Language is very sensitive to all the processes that take place in the society. Such circumstances as contacts with different language-speakers, change of religion or orientation, some particular political models, elaboration of writing systems and their reforms, elaboration of branch languages for special purpose (LSP) immediately affect the language development as well as its internal structure to more or less great extent. Languages thereby undergoes the influence of extralinguistic factors.

During the last years language interference was being under a great attention as an object of sociolinguistics; there is however actually no exact classification of types of this phenomenon. The attention was mostly paid to subconscious types of interference. Or conscious and respectively subconscious interferences were considered at the best separately from each other.

Nevertheless both conscious and subconscious interferences are phenomena anagogic in many aspects. Therefore the classification of language interferences as sociolinguistic phenomena must involve both types of interference and consider them as an integral system. Moreover such measures as language planning has in its nature much in common with subconscious interferences bound particularly with language contacts. Therefore we consider language planning as one of the types of language interference.

Various social phenomena exercise different influence upon these language aspects, first of all upon phonetics, syntax, vocabulary, writing system and sometimes upon morphology too. Therefore we would like to offer such a type of classification which would involve on the one hand, all the factors of the external influence upon language, on the other hand, the language aspects that undergo this influence.

Thus according to this classification, language interferences can be classified from both the linguistic and extralinguistic points of view.

The first type of classification depends upon the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic conditions, the second one upon the language aspects it takes place in, i.e. in what language aspect undergoes a conscious or subconscious interference into the natural development of this language.

Therefrom we can give this phenomenon our definition: language interference stands for an influence of extralinguistic factors upon a particular language.

According to our classification all the language interferences can be subdivided into conscious and subconscious. The first type lies in spontaneous influence of one language upon another one. Such interferences are substrate, superstrate, adstrate and other types of language contacts whereas the second type is an artificial regulation of language development (language planning).

Both types can be classified both according to the linguistic and extralinguistic principles.

The extralinguistic principle of classification is very closely bound with the concept of cultural and historical area that is formed depending on the influence of the three basic factors: religion (in the Middle Ages), politics and economy. Subconscious interferences can be subdivided into the ones bound with language contacts (mostly adstrate, when within one area various languages co-exist) and those ones that are bound with foreigners’ speech (foreign accent, creolization, pidginization and other types of language contamination).

Any primitive language is actually a tabula rasa. It does not bear any indication of belonging to a particular cultural-historic area. Actually it is a raw material, which can be freely included into any of the cultural-historic areas with all the consequences that follow therefrom irrespective of their genealogical position. It is various types of extralinguistic influence only, that give a language attributes of a developed literary one. Terminological systems also experience such an influence, as well as LSP in general.

According to the Psycholinguistic Principle language interferences can be subdivided into several groups depending on the presence of intention from separate speakers or particular groups to make a particular conscious change in their language. To say briefly, everything depends upon the presence of consciousness in language changes. According to these criteria, language interferences can be conscious and subconscious.

However, there is no strict borders between these two types of interferences. Each language change, each interference into its spontaneous development may include factors that both can and cannot depend on somebody’s will. Therefore many types of interference should be considered as intermediate or transitional ones. Such is, e.g. language adaptation [Columas 1989, p. xi].

On the other hand, the psycholinguistic classification contains a great amount of subjectivism because conscious language interferences may be simultaneously subconscious depending on particular speakers. For instance, language graphization or language modernization carried out by enlighteners under the religious or political influence are undoubtedly conscious interferences. However common people would perceive these changes in the language as subconscious. Thus, they were mastered on the subconscious level. That is bound with the fact that for the audience perception of contents are mostly objective, whereas for speakers these contents are rather subjective [Kyjak 1988, p. 88].

Although the majority of language interferences are so transitional, nevertheless they can be subdivided into the two categories mentioned above. The determinative indication in this case would be predominance of either conscious or subconscious factors.

Coining new terminological units from the psycholinguistic point of view is not a homogeneous process. Measures in terminological modernization such as complex elaboration of national terminological systems choice of motivation and coining an outer (external) form as well as terminological standardization (the artificial selection of one of the present alternative variants and the subsequent approval of the selected variant as a standard, i.e. terminological codification) are certainly conscious.

On the one hand, filling terminological gaps by making a technical translation, when a translator introduces a new equivalent for a non-codified term in a target language, can be considered as rather subconscious interferences, because translators are not greatly concerned about the external form of terminological equivalents in a target language as a rule. In this case motivation is usually borrowed from the source language. That can be considered as a subconscious coining of a new term.

On the other hand, when a group of scientists when compiling a branch terminological dictionary try to codify each term — that is undoubtedly considered as a conscious interference into a particular LSP.

Subconscious interferences do not bear any intention to introduce particular changes in a language. Such interferences are spontaneous and take place under various extralinguistic factors, such as language contacts (substrate, adstrate etc.).

The most evident interaction between various languages can be seen within a language alliance, when several not obligatorily kindred languages have a common adstrate, which is most brilliantly performed in vocabulary, but also in some other biases.

