Lexical modernization and lexical standardization as the basic aspects of language corpus planning include such measures, as, accordingly, terminological modernization and terminological standardization. Terminological planning, which is one of the aspects of language corpus planning also plays an important role in overcoming technical communication barriers. [Budin 1994, p. 62]. It includes thereby the terminological modernization and standardization.

So, terminological planning is an organized and coordinated work on terminological modernization and standardization. Its chief purpose is the formation of appropriate LSP and the development of terminology absent in a recipient language [Picht, Draskau, p. 17]. Terminological planning can be carried out by both responsible institutions, and separate persons, but, irrespective of it, this process is always centralized.

In some countries government agencies also can interfere with the process of terminological planning with the purpose of protection of national LSP from the influence of other languages. The character of terminological planning depends on the status of a language. So, some small countries of Europe, such as Denmark and Norway, cannot develop their own terminological systems for absolutely all the branches because of the lack / drawback s of the appropriate funds and the staff. Therefore in some specific areas they use another language, mostly English [Felber 19842, p. 34].

The terminological modernization consists in the creation of new terms. Such measures are necessary as a component of the measures bound with language status planning. As it was already told above, branch terminological systems cannot be present in any language a priori. Technological knowledge cannot be distributed within any language, when branch terminology is absent.

That conducts to the discrimination of speakers of this language, who is compelled to learn foreign languages for this purpose, and finally it conducts to the backlog of this country [Nedobity 1989, p. 169-170].

The terminological modernization takes place in the two basic cases: while translating the political, scientific or technical literature from one of language into another (in case of gaps in a target language ) and by the introduction of the appropriate language into this or that area of science or elaboration.

Thus the modernization can have two tendencies: reshaping of appropriate terminological systems of a source language according to the traditions of a recipient language [Ìvanic´kij, Kiâk 1995, p. 3] (so-called pseudo-modernization) and the creation of original terminological systems taking into consideration phonetic and grammar peculiarities of a recipient language (so-called real modernization).

Cases with pseudomodernization take place under the conditions of multilinguality or by the prevailing status of one language in comparison with others. A typical example of pseudo-modernization is terminological planning in the former USSR concerning different peoples of the USSR (except for Russians). If in Russian really national terminological systems were created, with taking into consideration all the peculiarities of the Russian phonetics and grammar; in all the other languages under the plea of creating a common word stock, national terminological systems were actually not formed. At the same time just an appropriate Russian equivalent was either calqued, or introduced without any changes.

Just the similar phenomena are observed in some post-colonial countries, where local languages undergo a strong influence of the language of the former mother country. In such cases, for the expression of this or that idea (by the absence of necessary equivalents in a native language), appropriate words or even word combinations from language of former colonizers are merely used.

After all, the chief purpose of standardization is, on the one hand, the simplification of communication between experts by means / aids of the elimination of ambiguity and unessential synonymy, and, on the other hand, the simplification of office-work and business correspondence in this or that language concerning this or that area [Duquet-Picard 1983, p. 95-96].

As Jernudd and Das Gupta stated, standardization can concern both a variant in general (the codification of this or that variant as a supradialectal norm) and some separate aspects of this or that variant (for example, terminological standardization) [Carmel Heah Lee Hsia 1989, p. 228].

The problem of standardization of scientific and technical terms was put for the first time at the beginning of the 1930s by the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster [Bühler 1985, p. 64]. He was the first to have paid attention to the necessity of the development of terminological standards and the centralized management in the sphere of the scientific and technical language. "A technical engineer can of course pay an interest to the beauty of language, the richness of its shades. But he is obliged to be interested in the questions of accuracy, clearness, as well as the questions of simplification of the scientific and technical communication" [Drezen 1935, p. 3].

In particular Wüster emphasized, that the language standardization may occur in the following three ways:

1. an offer concerning new terms (coining new words);
2. a choice between the synonyms and homonyms already available;
3. the registration and codification of the available lexical units.

In the scientific terminology efforts to standardization and international unification of languages for special purpose can be carried out most effectively [Bauer 1985, p. 128]. Nedobity has defined the principle of standardization and unification of the international terminology, which is based upon several levels and concerns such aspects, as:

1. a concept and a system of concepts;
2. a definition, i.e. a description of a concept with the help of other concepts, mainly as words and terms;
3. the internal form of terms;
4. the external form of terms [Nedobity 1989, p. 168-171].

The terminological standardization can include not only standardization of spelling of this or that term, or a simple choice of synonyms and the codification of one of them as a norm. The mechanism of standardization can be thereby developed, which can include the standardization of rules and procedures of creation of terminological systems [Carmel Heah Lee Hsia 1989, p. 227].

1. regularization;
2. unification;
3. properly standardization, or narrowing of rules.

It concerns mainly such aspects of language, as pronunciation, spelling, punctuation, morphology etc. [Sager 1985, p. 240-241].

1. the standardization of terminological principles and methods of terminography (the general standardization);
2. the standardization of separate terminological systems (the regular standardization), that is the elaboration of a standardized terminology of a certain area.

1. the delimitation of adjacent concepts within one system of concepts through the codification of these concepts in their definitions;
2. the establishment of a system of concepts through an estimation and a choice of ways of coining new terms assigned for this or that concept;
3. an estimation and a choice of elements, which are used for the creation of new terms [Gasthuber 1985, p. 261262].

However, the terminological standardization is a conditional concept in many aspects because of the fact that even after the appropriate measures in standardization and unification certain synonymic parallels will nevertheless exist. An absolute standardization is impossible because of the impossibility of a full elimination of terminological synonyms from the active use [Drozd, Roudný 1980, p. 35].

1. the standardization of terminological principles and methods for the terminological lexicography;
2. the preparation of a standardized terminology which, in its turn, includes such stages:

1. the researches of terminological systems of particular areas, i.e. the research of the real use of this or that terminology;
2. giving a shape to a terminological system (a system of concepts and their terms), that is a conscious formation and modernization of a terminology, as well as the coordination on the sphere of terminology;
3. giving recommendations concerning the coordinated terminology (publishing terminological standards) and the support its application [Felber 1980, p. 6670].

With the purpose of standardization of a scientific and technical terminology, in 1947 the International Standards Organization (ISO) created the Committee on a technical terminology ISO/TC 37 "Terminology (principles and coordination)." Its task was the standardization of methods of creation of new terms, the formation of terminological systems and the coordination of the terminological activity [French 1985, p. 248]. The terminological standardization consists in:

• the standardization of terminological systems on the basis of the international terminological standards and
• the standardization of terminological principles and methods [Galinski, Nedobity 1989, p. 1].

Modernization and standardization can be considered as the two stages of terminological planning: the first stage consists in the process of filling gaps and the creations of new terms; then comes the process of the centralized selection of the most successful variants and the further codification of branch terminological standards. The ultimate goal of terminological planning is the elaboration of systems of unambiguous terms [Lotte 1961, p. 9].

The structure of terminological planning can be represented schematically (see the scheme on the following page). This scheme shows, what components make up the structure of terminological planning, as well as what factors influence the process of terminological planning.

First of all, as it was already repeatedly emphasized, terminological planning is one of aspects of language planning which, in its turn, is a constituent of conscious language interferences. Subconscious language interferences of all the types also have an indirect influence on language planning (on the scheme this influence is shown by a dotted line).

Terminological planning, in its turn, is a constituent of the language corpus planning. On the other hand, language status planning has an influence on the terminological planning, because the status of a language dictates the direction of elaboration of terminological systems.

At last, language corpus planning includes both modernization, and standardization. Terminological planning, in its turn, consists of the same aspects. From here it is possible to draw a conclusion, that the language modernization includes terminological modernization (creation of new terms), and the language standardization includes in its turn, terminological standardization (the standardization of available and new coined terms). All the new terminological units are subject to obligatory standardization. Therefore modernization and standardization (both gemeral and terminological) are the two stages of the process called language corpus planning. Another aspect of language corpus planning is graphization, which also influences both the terminological modernization and standardization. Graphization as an aspect of language planning, influences the graphic configuration of terms and their spelling.

The Structure of Terminological Planning

The necessity of the centralized regulation of the development of the European languages appeared on account of the intensive development of capitalist relations in Europe, which was accompanied by not less intensive technical progress and the development of market economy. New public, technical, legal realities demanded precise and unambiguous terms for their designation. On the other hand, the disintegration of feudalism and formation of centralized states was accompanied with a gradual formation of the European nations. That caused the assimilation of dialects and the formation of common literary national languages. Therefore as early as in this period there was a need for the creation of special institutions, which would be engaged in the problems of language planning.

So, in the middle of the 17^th century the institution called Accademia della Crusca was founded in Florence (Italy). Its task was to regulate the development of the Italian language. Approximately in the same period in France the Académie Française was founded, which was engaged in the problems of development of the French language. In Germany on the initiative of Leibnitz, who understood that well-being of language and nation are closely interconnected, Königliche Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (the Prussian Royal Academy of Sciences) was founded in 1700, with Leibnitz at the head [Columas 1989, p. 58].

