. language as an object of the ideological struggle [9, p. 3].

The fullly logic consequence of the mutual influence between language and ideology was the rise of the concept ideologeme in linguistics [44, p. 61-67]. The contents of language policy in any totalitarian society was masking under the principles of humanism, peacefulness, internationalism, democracy, which obligatorily required their linguistic representation through the medium of unambiguous, commonly understood and generally accepted forms.

So, the communist propaganda has frequently operated with such attractive ideologemes as total and complete disarmament, a set of peaceful initiatives, peace zone, goodwill people, peaceful policy of the Soviet government parallel with the imperialist surrounding, bourgeois nationalism, aggressive bloc of NATO etc. The Communist or Nazi propaganda has often used some language gerrymander, operating with the factors of disparity between the objective and subjective aspects of a concept, which was reflected in its internal form.

This phenomenon can be characterized in the view of psychology. The generalized image of perception is confronted with its name conditioning thereby the reverse influence of a word upon the subsequent perception [16, p. 172].

Everything this can take place because due to the relative conditionality of the connection of the signs of natural language with the reality, a possibility of considerable development of constructive, prognostic, interpretative abilities of human consciousness occurs [59, p. 119]. That is the basis of the influence upon the consciousness.

If for the audience, the ideal side of language devise of a speaker is an objective factor, by distorting these devises in the favorable way, it is possible to influence upon the consciousness of this audience.

All the inhuman political systems speculatively used the method of verbal influence upon the masses. Such was the "experience" of the Third Reich. Hitler’s ambitions directed toward the conquest of not only the entire world, but also of the consciousness of both the conquered people and the "upper race", appealed to the use of prima facie traditional and neutral words, but with "new" cruel, cynical connotational meaning.

The German linguist and publicist, a former prisoner of Nazi concentration camps, Viktor Klemperer analysed the "language of the Third Reich". Particularly he wrote that this language used to change the word meaning and the frequency of their use, making it a common achievement of what had belonged to some particular individuals or a small group; the Nazi party confiscated the things that had been common achievements; this propaganda impregnated words, word combinations, forms of sentences with its own poison, making them serve to this monstrous system [78, p. 24].

So the term selection meant exactly ‘the selection for delivering people into gas cameras’; The prefix Volks- was applied everywhere (Volksfest, Volksgenosse, Volksfeind etc.). The word combination freiwillige Hilfe (voluntary help) stood for ‘a tax’. Each Führer’s speech was proclaimed "historical". An inseparable part of democracy was its "struggle substance" (das kämpferische Wesen der Democratie). Each newspaper article was crammed with inverted commas to make "objectionable" concepts ironical. The word System acquired negative connotation. Everything this was an instrument of ideological influence upon masses, the chief purpose of which was the oppression if the creative ideas.

Something similar was observed in the Soviet Union, in the countries of so called "popular democracy" (this word combination was not perceived as tautology) as well as in other totalitarian systems.

Especially great was the number of military terms in the communist propaganda. These terms were applied in the spheres that had nothing in common with the army or wars: "battle for crop", "labor landing operation", "labor battle-front", "labor feat/heroism", "to put up a united front for saving the crop", "a soldier of a students’ labor detachment", "shock labor" and things like that. That was an extra ground for the West, to state about the superfluous militarization of the communist society, about the barrack walk of life. Even such concept were criticized as "struggle for peace", "National front" and some others [48, p. 30].

Criticizing the Western society and the capitalist system, the communist propaganda simultaneously criticized numerous Western politological and sociological terms, considering them as euphemisms that conceal the "severe capitalist reality". Such concepts were particularly "the fair course", "the industrial society", "the post-industrial society", "struggle against poverty", "the Western walk of life", "Peace Corpus", "the open society", "jural state", "deproletarization", "the economic humanism", "free enterpreneurship" and so on.

Although in some cases, the democratic societies also used to apply some euphemization for concealing some unpleasant sides of their life. Especially it was peculiar to the military sphere [75, p. 95]. Sometimes such concepts were substituted by the mass media. For instance, the concept star wars was introduced by Edward Kennedy as a euphemism for the Strategic defense initiative (the euphemism was taken from the American sci-fi film under the same title).

Thus, motivation often has a noticeable political implication, which is more or less clear. There are numerous cases of politically charged terms in numerous languages of the world. G.V.Stepanew wrote that the Zulu term for the concept "communism" is literally translated as "an ideology of those, who eat together". The old Kazakh term that corresponded to the concept "international" was denoted by the word with the literal meaning "the absence of native feelings". Sometimes concepts did not merely correspond to their primary motivation. Such is the word kiblah in many languages of the Mosleme world. It is used for the concept ‘the direction southward’, but its literal meaning is ‘the direction to Mekka’, which does not represent the facts in many countries [56, p. 13].

Similar examples are the evidence of difficulties languages encounter on the way of their rise and development. Wilhelm Humboldt wrote that it is what a language inspires to (due to its own internal power), but not what this language is apt to express, which is the decisive factor in the correlation between positive and negative features of this or that language [17, p. 323].

All the example mentioned above are the evidence of the great role of the precise correspondence of the internal forms of language units to their lexical meaning. Such a correspondence is achieved both by creating socially conditioned generally accepted objective meanings and and the motivated use of the peculiarities, functions and capabilities of the language nomination.