Besides language contacts some social phenomena can also affect an inner structure of a language. Among these factors one can mention dissemination of world religions, political orientation, commercial contacts — all those things can also cause particular subconscious interferences that result in appearing of different language unions (areas). However such a type of interference is rather transitional because the presence of intention thereby is sometimes also possible.

Hence one can come to the conclusion that subconscious language interferences can be subdivided into the following two types:

1. Subconscious language interferences that are the basis of conscious ones language orientation under the religious or political influence; language contacts etc.
2. Subconscious language interferences that are not the basis of conscious ones: language influence (substrate, superstrate, adstrate) or language contamination caused by conflicts of articulation bases as well as different typologies.

Concerning the formation and development of sociopolitical as well as scientific and technical terminology a great part may be played by language contacts or language orientation which brings to the formation of particular cultural and historical areas with common lexical stock. In that case some languages parallels are evident among branch terms based on either a sacred language or a language of international communication.

However this common character can be neither regular nor consistent if there are no respective measures in corpus planning of a particular language. In this case this community would remain spontaneous.

On the contrary, when corpus planning is intended, this community may serve as a basis of the particular aim.

Hence one cannot state that the influence of subconscious influence is always inconsistent and concerns rather the everyday vocabulary than a codified LSP. Adstrate is a very influential factor on account of consistent contacts with languages of adjacent areas, whereas substrate or superstrate really do not influence the language development and from the diachronical point of view completely belong to the past.

Such lexical parallels are clearly evident on the example of common areal vocabulary that is formed in all (or almost all) the adjacent languages under the influence of one or several dominant languages.

As it is commonly recognized, language is a system that is developed with the chief purpose to satisfy its speakers’ requirements. However this development is often consciously regulated and monitored. Therefore conscious influence upon a language can also be considered as a factor that causes changes in its inner structure [Columas 1989, p. xi]. Such artificial changes is actually a deliberate intervention [Columas 1989², p. 184]. Especially it is clearly seen on the example of graphization [Dešeriev 1977, p. 180].

The main peculiarity of conscious language interferences consists in the fact that they all are based upon subconscious ones. This type includes such subtypes as, for instance, language intervention under the religious or political influence, as well as on account of language contacts. Language planning is also a conscious interference (intervention), especially it concerns corpus planning.

Such interferences create something like an artificial sublanguage, moreover, in a human language it is next to impossible to differentiate artificial things from the natural ones [Columas 1989, p. 15]. This type is bound with series of events with the purpose to create a language norm, i.e. a synchronic system of language rules that are obligatory to use [Drozd, Roudný 1980, p. 34].

Especially clearly it is observed in the branch of terminological activity. For instance, terminological modernization consists in the creation of new terminological units, i.e. in filling terminological gaps by means of either direct borrowings or coining new terms [Chellappan 1985].

Just the same concerns the other side of terminological planning, i.e. terminological standardization, which consists in a selection of one of the two or more synonymic variants and its codification as a terminological standard.

This principle depends upon the sociolinguistic factors, such as language contacts and language orientation.

According to this classification language interferences can be subdivided into communicative interferences (the ones that take place through language contacts) and model interferences (the ones that take place through language orientation).

The difference between these two types is however rather obscure because no orientation is possible without communication. On the other hand, communication with speakers of more developed languages may not avoid the orientation (conscious or subconscious) to those languages.

Therefore we must keep to the following criterion: what prevails in this or that particular case, communication over orientation or vice versa.

They are bound with immediate contacts with speakers of other languages. it may be both a language neighbourhood (adstrate) that unites different languages into one language union, and language contacts through commerce, information exchange etp. Such contacts may also accompany various social phenomena, such as invasion (in this case languages may interact with each other in the form of substrate or superstrate).

Any language might be both recipient and producer of regional and international words in different periods of history [Columas 1989, p. 21].

Thus English adopted plenty of Latin and (especially beginning from the 11^th century) French words. In the next ages English began, vice versa, to export its own vocabulary. So was, for instance, in the 19^th century, when England succeed in the sphere of sports, quite a number of languages adopted such English words, as football, hockey, basketball, rugby, cross and some others (By the way, this tradition is going on in the 20^th and 21^st centuries too, if one looks at some modern sports terms: speedway, body-building, power-lifting etc.).

On the contrary, English adopted many French words in that very period when French was considered a language of international communication. Many French words preserved thereby their spelling and even pronunciation (table d’hôte, hors d’œuvre and some others).

As late as in the 20^th century English itself becomes an international language, and thus it started to produce international words itself, and not only within the limits of the European cultural area.

Ukrainian also used to experience the influence of many languages (Church Slavonic, Greek, Latin, as well as neighbors’ languages, such as German, Polish or Russian) which was both positive and negative.

These interferences, which are bound with the orientation towards a particular model language, can be religious and political.

Religious Interferences are bound with the religious influence upon a language. Thus writing systems and the fundamental layer of loan words were in each language subdued to a particular religion and the sacred language bound with this religion for many centuries. The respective sacred language was a language of the Holy Writ as well as the divine service.

In the Middle Ages the adoption of a new religion had sometimes a positive value for the whole national culture, because writing systems were sometimes adopted by many peoples just together with the religion. It was the Middle Ages, when many European peoples, that were barbaric in the old days, acquired their literary languages.