The development of branch terminological systems in the languages of the European area and the process of replenishment of word stocks of the European languages by new terms occurred gradually, as the public relations were developed.

With a special intensity this process became more active beginning from the second half of the 19^th century, when the industry and the market relations developed more intensively than usual. With the development of science, the European languages were replenished with new lexical (in particular terminological) units. But this process, because of its intensity, gradually became unguided. That resulted in the occurrence of numerous synonyms for the designation of one and the same concept. In addition, the institutions, which consisted of philologists only (who were engaged in the problems of the general development of language), could not solve the problems bound with technical terms.

Linguists, not keen in the subtleties of the technical language, could not understand the harm of synonyms in a technical language.

Therefore branch experts began to realize more and more the problem of standardization of terms and the centralized management in the sphere of thr terminological activity. As early as at the beginning of the 20^th century, the International Electrotechnical commission (IEC) started the regular standardization of the electrotechnical terminology. In 1938 it issued a multilingual dictionary containing over 2000 terms [Nakos 1983, p. 40].

In 1931 the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster published his work "Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik" (The International Language Standardization in Technology), where he stated the basic principles of the terminological modernization and standardization. In particular, he insisted on the creation of special institutions, which would be engaged in the problems of terminological standardization. Thus, Wüster has laid the foundation of terminological planning, which consists not only in modernization (creation of new terms), but also in standardization of terminological units.

The terminological planning in Europe is also based upon the so called Pan-European element [Braun 1989, p. 158]. This big Pan-European area with the common Greek and Latin language influence, consists in its turn of smaller regional areas, which are incorporated by a common influence of one of most developed languages of the region. Branch (especially technical) terminological systems of a significant part of the Western European languages undergo a certain influence of English and French. Besides, the languages of East Europe (including Slavic languages) and Scandinavia are undergo a similar influence of the German technical language. The influence of the certain languages is also observed on the national level. In particular, the Russian technical terminology (especially it concerns shipbuilding) incurred into the strong Dutch influence [Wüster 1931; c.228].

The first organizational step in the elaboration of principles of the international unification of technical terms was carried out in 1936, when the International Federation of National Standardizing Associates, I.S.A) founded a technical committee on terminology, which in 1938 ratified the resolution in the international technological terminology, known as "The I.S.A code", where it was in particular stated about the necessity of the elaboration of uniform rules of the creation of international terminological elements (key words) in different areas of science. This code was complemented with a list of the most frequently used affixes and roots [Nedobity 1989, p. 175].

The linguistic situation in Europe is also characterized by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the European languages are more or less related; they belong to the Indo-European family, namely to the three basic groups of this family: Romance, German and Slavic [Ehlich 1989, p. 135]. Three European languages (Greek, Albanian and Armenian) also belong to the same language family, but they make up their own separate groups. The languages of another group of the same Indo-European family, i.e. Celtic languages, are not so widely disseminated. There are not so many more or less developed and widespread European languages, which do not belong to the Indo-European family: Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Saami, Turkish, Basque and Maltese. But even these languages undergo a strong influence of the Indo-European languages, especially Greek, Latin, French, English and some others.

1. The three main branches of the Indo-European languages make up a basis of the historical development of the European languages.
2. Only some languages, which do not belong to these groups, had some influence on the Pan-European cultural development (for example, Celtic languages).
3. The contacts between Romance and German languages were observed at least twice: the Frankish invasion of Gallia and the Norman invasion of England.
4. The linguistic development of Europe is based upon the Romance basis.
5. The Romance (Roman) culture has inherited many achievements of the Greek culture.
6. The Christian religion is based upon the literary inheritance of the three basic sacral languages, namely Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
7. The achievements of the ancient Greek philosophy and science reached the Western Europe in the three ways:

1. through the Roman tradition (from the 4^th till the 9^th centuries);
2. through Aramaic (Syrian) and Arabic tradition (the 12^th and 13^th centuries);
3. direct from the original (mainly after 1453).

1. Since 1492 the European languages also have started to be disseminated in other parts of the world [Ehlich 1989, p. 135137].

At first sight, these aspects have nothing in common with terminological planning. Actually they underlie the stock of terminological borrowings, as the basic sources of replenishment of terminological lexicon in the overwhelming majority of the European languages were first of all classical languages (Latin and the Greek) as well as the languages of the three Indo-European leading groups mentioned above. In the process of rapprochement of Europe with other parts of the world, languages from other cultural and historic areas (in particular Japanese) also started to be involved into this process.

To say about particular European countries, the situation there was more or less common.

So, particularly the Prague terminological school was formed on the basis of the Prague school of functional linguistics and theoretical inheritance of Ferdinand de Saussure [Felber 1984, p. 16]. The planning and improvement of language in the former Czechoslovakia (according to the Czech tradition language planning is called language culture) consists in the conscious improvement of language through criticism, analysis, elaboration and unification of a language norm, in the introduction of the appropriate language education in educational institutions. It consists of the four methodological aspects:

1. The research and the analysis of scientific and technical texts (it concerns mostly lexicology and stylistics);
2. The application of principles of nomination, including theory of word-formation (these procedures are a part of the applied linguistic grammar);
3. The application of the methodology of language culture (this work consists in a conscious intervention for the sake of or against individual terms and the whole terminological language systems);
4. The application of the logic principles for the classification of concepts and the creation of the appropriate systems (this work makes up a part of applied logic and has no direct relation to linguistics; it cannot be carried out without the cooperation of experts of this or that technical or scientific discipline).

The terminological planning in Czech Republic is based upon theory of word-formation, formulated by J.Dobrovský during the period of the National Revival. On the basis of this theory as well as theoretical bases and methodological principles of the Prague linguistic school, the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences issued a two-volume edition "Word-Formation in the Czech Language". The major concept of this work is the so called onomasiological category important for the derivational word-formation, as derivation is the basic method of coining new terms in Czech, Slovak and other Slavic languages. In Czech Republic it is the Institute of the Czech Language, which is engaged in the problems of terminological planning. In Slovakia Institute of Linguistics deals with language and terminological planning. As the problem of standardization of terminology concerns not only linguists but also branch experts, the Czech Bureau of Standardization is also involved into this process in Czech Republic. This institution organizes different committees for the elaboration of terminological standards for technical and technological disciplines; it also deals with problems of standardization of terms. These committees are responsible for the lexical meaning of terms; they formulate definitions and systems of concepts. Each committee includes one or two linguists, who are responsible for the linguistic questions of the terminological standardization [Drozd, Roudný 1980, p. 34-40].

In Austria terminological planning is connected bound with Eugen Wüster’s activity, who became in fact the founder of the Viennese terminological school, the ideas of which were disseminated in such organizations as UNESCO, ISO, FEANI (Fédération Européen des Associations des Ingénieurs) etc. [Felber 1984, p. 15].

As early as in 1920 the Austrian Committee on Standardization in the Industry and Workmanship (Österreichische Normungausschuß für Industrie und Gewerbe, ÖNIG) was founded in this country. In 1935 the Ausschuß für ISA-Code (the Committee on ISA Codes) was created on its basis. This committee it was reorganized in Committee on a terminology (Ausschuß für Terminologie). Since 1946 the Fachnormenausschuß "Terminologie" (FNA) was engaged in the problems of terminological planning. Since 1968 this institution is called Fachnormenausschuß "Terminologie (Grundsätze und Koordination)" [Gasthuber 1985, p. 263].

A significant role in terminological planning is played by the institution called Infoterm (the International Information Institute of Terminological Standardization), which operates within the Austrian Institute of Standardization (Österreichisches Normingsinstitut). On international level Infoterm today is an institution, which:

1. regularly collects and fixes the information concerning terminological activity and provides an access of different users to these sources;
2. supports and gives consultations to international institutions and organizations concerning terminological activity as well as concerning the strategy of terminological planning;
3. organizes the preparation of international instructions for terminological activity;
4. organizes common projects;
5. collects know-hows for computer processing of terminological databanks available all the over the world, and helps in the introduction of complex systems of knowledge and information processing;
6. facilitates the further development and coordination of the terminological science.

