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

The amount of the English equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 266 for each 600 terminological units.

The criteria for the definition of monocomponent and multicomponent terms are rather transparent because compound words in English look like terminological word combinations (phrases) rather than compounds. The correlation of international and non-international monocomponent terms can be observed in the next subchapter.

Absolute (complete) internationalisms among the monocomponent terms in the English marketing terminology constitute in average 59.4%. Such terminological units are absolute internationalisms like accelerator, amalgamation, basis, balance, bankrupt, volume and some others. Many English words also became international: barter, badlands, boom, budget, dealer, outsider etc.

The antipodes of complete internationalisms are manifestations of the complete purism. In English such terminological units are load, shareholder (Russian akcioner), stock-jobbing (Russian ažiotaž), survey (Russian anketirovanie), income and some others.

In the present investigation not only national elements on the place of international foreign equivalents are considered as manifestations of purism, but also all the non-international terms in general.

The intermediate position is taken by inner internationalisms with partial purism, i.e. calqued internationalisms where the inner form only is international: at sight (Russian avista), holdings (Russian avuary), up to date (Russian ažur) etc.

Among the non-international borrowings, such terms can be mentioned as average (Russian avarija), exchange (Russian birža), sorting (Russian brakeraž), gross (Russian brutto), issue (Russian ėmissiâ) etc.

The general results of the analysis of the English monocomponent terms are given in the table (Table 1).

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

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

Thus the percentage of monocomponent terminological units according to the three categories mentioned above is the following (Table 2):

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

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

Some spelling peculiarities of the English terminological elements are given in the table (Table 3):

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

Each 600 terminological units of the total number examined, are characterized in English in the following way (Table 4):

Multicomponent terminological units, as well as monocomponent ones, can be also subdivided into the three groups, i.e. international, partly international and non-international terms. The first group will include the terminological units formed by means of the literal translation of international phrases (a direct calquing of the international internal form) with a complete preservation of the international roots. Such terms are analogical to the one-component absolute internationalisms because they consist of absolute internationalisms by the complete preservation of the international internal form (motivation). The third group includes the antipodes of the complete internationalisms, i.e. terminological units made up by means of the descriptive translation of the international phrase without the international internal form preserved. The presence of the international roots is thereby not taken into consideration in this case because the international external form is impossible without the international internal form. All the other multicomponent terms are included into the second group (Table 5).

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

Comparing the percentage correlation of international and national elements in monocomponent and multicomponent terminological units, it is possible to derive the average percentage of the general correlation of international and national elements in the English marketing terminology (Table 6).

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

The statistical data may be shown in the following diagram (Figure 1):

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

The amount of the German equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 286 for each 600 terminological units.

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

Absolute (complete) internationalisms among the monocomponent terms in the German marketing terminology constitute in average 53.5%. It is 5.9% less than in English.

Such terminological units are absolute internationalisms like Abandon, Aviso, Aktie, Bilanz, Badlands, Variante, Garant and some others. Some German words (Ersatz and some others) became internationalisms.

The manifestations of the complete purism in the German marketing terminology are such terminological units as Vorschuss, Erzeuger, Wechselbürgerschaft, Guthaben and some others.

The cases of calquing are also rather frequent: Begünstiger (Russian beneficiar), Geschäftsmann (Russian biznesmen), Vergütung (Russian bonifikaciâ) etc.

Among non-international borrowings, misleading words and pseudointernationalisms such words are worth mentioning as Filiale (in the meaning ‘agency’), Sorte (in the meaning ‘an article’), Fusion (in the meaning ‘amalgamation’) and some others.

The general results of the analysis of the German monocomponent terms are given in the table (Table 7).

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

Thus the percentage of monocomponent terminological units according to the degree of their internationality looks like the following (Table 8):

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

Some spelling peculiarities of the German terminological elements are given in the table (Table 9):

Each 600 terminological units of the total number examined, are characterized in German in the following way (Table 10):

The percentage correlation of German multicomponent terms according the degree of their internationality is characterized by the following data (Table 11):

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

Comparing the percentage correlation of international and national elements in monocomponent and multicomponent terminological units, it is possible to derive the average percentage of the general correlation of international and national elements in the German marketing terminology (Table 12).

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

The statistical data may be shown in the following diagram Figure 2:

The total amount of the Russian equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 623 for each 600 terminological units.

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

The amount of the Russian equivalents together with their synonyms constitutes in average 220 for each 600 terminological units.

The criteria for the definition of monocomponent and multicomponent terms are more transparent than in German but more obscure than in English. It can be explained with the fact that the Russian parts of speech are very rich in different inflexions, with very clearly expressed grammar forms of nouns and adjectives. However, there are some Russian compound words that correspond to English terminological phrases.

Absolute (complete) internationalisms among the monocomponent terms in the Russian marketing terminology constitute in average 77.27%, which confirms the excessive cosmopolitization of the Russian terminological vocabulary once more (Cf. 53.5% in German and 59.4 in English). Such terminological units are absolute internationalisms like auditor, bazis, beneficiar, valorizaciâ and some others.

The manifestations of the complete purism in the Russian marketing terminology are usually present actually in the same cases as in English and German, i.e. when the international internal form is absent at all.

The cases of calquing are such terms as bezrabotica (English unemployment, German Arbeitslosigkeit), «byki» (English bulls, German Bulls) etc.

Among non-international borrowings in Russian there are numerous non-international loan words of the English, German, French, Turkic origin: f´ûčersnaâ (birža, operaciâ), grossbuh, tovar etc. There are also numerous misleading words: assignaciâ (bank note) etc.

The general results of the analysis of the Russian monocomponent terms are given in the following table (Table 13).

The percentage of monocomponent terminological units according to the degree of their internationality looks like the following (Table 14):

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

Some spelling peculiarities of the Russian terminological elements are given in the table (Table 18):

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

Each 600 terminological units of the total number examined, are characterized in Russian in the following way (Table 16):

The percentage correlation of Russian multicomponent terms according the degree of their internationality is characterized by the following data (Table 17):

Comparing the percentage correlation of international and national elements in monocomponent and multicomponent terminological units, it is possible to derive the average percentage of the general correlation of international and national elements in the Russian marketing terminology (Table 18).

The statistical data may be shown in the following diagram (Figure 3):

The comparative percentage correlation of monocomponent terminological units according to their degree of internationality looks like in the table given below (Table 20):

The analysis of the statistic data concerning the spelling peculiarities of direct borrowings is given in the following table (Table 21):

The characteristic features of English, German and Russian terminological units are shown in Table 22:

The comparative percentage correlation of English, German and Russian multicomponent terminological units is shown in Table 23.

On the basis of the simple average from the percentage correlation of the degree of internationality among the monocomponent and multicomponent terms in all the three languages, it is possible to derive a general comparative Table 24:

Thus, on the basis of the average data concerning the comparison of monocomponent and multicomponent terms, it is possibe to come to the conclusion that the highest indices concerning full internationalisms is in the Russian marketing terms (47.82%) and the lowest one, in German (33.56%). Among partial internationalisms, German equivalents have the highest indices (47.73%) and Russian, the lowest ones (41.86%). Non-international terms have the highest percentage in German (18.72% vs. 18.41% in English and 10.09% in Russian). This correlation can be also shown as a diagram (Figure 4):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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