In France in December, 1969, President of the republic sent letters to the prime-minister, where he offered the measures for protection of the French language against other languages influence. It was suggested the terminological lexicon should be enriched mainly with the help of coining new terms. Particularly, the President proposed the prime-minister to create the appropriate terminological commissions at the ministries. Thus, in 1972 the Haut Comité de la langue française issued a special decree according to which such committees were created. The task for these committees was, first of all, the creation of a tool for filling terminological gaps in this or that area; second, the proposals concerning new coined terms for the designation of new concepts or replacement of foreign words. The work of these committees was coordinated by the Haut Comité de la langue française. After the publication of appropriate terminological lists, the terminological units suggested by this or that committee became obligatory for use in all the documents, in all the official publications as well as in the instructive literature. All these measures were confirmed by appropriate legislative documents. The above mentioned committees investigated the specialized terminological dictionaries, defined / determined their drawbacks and offered the ways of solution of the problems concerning undesirable borrowings with the purpose to prohibit their use if the replacement of this or that word with a French equivalent was possible. Especially it concerned English words. The first instructions were issued in January, 1973, and concerned such areas as audiovisual aids, construction, town-planning, nuclear physics, petroleum industry, space technology, transport and so on. Lists of new words were published in the official publication "Journal Officiel", which was disseminated not only in France, but also in other French-speaking countries. Thus, the struggle against Franglais was rather successful, as even the words, which had very few chances to be adopted, used to be adopted. The existence of such committees, on Bessé’s opinion, demands certain conditions. First of all, these committees should not be turned into clubs. Second, the regular consultations with users new dictionaries (first of all the with experts of the appropriate branches) would be useful. At last, an important role is played by the preparatory process, which does not allow to accept hasty decisions [Bessé 1980, p. 4347].

The experience of Iceland attracts experts in sociolinguistics and terminology as an example of extreme purism, including in the field of terminological planning. The extreme purism in Iceland turned out rather viable; it can be explained first of all by the peculiarities of the Icelandic morphology, namely its extreme ability to create new words by merging stems (word composition), which allows in its turn to make a descriptive translation of any foreign lexical units. In general, the tradition of the Icelandic purism a is as old as the Icelandic state. From its very beginning there was a permanent need for national (folk) terms for the designation of foreign concepts and things borrowed from other cultures. It was very typical for the medieval Iceland, to use the national language as Lingua Franca instead of Latin. During the 19^th and the first half of the 20^th century there was a long struggle for independence from Denmark, which was finished in 1944 with the proclamation of the independent Icelandic republic. During this period there was a parallel struggle for the status of the Icelandic language as a language of a national cultural autonomy, which was accompanied by the resistance to not only borrowings from Danish, but any borrowings at all. Now, in the conditions of independence, Icelanders feel the similar negative influence of the English language, therefore the questions of language purism is still remaining topical. Therefore Icelandic terminologists try to create new terminological units by means of mostly internal resources as far as it is possible. Unlike other Scandinavian languages, in Icelandic there are no terms of the Greek and Latin origin at all. In the today’s Iceland the Icelandic Language Council (Islensk málnefnd) deals with questions of terminological planning. It was founded in 1964 according to the ministerial decree on the basis of the Academy of Sciences of Iceland (founded in 1951) and co-operates with the Commission on the Icelandic Dictionary (Orðabókarnefnd Háskólans). They solve all the problems concerning neologisms. By efforts of these institutions five dictionaries of neologisms were issued in the period between 1953 and 1959. In 1960 a special commission on neologisms (Nýyrdanefnd) was founded, which was reorganized into the Council mentioned above. On January, 1, 1985 a special law concerning the activity of this council came into force. According to this law, the Institute of the Icelandic language (Islensk málstöð) was also organized. The Council should collect and publish neologisms and facilitate their selection and coining, as well as their standardization [Sigrun Helgadottir 1991].

Although Israel is not a properly European country, nevertheless its culture is strongly connected with the European cultural and historic area, therefore the process of terminological planning in Israel has much in common with terminological planning in other European countries. As early as in 1890 the so called "The Language Committee" was created for the regulation of replenishment of the Hebrew word stock. It was led by Eliezer Ben Jehudah, who took an active part in reviving the Hebrew language. This committee consisted of teachers and natural scientists, who lived in Jerusalem. Some months later it disappeared, but soon it was revived as the Union of Teachers. Its members were concerned with the fact that many teachers had created new terminological units for their disciplines without contacting their colleagues from other schools; that was negatively reflected on the teaching process. The first publication of this union was the mathematical dictionary, which was based upon the principles and rules of coining of new terms. The major principle of creation of new terms was were giving Hebrew and Aramaic words from different historical layers new meanings. In 1953 the Language Committee was renamed into the Academy of the Hebrew language (Aqademiah la-lashon ha-’ivrit). This institution is a permanent official body, whose decisions get a force of the law after their confirmation by the Minister of Education and their official publication. Lists of new terms are issued as separate brochures. Besides the standardization of terminology, the Academy is also engaged in the elaboration of spelling rules, transliteration and so on. It Is necessary to note, that the experts in different branches get acquainted with new terms already in the process of their elaboration, thereby taking part in the elaboration of branch terminological systems. Besides the Academy, other state structures (armed forces, police, customs service etc.) have also their own terminological commissions [Rabin 1989, p. 31-33].

During the last decades the terminological planning in Ireland became more active. In particular, the institution called Bord na Gaellge is engaged in it. It is an independent official body founded in 1979 with the purpose of realization and coordination of measures in language planning. Another Institution dealing with language planning is Ódarás na Gaeltachia, founded in 1970 to support the activity of those areas, where Irish is the basic language. The following institution, the Permanent Terminology Committee (An Buanchoiste Teármaíochta), was founded in 1968 for the introduction of standardized terminological systems in the spheres of jurisprudence, education and some other branches. Rannóg an Aistriúcháin was founded in 1968 for the maintenance of the translation activity, particularly in the parliament. Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann, founded in 1972, is the national researching center in the sphere of language policy. All these institutions co-operate with each other in the process of terminological modernization and standardization [O’Connell, Pearson 1991].

After 1991 in the Baltic countries after 1991 the process of terminological planning has two tendencies. First of all, in this region there are attempts taken with the purpose to naturalize the terminological activity and to get rid of a superfluous influence of the foreign intermediary (particularly Russian, in the captivity of which the whole language planning process in the Baltic countries was almost half a century). It is accompanied with the attempts of restoration of all, that was achieved in the field of terminological planning in the period between the two world wars (1919-1940) and that was destroyed in the Soviet period. On the other hand, the institutions engaged in the problems of terminological planning, make it their aim to integrate the Baltic countries in the world community as soon as possible. Therefore terminological activity a work in the modern Baltic states searches for a compromise between the internationalization of terminological systems in Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian and their naturalization.

In particular in Estonia the measures in terminological planning were started in the second half of the 19^th century, when the process of formation of the literary Estonian language began. The terminological work was considerably more active in middle of the 1920s, after Estonia had gained its independence. Nevertheless the scientific works concerning the problems of terminological planning in Estonian appeared only at the beginning the 1970s. During many decades the center of the terminological activity in Estonia was the Terminological group at the Institute of Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of Estonia. At this institution there are branch terminological commissions consisting of both branch experts and linguists specialized in language planning. In 1986 the Estonian terminological databank ESTER was founded. Many modern Estonian terms are borrowed from English, German and Finnish. Russian is only a source for calquing. There are not so many Russian borrowings in the Estonian language, in addition, they concern mainly the communicational level [Erelt, Saari 1991].

The peculiarities of language planning in Lithuania has much in common with the language planning in Estonia. In particular, modern Lithuanian terminologists also make attempts to get rid of the Russian intermediary; moreover in the Soviet time in Lithuania almost all the scientific works were published mainly in Russian (Lithuanian was used mainly in humanities). In the fields of natural and technical sciences Lithuanian was used in textbooks only. Now just the similar threat comes from English, because of the cramming of the modern scientific Lithuanian word stock with numerous anglicisms. For the solution of all these problems bound with centralized management in terminological planning in Lithuania, the State Commission on the Lithuanian language was founded in 1990 by the decision of the parliament. In 1992 it was reorganized. The decisions of this commission are obligatory for all the ministries, departments, institutions, enterprises and publishing houses. In particular the commission examines the current problems concerning the standardization of terminology. The Institute of the Lithuanian language and the literature supervises the whole terminological activity. This institute is engaged in the research of the linguistic aspects of terminological standardization and elaboration of branch terminological systems. On the basis of this institute in 1952 the Terminological Commission (which in 1971 was reorganized into Terminological Group) was created. In 1991 it was reorganized into the Department of Terminology. The practical work is carried out by specialized terminological commissions. They discuss and edit the projects of terminological dictionaries issued by the Department. After that, linguists, in cooperation with the appropriate branch experts, finish up the elaboration of the dictionaries proposed. The Department of Terminology is also engaged in coining new terms. The main principles of coining new terms in the Lithuanian language were formulated by the Lithuanian linguists Jonas Jablonskis and Antanas Salys. They consist in the following:

During the last decades measures in terminological planning were taken not only concerning the European languages, which have the status of state languages, but also for the languages of national and cultural autonomies: Lappish (Sámi), Gaelic, Catalan, Basque, Welsh, Greenland Eskimo (East Inuit), Rhaetic and others.

In Catalonia since 1907 the Institute of Catalan Researches is functioning, which is particularly engaged in corpus planning of the Catalan language. In Franco’s lifetime the activity of the institute was severely limited. This institution was re-organized in 1976, according to the royal decree. Under order of the Generalitat (the self-management body in Catalonia) the institution called Direcció General de Política Lingüística was created in 1980. A similar institution exists also in Valencia. The leading institution, which is engaged in problems of terminological planning, is Comissió Coordinadora Lexicogràfica de Ciènces (the Commission on the Lexicographic Coordination in Science), which includes the experts in different branches of science. In 1985 the Generalitat of Catalonia and the Institute of the Catalan Researches adopted the common decision about the foundation of the terminological center TERMCAT for the coordination of researches and standardization of the Catalan terminology. [Mari i Mayans 1991, p. 96-103].

The terminological planning in Basque is carried out under the direction of the institution called EUSKALTERM / UZEI in cooperation with Institute of Public Management (HAEE / IVAP). [EUSKALTERM / UZEI 1991].

In Sámi such institutions deal with terminological planning, as the Nordic Sámi Institute, the Sámi Education Council, Sámi College and some other institutions as well as private persons. Nevertheless, not all of them will carry out their work according to principles and methods formulated the Norwegian Council of the Technical Terminology, TNC (Sweden), TSK (Finland), Infoterm and so on. The results of this terminological activity are lists of terms with Finnish, Swedish or Norwegian equivalents. In 1989 the Sámi databank was created with the purpose to coordinate the work of all the institutions mentioned above. The leading part in coining neologisms belongs to the group of scientists lead by Frette in the Uralaltaic Institute at the University of Oslo. Special publications concerning the distribution of new terms do not still exist. New terminological units are published mainly in some books, magazines and newspapers in Sámi. New terminological units are created not only by terminologists, but also by journalists, authors of textbooks and just amateurs. Therefore the scientists from the Sámi Databank take measures in the standardization of Sámi terms. They also take part in some regional organizations, particularly in the working groups of the INSTA/IT (Internordic Standardization), as well as in the regional organization NORDTERM [Utsi 1991, p. 5052].

The attempts to develop own their terminological systems were also made concerning the Gaelic terminology, particularly by the organization called Cooncell ny Gaelgey (the Manx Language Council) [Pilgrim, Draskau 1991].

The necessity of terminological planning in the countries of the third world emerged after the disintegration of the world colonial system, the appearance of new states and giving the status state languages to local languages.

The introduction of local languages into the process of office-work and business correspondence as well as teaching, demanded their capital modernization and standardization, especially in branch terminological systems.

But if branch terminological systems in the European languages developed gradually, in the process of development of technical progress, peoples of the countries of the third world had to overcome their backwardness as quickly as possible, and not only in economy, but also in the development of their native language; they had to adapt their local languages to the modern conditions to have a possibility to use them in all the branches of science and social life.

The terminological modernization for languages with recently created writing can be carried out in such ways:

The international elements of the European origin are introduced not obligatorily with the orientation toward the languages of former colonizers only. Many non-European languages borrowed European words during the last time together with new technologies borrowed from Europe [Braun 1989, p. 165].

The standardization of the Malayan language (Bahasa Malaysia) touched basically upon the two aspects: the introduction of the Malaya dialect as a supradialectal norm and the standardization of different aspects of this norm in the field of spelling, grammar and terminology. If, for example, the pronunciation of announcers on the radio and television is consistently based on this dialect, the public no longer associates this norm of pronunciation with the standard Malayan language. As to the standardization Malayan and Indonesian spelling, the scientists of the two countries faced the obstacle that the Malayan spelling rules were based upon the English variant of the Latin script (as Malaysia is a former British colony), whereas the Indonesian orthography was based upon the Dutch spelling traditions (as Indonesia belonged to the Netherlands). It was necessary to search for compromises in some way. At the national level this process is carried out by a special committee, Jawatankuasa Tetap Bahasa Malaysia (the Permanent Committee for the Malayan language, JKTBM), which was created in 1972 by the Minister of Education for the representation of Malaysia in the negotiations with Indonesia concerning the standardization of scientific terminological systems in the two countries. The committee includes 810 members appointed by the Minister of Education and accountable to him. The chief members of the Committee are experts in linguistics. Branch experts are recruited when these or those measures concern the terminological units of the appropriate branch. The committee has developed their own principles of terminological work. In 1972-1975 years this Committee cooperated together with the similar institution in Indonesia, Panitia Perkembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa Indonesia (The Committee on Dissemination and Development of the Indonesian language, PPPBI) concerning the elaboration of common rules and principles of coining new terms. Brunei was also involved into this cooperation. The English terminological systems serve as models for the development of the common Malayan and Indonesian branch terminological systems [Carmel Heah Lee Hsia 1989, p. 228-269].

In India language planning in general and terminological planning in particular was complicated by a long domination of the English language in all the spheres of the political life. Particularly, concerning the Hindustani language, Columas gave some parallels with German. The matter is that in Germany in Leibnitz’s lifetime there was just the similar domination of French. Therefore Gandhi, as well as Leibnitz, considered, that the main obstacle on the way of the formation of national languages is not the internal qualities of this or that language, but the ruling classes’ attitude to that language, because slaves try to imitate their owners both in clothes, and in language. Nevertheless, as Leibnitz could not assert the status of German language without use of French, in the same way Gandhi could not do it without using English. He stated that when the Hindustanis like to speak English, they make their native language poorer. Thus Gandhi opposed the attempts to create new terminological units extremely on the basis of Sanskrit roots. He stated that borrowings enrich any language. Eventually, Gandhi appealed language experts to accelerate the terminological activity; his principles were applied by the Central Institute of the Indian languages in Mysore [Columas 1989, p. 810].

In Turkey in the second half of the 1920s there was a successful transition from the Arabic script into the Latin alphabet. This success was due to its rather high speed. Concerning the Turkish vocabulary, it is possible to explain this success with the obstinate work of language planning committees. At the same time in Iran the institution called Farhangestan made a much smaller success, as the lexical lists developed by it, had no wide circulation, they issued no terminological dictionaries, their activity was not coordinated [Fierman 1991; c. 1316].

The creation of new terms gives certain advantages in the technological exchange, but in the developing countries there are different social barriers on the way of a full acceptance internationalisms. Therefore in these countries it is necessary to create certain strategies of language planning as well as the appropriate infrastructure for this purpose [Nedobity 1989, p. 171].

The peculiarities of terminological planning in the former Soviet Union have much in common with the terminological planning both in the developed countries of the West, and in the countries of the Third World.

In particular, starting / beginning from second half of the 19^th century Russia became gradually integrated into the world market. In this period the industry started to develop, and the terminology developed gradually together with the industry and was being improved.

In the 1920s the Russian terminological systems had the same drawbacks as the terminological systems in other countries in the period "before Wüster". Many dictionaries in the USSR were issued during this period as proposals, whereas in the special literature entirely different terminological units were used. The absence of standard terminological systems was a problem common for many languages of the USSR. A typical picture was: the same term had many synonyms, but none of these synonyms was standardized. A lot of terms created the terminological commissions, died with their natural death, but some of them were spontaneously adopted and used actively. But terminological codes (concrete elaboration concerning terminological systems of this or that branch, terminological dictionaries etc.) which would regulate the development new terminological systems, did not exist [Fierman 1991; c. 152].

The first attempts to remove unsuccessful terminological units and to replace them with more convenient equivalents, had no success for the lack of coordination in the terminological activity and the absence of principles of solving similar problems [Grinev 1994, p. 62].

Everything was changed in the period of industrialization. It was a period of storming development of the terminological planning in the former Soviet Union. As well as in the countries of the Third world, in the former Soviet Union at that time there were attempts to overcome both the economic backwardness, and the inability of Russian to express this or that technical idea. Therefore at the end of the 1920s—the beginning of the 1930s, Russian adopted many new terms. The basic way of creation of new terms during that period was their direct borrowing from modern European languages (mainly, from English, French and German): kombajn, blûming and so on.

All this was done with the purpose of internationalization of the Russian vocabulary, its rapprochement with languages of the Western Europe. Even projects romanization of the Russian writing [Reformatskij 1967; Uspenskij 1979] were put forward. And, in general, Russian, according to Braun, is the most cosmopolitized language among all the Slavic languages; foreign words have always entered the Russian vocabulary in profusion [Braun 1989, p. 165].

Parallel with the terminological modernization, measures in standardization of scientific and technical terms were also taken. The Committee on Standardization at the Council of Work and the Defense (OST) created at the beginning the 1920s, was involved into this process. In particular, the institutions created at Committee dealt with the problems of regulation of the electrotechnical terminology, namely the All-Union Electrotechnical Congress and the Central Electrotechnical Council. In 1929 they issued a bulletin "The Electrotechnical Rules and Norms" [Wüster 1931; p. 157158].

In 1932 the Council of National Commissioners adopted the decision in which the necessity to concentrate the Committee’s efforts on the elaboration of terminological standards was specified [Volkova 1984, p. 11].

Approximately at the same time the Commission on Technical Terminology was created, which was transformed later into the Committee on Scientific and Technical Terminology (KNTT) at the USSR Academy of Sciences. [Felber 1984, p. 17; Felber 1994, p. 41-43].

The main principle of the Soviet terminological school was a so called "system approach". That means that in the analysis, elaboration and unification of scientific and technical terms, this or that system of terms was in the centre of attention, which corresponded to the appropriate systems of concepts [Volkova 1985, p. 279-280].

The majority of the basic standards on branch terminological units were the standards on industrial technology: welding, (GOST 2601-44, revised in 1974 and 1984), soldering (GOST 1731-71, revised in 1979), plastic deformations (GOST 18296-72), moulding (GOST 18169-72) and some others [Volkova 1985, p. 279-280].

Besides the central institutions of terminological planning, in the former Soviet Union there were also regional institutions, such as, for example, OMTERM [Tkacheva 1992].

Nevertheless, the totalitarian regime affected the development of terminological planning too.

For this reason, namely to approximate the world revolution as fast as possible, in the 1920s many foreign words were adopted in Russian [Braun 1989].

On account of the same reason, attempts were made to adopt the Latin script for the Russian language.

Linguistics and politics were always hand-in-hand in the Soviet history. Thus, for example, In the Soviet linguistics a point of view always dominated, that language and society were closely interconnected, and that the policy in one sphere would obligatorily influence the one in another sphere [Fierman 1991; p. 2].

It is also necessary to state that measures in terminological planning carried out in the former Soviet Union, despite of numerous both theoretical and practical elaborations and the whole positive experience of the modernization and standardization of branch terminological systems, touched upon almost exclusively the Russian language. All the other languages of the former Soviet Union had to imitate the Russian terminology in everything.

Of course, Russian played a positive role as a language of the interethnic communication in the USSR on account of some certain historical conditions. On the other hand, under the plea of formation of so called "common word stock" [Isaev 1970; 1971; 1978; 1979; Âzyki narodov SSSR 1966-1968] the branch Russian terminological systems actually became something like a Procrustean bed [Kiâk 1994].

Though in 1920s, during the period of so-called korenizatsiya, one of the objectives of which was the elimination of language barriers that prevented the participation of the local population in the public management [Fierman 1991; c. 52], terminological planning however DID concern other languages of the USSR. At that time the measures in terminological planning were directed towards the purification of national terminological systems, on their isolation both from Russian, and from the West-European languages. In particular, Semën Dimanštejn in his article "Principles of the Creation of a National Terminology", emphasized the necessity of having original national terminological systems. He stated that there were many supporters of a complete russification concerning linguistics, who tried to neglect the peculiarities of this or that language, cramming them with a lot of Russian terminological units, even when it was not necessary. Dimanštejn affirmed that this phenomenon is extremely harmful, moreover it is a manifestation of a great-power chauvinism. It is, in addition, an attempt to follow a path of least resistance... "The abuse of Russian words, i.e. the insertion of terminological units, which are not understandable to people ignorant in Russian, into the text, makes a book inaccessible for people... We... gave up the introduction of the Russian alphabet for the non-Russian national population of the Soviet Union, and help them to master the Latin alphabet" [Pis´mennost´ i revolûciâ 1933; p.32-34].

Language planning in former The former Soviet Union in general and terminological planning in particular, can be subdivided into some stages. In the period of korenizatsiya the terminological planning was usually carried out by local writers and linguists, who shared some sights and the purposes of the new regime. In the process of consolidation of the regime beginning from the second half the 1920s, the central Soviet government strengthened the control above language planning. The middle the 1930s was a turning-point [Fierman 1991, c. 140-141].

It is possible to draw a conclusion, that the middle the 1930s was a critical stage in the history of language planning in the USSR. It was preceded by the period of korenizatsiya characterized by the formation of national literary languages of the USSR irrespective of Russian. But beginning from the middle 1930s it was a period of a total russification, which was lasting with a different degree of intensity till the end of the 1980s.

At the first stage of korenizatsiya a great attention was paid to the lexical and grammatical features of this or that language. By creating new terms, the inner resources of each particular language were used first of all, its word-formative models as well as dialects. Russian terminological units were replaced with elements based on the inner resources or direct borrowings either from the West-European languages (English, French, Greek, Latin), of from the appropriate sacral languages (Arabic, Persian, Tibetan etc.) [Azimov, Dešeriev 1972, p. 12].

Another explanation of "internationalization" was the necessity for the creation of special terminological systems for translation of the political literature, and as if the equivalents of the non-Russian origin had a different emotive and expressive coloration, a different connotational meaning. It can be observed on the example of Central Asia, particularly of the Uzbek language. In the period of korenizatsiya, new terminological units were created on the basis of Turkic roots. Borrowings from the Arabic and Persian languages were replaced with properly Turkic words. Borrowings from Old Turkic were also made productive. And, on the contrary, in the middle of the 1930s everything was directed towards the elimination of a barrier between the Uzbek and "foreign" words, that is a barrier between the Uzbek and Russian words, as well as the Russian forms of the words borrowed from other European languages. It was very clearly shown in the new spelling rules of the Uzbek equivalents of such Russian words, as Hamlet, hegemony, hectare. According to the orthography of 1934, these words were written with the letter H (Hamlet, hegemonija, hektar), but with the transition to the Cyrillic script, in the new rules these words were already written not with the letter H, but with the letter G (Gamlet, gegemoniâ, gektar). In the middle of the 1920s the Uzbek language had only 4 % internationalisms of the Russian origin; in 1934 this figure already grew up to 12 %. In 1940 already 15 % of words in the Uzbek language were Russian [Fierman 1991; c. 140-141; 153-163].

The russification of national languages occurred in different ways: a wide introduction of Russian lexemes, the introduction of the Cyrillic script, the increasing of the status of the Russian language in national republics and even the "enrichment" of phonetic structures of local languages with new Russian sounds. Thus, it was actually a returning to the pre-Revolutionary practice of direct borrowings (especially it concerns the Central Asia) from sacral languages; but in this case Russian borrowings were widely introduced instead of the Arabic and Persian borrowings. The purpose of such measures was the strengthening of identity, that is the rapprochement of these peoples with other Soviet peoples, but not with the Muslim world [Fierman 1991; c. 5153].

The apology of russification consisted particularly in granting a civilizing cultural mission to Russian, which consisted in the tool of access to the achievements of the Soviet and world culture. It actually meant the compulsion of non-Russian peoples to look at the external world through the intermediary of the Russian language only [Bilinsky 1980, p. 4].

The russification was frequently motivated with the myth, as if in 1930s "the Russian proletariat already went in the avant-garde of the world revolutionary process." On the other hand, the statements of Western linguists and sociologists about the artificial russification were denied: "the borrowed terminology in the national languages of the USSR was represented by bourgeois ideologists as a way of the "compulsory merge" of all the languages with Russian, and, on the other hand, as measures directed towards the creation of a "precipice" between related languages." [Isaev 1970; p.185-186]

Under the "rapprochement" of the nations, their simple merge into a homogeneous ethnic group was implied according to Nikolaj Marr’s theory (so called "The New Language Doctrine"). Its representatives persisted on the "international" nature of Russian borrowings. That enables to assume, that Stalin may have imagined a fast creation of a monolinguistic USSR [Fierman 1991; c. 267].

In particular, it was considered that "borrowing not only separate words, but also integral word combinations, word-formative models and models of different types of word combinations... testify about the further deepening of the process of rapprochement of nations... It does not mean certainly a loss of national identity by the languages of the USSR, their assimilation, as the foreign falsifiers of the language policy carried out in the USSR assert. The processes mentioned above is a result of a fruitful development and mutual enrichment of these languages" [Dešeriev, Tumanân 1980; p. 92].

The history of language planning in the former Soviet Union displays awful consequences of the planning, which was from time to time absolutely far from the reality. Nevertheless, for last 50 years language and especially terminological planning in the USSR was much more stable than in the first two decades of the USSR history. Except for the last years of Stalin’s epoch, the debates concerning the vocabulary of a language had no such a political coloring and were less dangerous. On the other hand, spelling rules of a significant part of the USSR languages kept more and more away from Russian [Fierman 1991; p. 2; 260].

Another subject of apology was the compulsory cyrillization of the alphabets for the languages of Central Asia, Northern Caucasus and other regions of former Soviet Union [Baziev, Isaev 1973; Isaev 1970; 1971; 1978; 1979; Istrin 1988; Musaev 1965; Uspenskij 1979; Âzyki narodov SSSR 1966-1968].

With the disintegration of The former Soviet Union in 1991, the common Soviet terminological school has broken also up. The terminological planning in every former Soviet republic, and nowadays an independent state, has acquired its specific features and peculiarities.

The basis of the modern Ukrainian terminology started to be formed in the process of formation and development of the scientific style as early as in the 18^th century; though many agricultural, building, legal and philosophical terms appeared much earlier [Citkina 1991, p. 38]. The Ukrainian LSP appeared due to the textbooks for elementary and the high schools, which were issued by the Galician society "Prosvìta" founded in 1868 [Rytsar 1994, p. 127].

Nevertheless, there were no centralized measures taken at that time for the regulating and standardization of branch terminological systems. In addition, the Ukrainian language of Galicia and the Russian part of Ukraine differed very substantially.

The modern Ukrainian scientific and technical terminology began to develop in the scientific speech and in LSP already in the Soviet time, on a basis of the properly Ukrainian language, as well as Latin, Greek and the modern European languages [Citkina 1991, p. 38].

The ‘golden age’ of the terminological activity in Ukraine took place in the 1920s, in the period of the so-called ukrainization, when almost after 200 year’s pause, the Ukrainian language became a language of the social and political life in Ukraine [Simonenko 1994, p. 200]. It approximately coincides chronologically with the period of korenizatsiya, that took place during this period in the whole Soviet Union. Actually ukrainization in Ukraine was carried out within the process of the korenizatsiya. At that period, when the Minister of Education of Ukraine was Ivan Skrypnyk, the whole state office-work and business correspondence was conducted in Ukrainian. It demanded the elaboration and standardization of branch terminological systems.

At that time all the terminological commissions were incorporated into the Institute of the Scientific Language at the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which had to be engaged in the problems of development of the scientific terminology. From 1916 till 1930 85 branch dictionaries (15 medical ones, 3 in the veterinary science, 13 in botany; 10 in mathematics and mechanics, 8 in the business correspondence, 9 in physics, 4 in chemistry) were published [Simonenko 1994, p. 200].

So, during the 1920s in Ukraine, many terminological dictionaries in different branches of science were issued, particularly

Concerning the strategy of terminological planning in Ukraine at that time, it is possible to note, that the chief purpose of the terminological activity was the creation of the Ukrainian national terminological systems using the global positive experience in terminological planning, as well as the isolation of the Ukrainian terminological systems from the Russian influence, particularly the avoidance of all drawbacks peculiar to the Russian branch terminological units. So, for example, Ìvan Šelud´ko wrote about the necessity of the orientation toward those languages of the world, which are actual producers of terms, avoiding thereby the Russian intermediary, as the Russian professional terminology always underwent different foreign influences. Therefore it is not necessary to hope that Russian has its own original terminology [Šelud´ko 1928, s. 9-11].

In many cases the accent was made on the folk language. Terminological units were coined mainly by means of internal resources. Thus, as well as in a case of the terminological activity in Uzbekistan in the period of korenizatsiya, archaisms and dialecticisms were actively involved into coining new terms.

The problem of correlation between international and national elements in the terminological activity was solved by the majority lexicographers of the 1920s for the benefit of national elements. The synonymic parallels, which consisted in the coexistence of the borrowed element with an element of the native language were also rather frequent. Foreign elements were accepted only in the extreme cases, when it was impossible to express this or that idea by means of the Ukrainian language [Boârova 1994, p. 104].

There were also extreme purists, who insisted on coining new terminological units exclusively on the basis of the Ukrainian roots: "gromovina" instead of "elektrika" (electricity), "vporskuvannâ" instead of «ìn’êkcìâ» (injection) etc. [Citkina 1991, p. 38].

The period of ukrainization was finished in Ukraine much faster, than the period of korenizatsiya in the Central Asia.

In another edition like that it was written, as if the nationalist elements wanted to tear off the Ukrainian terminology from working class, to isolate it from the process of the socialist construction [Hvilâ 1933, p. 10].

Thus, the so-called "Skripnik’s line" was accused of an artificial separation of the Ukrainian language from Russian through the replacement of words, which resembled Russian, with their Polish, Czech or German equivalents [Fierman 1991, p. 159]. Everything was done under the plea of the rapprochement of the USSR peoples [Bilinsky 1980; Jones 1990].

Pavlo Štepa in his turn, stated that during the 1920s purism dominated in the Ukrainian terminological activity. But in the 1930s these dictionaries were burned and their authors were shot by the totalitarian system [Štepa 1977, p. IX].

The new wave of compilation of branch terminological dictionaries was activated at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, when a lot of monolingual, bilingual and multilingual dictionaries were issued. In 1957 the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine organized a special Dictionary commission, due to the efforts of which during the next 20-25 years over 50 terminological both explanatory and Russian-Ukrainian dictionaries in different natural sciences and the humanities were issued [Simonenko 1994, p. 201; Citkina 1991, p. 39]. These dictionaries were issued in very scanty circulation and actually became rare books right after their output [Simonenko 1994, p. 201].

Nevertheless, all these dictionaries were under a strong influence of Russian, which remained the only model; in some branches of science Russian dominated exclusively.

Among well-known Ukrainian linguists of the 1960s—1980s, who were engaged in the terminographical activity, were Vasyl´ Vasyl´ovyč Akulenko, Ěvan Kostântynovyč Běloděd, Eduard Fedorovyč Skorohod´ko and some others.

After Ukraine had gained its independence, and the Ukrainian language had acquired a status of a state language, the terminological activity in Ukraine was intensified. Numerous terminological dictionaries in different branches of science and technology started to be issued or reprinted (especially it concerns the dictionaries published in the 1920s).

Both linguists, branch experts and just amateur patriots joined this process. Since the beginning of the 1990s, over 50 groups of authors work at the compilation of branch terminological dictionaries.

The absence of a centralized management in the sphere of terminological planning in the today’s Ukraine results to the fact that all these dictionaries actually contradict each other. And, in general, at least three tendencies in the terminological activity can be observed now. In the first group of dictionaries appropriate Russian terms are merely reshaped according to the Ukrainian models. In the dictionaries of the second group, the same unilateral orientation toward the English language is observed. In the dictionaries of the third group, the traditions of the 1920s directed towards the extreme purism are reanimated [Kiâk 1994, p. 191; Ìvanic´kij, Kiâk 1995, p. 3; Nìkìtìna 1996, p. 48].

Besides the research of terminological planning as a phenomena, many linguists formulated main principles of terminological planning, which became actually methodological recommendations. These recommendations concern mainly the principles of selection of terminological synonyms, giving an appropriate external form to new terms, methods of standardization of terms and so on. So that a term were more or less successful, it should meet some particular requirements. These requirements appear in works of many terminologists. Especially it concerns the creation of foreign terms equivalents in a native language. It is a great responsibility, as the term created by a translator, becomes a fact of the corresponding native language and later continues to exist irrespective of the translator this term has been created by [Skorohod´ko 1963, p. 79].

Eugen Wüster was the first, who stated the basic requirements concerning the principles of terminological modernization and standardization. It was reflected in such his works, as "Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektrotechnik", "Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie" and many others.

As it is known, the main driving force of the modernization is the scientific or technical translation, in the process of which one must permanently meet the norms of a target language. It concerns, for example, the sphere of word-formation. It is explained with the fact that each language has its own peculiarities concerning word-formative types, and consequently it is not always possible to transfer models of one language to another language in the translation process. For example, for Ukrainian word combinations are more typical, whereas for German compound words (so called Komposita) are more frequently used [Kiâk 1992; p. 144]. Thus, the principles of coining new terms in Ukrainian and German will have to be based upon, first of all, the peculiarities of those particular languages. However, it does not mean, that there are no general principles of terminological planning, which could be applied to any language.

The methodological recommendations concerning the general principles of terminological planning, which can concern any language irrespective of national traditions concerning coining new terms, grammatical structure and percentage ratios of international and national elements in the word stock of this or that language, appear in the works of many linguists. In particular Columas asserted about the necessity of innovations for a language because of the permanent need for the denotation of new objects, processes and relations [Columas 1989, p. 15].

First of all, much attention was paid to the aesthetic side of language planning [Afendras 1970, p. 20], namely the euphony of terms, their ability to form derivatives and so on. Another aspect much attention was paid to, is a degree of internationality of new terms.

1. the attributes of a concept, which are selected for its direct reflection by the elements of the term;
2. the elements applied for the creation of the term;
3. the combination of elements in terminological units [Lotte 1961, p. 112].

Nevertheless, such principles of coining new terms during certain time can be recommended, not obligatory. The scientific terminology should be not merely a set of words, but a system of words or word combinations, interconnected between each other [Lotte 1961, p. 72-73].

The major principles of coining new terms, especially if these terminological units are created through the translation of the scientific and technical literature, are the following:

• The translated term should correspond to the term or concept source language as close as possible; it should not be cumbersome and artificial.
• It is not necessary to introduce a borrowing if it is possible to pick up a term, which reflects the scientific or technical concept exactly.
• Terminological units of the Greek and Latin origin can be freely introduced, even if there are native words reflecting the same concept [Lotte 1982, p. 52].

The rational coining new terms means that, first of all, these terminological units should be always unambiguous. Otherwise a technical terminology, owing to its drawbacks, ceases to be an instrument of technical communication and scientific progress; on the other hand, mastering terminological synonyms and just too long and not clearly understandable terms would require superfluous efforts.

In addition, unsuccessful terminological units create additional complications in using the professional literature. It conducts to mutual misunderstanding even among experts.

1. It is not necessary to stand up against common words (words in general use).
2. It is not necessary to use foreign words when a corresponding native word exists.
3. A foreign word deserves "the right of citizenship" only in the case when a new concept is adopted together with it.
4. There is no need to give up such foreign words, which cannot be replaced with a native word, and the concept of which can be expressed only descriptively.
5. It is necessary to study foreign words used in several meanings.
6. There is no need to adopt foreign words containing strange sounds, or the words that sound strange for a recipient language.
7. The endings of loan words should be substituted with the corresponding endings from a recipient language.
8. Loan words should be declined/conjugated in the same way, as native words [Lotte 1982, p. 40-64].

In Skorohod´ko’s opinion, international terminological units existing in many languages and having one and the same meaning, facilitate mutual understanding of experts, who talk different languages, nevertheless not all of them should be introduced into the terminological systems of a native language (even if they are already adopted by some other languages), but only those, which do not allow any subjective interpretation. One should not borrow terminological units, which coincide in their forms with terms, which already exist in the native language, but with a different meaning; it is also impossible, in the scientist’s opinion, to introduce foreign terminological units into the text in the native language, when their equivalents are present in the native language.

In general, Eduard Fedorovyč Skorohod´ko formulated such requirements to new terms:

Eugen Wüster formulated the seven major peculiarities of a key to the international terminology:

1. The key to the terminology is elaborated for terminologists, not philologists, as a basis for national terminological systems and even for terminological systems of completely planned (artificial) languages.
2. Terminological elements are distributed according to concepts as well as in the alphabetic order.
3. It is necessary to pay attention to the frequency of the use of each terminological element and to fix it.
4. Terminological elements should be spelled in the same way they are spelled in Latin.
5. Terminological elements should be represented in their base (initial) form, not dependent upon national variants. They should be transformed to the national forms according to a precise system.
6. To have an opportunity to and practice in a key to the terminology, the rules of the uniform international pronunciation of Latinized forms should be ratified.
7. International terminological units of the non-Latin origin should be accepted to the key in their unchanged forms as "ethnic terminological units". Their pronunciation should coincide with the pronunciation in the language they come from [Wüster 1959, p. 550-552; Nedobity 1989, p. 174].

Among the Western linguists besides Wüster, some questions concerning the principles of coining new terms were also touched by Fierman, Bessé, Nedobity, Drozd, Roudný and some others.

Fierman asserted that persons and institutions engaged in language planning if they always hope to have success, should be sensitive to permanent changes, modifying their policy [Fierman 1991; p. 3].

It concerns not only language planning as it is, but also terminological planning.

Certainly, an ideal language is such one, which uses short words, meets standard rules, which is simple and harmonious. In the real life, it is practically impossible to adjust any language to this Procrustean bed; it is unreal and inexpedient. However, concerning the scientific and technical terminology, it is possible to make something in this sphere. Such a kind of work, according to Fierman, can be accessible even to several agencies. These measures, if they are directed towards the creation and expansion of unanimity in the certain branch of technical language, they can make a powerful contribution for the benefit of efficiency. The standardization of spelling is also a very powerful factor for the creation of alphabetic registers and catalogues, especially in the epoch of the total computerization. Especially it concerns the countries, which are in a close dependence on foreign technologies. For these countries contacts with the foreign languages directed towards the standardization of the terminological corpus, will facilitate mastering foreign languages. In general, it is easier to borrow available terminological units than to coin their own words [Fierman 1991; p. 27-28].

Bessé, like Wüster, put forward a number of conditions of activity of institutions engaged in terminological planning. First of all, in the scientist’s opinion, these committees should not turn to clubs. To the second, it would be useful to consult with the users of new compiled dictionaries regularly, first of all with experts of the appropriate branch. At last, Bessé considered, that the preparatory process is also very important: it is not necessary to make hasty decisions [Bessé 1980, p. 47].

Much attention was paid by Bessé to the legal confirmation of standardized terms (their codification). For example, he proposed such stages of standardization:

1. The first stage is a a technical spadework:
1. a spadework according to the proposals of the appropriate organizations;
2. drawing up a basic document.
2. The second stage is a preparation of an initial variant of the instruction:

1. the analysis of the basic document by the committee, which consists of manufacturers, users, representatives of the scientific and technical organizations and other competent persons;
2. a detailed technical research, including the coordination with already existing standards and instructions, a comparison with similar standards abroad;
3. a preparation of the temporal project of the instruction coordinated by committee.

3. The third stage is the public acquaintance and the final settlement:

1. The distribution of the project in the organizations and institutions;
2. a communiqué in the mass media;
3. messages to the competent institutions abroad;
4. the analysis by the committee responsible for the message.

4. The fourth stage is the stage of acknowledgement (confirmation):

1. the preparation of a final report;
2. the consultation in the appropriate ministerial structures;
3. the minister’s signature and the official publication [Bessé 1980, p. 48-49].

The main thing, in the scientist’s opinion, it is necessary to carry out the reform of national terminological systems in a rather cautious way, as any innovations may cause inconveniences for those who has got used to his own language routine [Bessé 1980, p. 49].

Nedobity paid much attention to the problems of creation of material resources for terminological planning. In particular, he asserted that developing countries should follow the developed countries in the creation of information centers, because the transmit of technology without the appropriate information accompanying it, cannot be successful. The terminological cooperation between the countries exporting and importing technologies can be organized in the best way in the international committees of standardization, where the unification of concepts should be considered as a priority. The advantages of unification and internationalization of concepts and terms, as Nedobity stated, are obvious: the improvements of understanding among branch experts through the simplification of perception of technical texts in foreign languages, the reduction of probability of an incorrect translation because of a lesser amount of misleading words. And, in general, there will be less communicative obstacles on the way of the informational and technological interchange. The creation of terms can be facilitated by the creations of certain stocks of terminological elements in a native language, each of which would display a certain characteristics, which can be shown in this or that concept. The creation of new terms, of course, gives certain advantages in the technological exchange. However, in the developing countries, as Nedobity asserted, there are usually different social barriers on the way to the full acceptance of internationalisms, therefore in these countries it is necessary to create precisely certain strategies of language planning and the appropriate infrastructure for this purpose. Concerning the language corpus planning as it is, Nedobity wrote particularly that the motivation for the creation of new terms should not be dictated by commercial reasons only, it should follow certain rules, which would meet the structure of this language. Otherwise it may cause a danger of the creation of highly specialized terms within one company or technology, instead of a standard terminology [Nedobity 1989, p. 168172].

Drozd and Roudný touched particularly upon the problems of language culture as one of the aspects of terminological planning, as well as the problems of language education, which should lay the principles of estimation of terms concerning their selection as well as their coining. They also considered that the stability should dominate in the process of terminological planning, which is one of the major qualities of a language at the estimation of its perfection. Artificial interventions in the professional norm of a language, in the scientists’ opinion, should respect the stability of a terminological system. On the other hand, they considered, that each terminological system should be open, to be capable of meeting new requirements, especially in semantics. The language norm, in their opinion, should be codified. The codification of a language norm should support the language stability too. The terminological codification was understood by Drozd and Roudný as the approvement of terminological units in terminological dictionaries and standards. However, Drozd and Roudný considered that the unification and stabilization of a terminology is a problem, which cannot be solved completely. As for the problem of correlation of national and international elements, Drozd and Roudný referred to a special document elaborated by the International Standards Organization (ISO) International Unification of Concepts and Terms (ISO/R 860-1968/E/), where it was particularly stated that for the successful informational interchange, technical terminological units should posses identical meanings in all the languages. Therefore each national terminological committee should respect the international principles of nomination in the process of elaborating the national principles of nomination. On the other hand, they should also respect the structure of their own language. In the scientists’ opinion, each newly coined term should be transparent [Drozd, Roudný 1980, p. 3439].

Based upon the positive experience of coining new terms both in the developed countries, and in the countries of the third world, as well as the positive experience of the Soviet terminological school and the positive experience of coining new terms in Ukraine, on the one hand, and on the other hand, based upon the recommendations of the leading terminologists of the world in the field of terminological planning, as well as the international documents touching upon terminological planning, it is possible to formulate the general common principles of terminological planning in Ukraine.

First of all, it is necessary to take into account both the positive and the negative experience of other languages. Thus, it is necessary to take both the external form of new terms and their motivation into consideration. If, for example, the appropriate term in many European languages looks identically, it is desirable, that this international element were preserved in Ukrainian too.

Concerning the general principles of coining new terms, it is possible to formulate such main principles of selection of the external and internal forms of new terms:

1. Single-component terminological units should be transmitted depending on the fact, to which word stock of the source language they belong, native or borrowed. In the first case it is possible to translate similar terminological units literally as, for example, English mouse — Ukrainian miša (as a computer device), and here it is not necessary to be afraid of polysemy as this polysemy is international too. It is rather close to calquing, which also contains international elements. If this or that term is constructed on the basis of borrowed elements, and especially if this term is non-motivated in the source language, it is necessary to take its etymology into consideration.
2. Terminological derivatives should be transmitted depending on their etymology. Especially it concerns elements of the Greek and Latin origin. And, certainly, it is necessary to look at how it / he looks in other languages.
3. Compound terminological units also can be transmitted with the help of calquing; however, such terms should not be too cumbersome. Otherwise terminological phrases would be more successful. The internationality of the corresponding inner form should be taken into consideration in this case too.
4. Terminological phrases should be calqued.
5. Terminological abbreviations (acronyms) also should be translated. Only in the case, when this or that abbreviation looks identically in many languages, it is necessary to preserve an international acronym.

Besides, new terms, irrespective of their structure, should meet the same requirements, as any term already available (euphony, conciseness and so on).

Certainly, the principles mentioned above are only approximate. Everything depends on a particular situation. But the chief purpose of the elaboration of similar principles is, first of all, the prevention of the occurrence of unsuccessful terminological units. It is also necessary to develop a certain balance between the native and borrowed elements. On the one hand, the Ukrainian terminology should not be cluttered with cumbersome or hardly understandable terms as well as terms with an obscure motivation. On the other hand it should not be artificially isolated from the world community. The problem of correlation of international and national elements consists in the aspects mentioned above.

Therefore one should not run from one extreme to another. On the one hand, there is no need to abuse the Icelandic-like purism. On the other hand, there is no need to abuse mechanical borrowings.

Foreign elements should be borrowed only in the case, when in the recipient language it is impossible to transmit the appropriate this or that concept precisely by means of the native language. In any case, it is possible to introduce doublet variants for some terms, when the foreign variant could be used in the scientific literature, whereas its native synonym would be more appropriate in the popular scientific literature.

It is also necessary to take into account the etymology of this or that foreign terminological element. The reason for this attention is to avoid the transmission of Greek and Latin elements in the English or French variants, deforming them thereby.

For instance, the Latin word distributor looks in Russian like distrib’ûter only because it was borrowed through the English mediation. This simple borrowing form English who has nothing in common with internationalisms; moreover the semantic connection with cognate words distribuciâ or distributivnyj is broken.

By such divergences, these words are not perceived by many Russian-speakers as cognate words. Similar breaks are also observed in words lajner and kombajn, which are not perceived as cognate to the words, accordingly, liniâ, linejnyj and kombinaciâ, kombinirovat´.

Thus, an international term should be presented in any language in its primary form, without any distortions caused by the influence of the third languages. Especially it concerns Greek and Latin elements.

In the terminological activity it is necessary to do so that any borrowing should be international, otherwise it can cause misleading words, which is not desirable in terminological systems, as it can result in different sorts of promiscuity and misunderstanding. International terminological units in different languages should be identical both in their appearance and in their meaning.

First it is necessary to formulate the general principles of creation of new terms and correlation of borrowed (international) terminological elements with national elements (i.e. with purism).

From the point of view of the scientific and technical translation there is a question: how desirable international terminological units are in comparison with native terms? The answer is not so simple and depends on particular situations. The language mechanism is capable to self-control. In the process of economic development there is a tendency to use the standard international terminology. The dynamics of language processes results in the replacement elements strange for the native language system through terminological formations based upon native resources: although they are longer and sometimes even more cumbersome, but on the other hand, they have a more transparent inner form.

Both phenomena, as it is known, have both their advantages and disadvantages. First of all, borrowings and internationalisms facilitate the mutual understanding between peoples through the presence of common lexical, particularly terminological fund. They also facilitate the work with the scientific literature written in other languages. On the other hand, any senseless abuse of borrowings clutters the language with "abstruse" foreign words, which are not understandable for the majority of speakers of this language. In addition, it makes the scientific literature too difficult for perception even for experts: the scientific lexicon turns into a slang understandable for only a narrow circle of devoted persons.

On the contrary, purism plays a positive role in that aspect, that it makes terminological units more understandable. And the main thing, it makes them motivated, with a transparent internal structure, which considerably facilitates the perception of the professional literature by speakers of this language. Another positive peculiarity of purism consists in the fact that it does not allow to clutter the vocabulary with numerous obscure foreign words. Nevertheless, the abuse of purism creates additional difficulties for the perception of foreign professional literature as well as the national literature for foreigners.

The statistical data formulated above have found its practical application by the compilation of multilingual explanatory dictionaries of economic terms and the creation of the Ukrainian branch professional terminological systems. The percentage correlation of international and national elements has served as a reference point at selection of synonymic variants of these or those terminological units in the Ukrainian terminology.

These principles can serve as a basis of terminological planning in Ukraine, especially under the conditions of lexicographic boom, when numerous terminological dictionaries that appear in the today’s Ukraine, unfortunately do not meet the uniform requirements [Kiâk 1994 has appeared; Ìvanic´kij, Kiâk 1995].

The representatives of our lexicographic school compile terminological dictionaries looking for a clever compromise between the excessive cosmopolitization peculiar for Russian monocomponent terms on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the excessive purism typical for French terminological systems (ordinateur instead of computer and so on).

Among the main principles of creation of the Ukrainian monocomponent and multicomponent terms, the major one consists in the necessity of getting rid of the "captivities" of the Russian intermediary with the purpose mechanically not to repeat the disadvantages characteristic for Russian terms. It makes the authors of these dictionaries take the etymology of foreign words into account [D’âkov, Kiâk 1995³], that will enable to avoid the creation of the external forms of foreign terminological elements through the intermediary of the third languages, mainly English or Russian. The restoration of a word in its primary form will allow to keep a semantic line of cognate terminological elements, avoiding thereby the etymological paronymy and preventing the distortion of Greek and Latin roots according to the English or French pronunciation model.

Exceptions were made only for well-adopted terms (distrib’ûter, f’ûčersna ugoda and some others), which are widely used in the field of market economy.

The knowledge of the etymology of foreign terminological elements among branch experts will facilitate a better understanding of their motivation, which would avoid thereby their misuse. Therefore in all the dictionaries we gave the etymology of foreign key words.

Now the Ukrainian principles of standardization are not still actually developed finally, therefore we consider that the compilation of similar dictionaries will facilitate this process.

Just the same tasks are put particularly before the two dictionaries from our series of terminological dictionaries: The Russian-Ukrainian-English Dictionary of Economic Terms and The Multilingual Explanatory Dictionary of Market Economy Terms. These dictionaries were compiled in cooperation with the State Committee of Ukraine on Science and Technologies, as well as with the Harkiv Lexicographic Society. These dictionaries are counted first of all on branch experts (economists, bookkeepers, businessmen), but they can also be useful for teachers and students of economic fields of high schools.

The Ukrainian-Russian-English-German Explanatory Dictionary of Market Economy Terms contains over 2000 terms from different branches of market economy.

The structure of the dictionary is the following:

Ukrainian terminological units in both dictionaries are located both in an alphabetic order and according to so called ‘word family’ principle, which would facilitate and speed up the search of necessary words; moreover the word family principle is rather subjective: each word can be considered as a key word.

Each term has its serial number, which enables to offer the word indexes of the appropriate Russian, English and German equivalents, as well as the Ukrainian terms according to the purely alphabetic principle.

Thus, these dictionaries can be used as both explanatory and translation ones from any of the languages offered, as well as economic phrase books.

As a basis of selection and formation of the Ukrainian terms, we took the factor of its prevalence in other languages as well as a parameter of its motivation [Ìvanic´kij, Kiâk 1995].

In the field of spelling, we also tried to restore the traditional principles of the Ukrainian orthography (not distorted after 1933). Especially it concerns international terminological elements including words of the Greek and Latin origin. On the other hand, we did not copy the Russian spelling principles.

On the basis of the both negative and positive world experience with the chief purpose to avoid their errors, we have formulated the fundamental principles of creation of the Ukrainian terminological systems, basing our activity on the experience of the leading languages of the world, on the positive sides of the Soviet terminological school and on the experience of the Ukrainian terminological activity both in Ukraine and in the Diaspora [Kiâk 1994].