Because of this circumstance the religious differentiation of world languages, unions of not obligatorily kindred languages, is still preserved and maybe will exist for many centuries. When this or that people have no common religion, several literary variants of one and the same language may co-exist in that case (cf. Hindi and Urdu).

As it is well known, all the religions are nowadays into national religions and world religions. It is exactly the second type, which forms cultural areas.

A special religious influence was experienced by writing systems [Columas 1989, p. 12-13], when writing system used to depend directly upon a particular religious confession.

The Russian empire before 1917 is an evident example of such a dependence. The religious situation was very mixed at that time (it remains the same nowadays too) and the alphabet of each language depended immediately upon the religion its speakers professed (so called "clergy" scripts) [Pis’mennost’ i revolûciâ 1933; p.3]. Thus the Cyrillic alphabets were used by Orthodox peoples only (Russians, Ukrainians, Orthodox Byelorussians as well as Ossetians, Chuvashes, Komi, Yakuts etc). Many alphabets for non-Slavic languages were created by Russian Orthodox missionaries [Musaev 1965, p. 6-7]. Poles, Catholic Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Germans, Finns and some other traditionally Catholic or Protestant peoples used the Latin alphabet for their languages. The Arabic writing was used by traditionally Moslem peoples (Azeri, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Tartars, Kurds and some others). Jews and Karaites used the Hebrew script. Traditionally Buddhist peoples used either the vertical Mongol writing or the Tibetan alphabet. Georgians, Armenians and Syrians had their original writing systems [Isaev 1978, p. 40; Baziev, Isaev 1973, p. 21-22].

The orientation towards a sacred language was sometimes blind and even fanatic. Writing systems, for instance, used to be borrowed just with the same set of letters as it was in the respective sacred language that might contain sounds absolutely strange for the recipient language. Nevertheless the letters, which denoted those strange phonemes, have often been mechanically transferred into the alphabet of the recipient language. The respective phonemes thereby were often not adopted, and it resulted in the situation when several letters duplicated each other. Loan words also preserved the original spelling just in the same way as it was in the sacred language. The reason for this mechanic imitation is rather simple: in the Holy Writ any insignificant difference between various characters seemed to be sacred [Uspenskij 1979, p. 41]. One should not forget that in the Middle Ages scribes were under the strong influence of sacred languages. So when they needed to write something in their mother tongue, they just used to write the appropriate text using the characters of the sacred language and preserving the original spelling of loan words [Zinder 1987, p. 59].

Religion influences not only upon writing, but also upon vocabulary. Thus some specific words and expressions, specific turns of speech; appropriate clergy writing styles may be also established. However it does not affect the language inner structure, which continues to be developed according to its specific rules. Kindred languages remain kindred for all the influence of different religions upon various particular languages. On the other hand, languages that belong to one and the same religious area but to different language groups and families cannot become kindred in spite of the common vocabulary stock [Baziev, Isaev 1973, p. 25–26].

One can notice some particular parallels, when a particular sacred language corresponds to a particular religion. It is possible thereby to deduce the following associations that may be depicted in the form of such a table:

Hence the language planning in the former USSR can be considered as a religious interference too, i.e. the influence of the Marxist-Leninist religion upon the languages of the former Soviet Empire. Thus, for instance all the language (with some minor exceptions) were forced to use the Cyrillic script based upon the Russian alphabet including all the specific Russian characters (even in case when they were absolutely unnecessary because of the absence of the corresponding Russian sounds in this or that Soviet language). In the same way Russian was the only source of borrowing. All the international words were to be borrowed through the Russian mediation. In some languages borrowing from Russian was the only way of lexical (and correspondingly terminological) modernization.

Moreover there were such cases in the languages of the Moslem cultural area when all the Arabic and Persian loan words were artificially substituted with the Russian ones.

All those measures bore the same principles as the Greek interference into the Slavonic languages of the Byzantine area or the Arabic interference into the languages of the Moslem area: this orientation was in the same way blind and fanatic: in the Marxist-Leninist Holy Writ written in Russian any insignificant difference between various characters, the spelling of any Russian word seemed to be sacred as well as in the Bible or Koran.

It was continuing so from the middle 1930s till the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In some post-Soviet languages this tradition is inertially going on.

In the modern society the religious factor is becoming weaker. It is gradually yielding to some other factors, such as economy or politics. Therefore the orientation is nowadays rather secular (political or cultural) than religious.

Especially clearly these factors are revealed in the development of writing systems. The use of romanized alphabets for non-Atlantic languages, i.e. languages that do not belong to the Euro-Atlantic (West-Christian) cultural area (Romanian, Turkish, Malay, Indonesian, Hausa, Swahili) indicate the fact that those alphabets were created not under the religious influence, but rather under the influence of leading European countries and their languages.

The processes that nowadays take place in vocabulary (including the scientific, technical and political LSP) indicate that religion no longer plays a great part in language development. The majority of modern languages borrow new words not obligatorily from sacred languages. The formation of a common word stock in numerous both European and non-European languages confirm the striving for the integration into the world community. All those factors are in any case bound with language planning [Fierman 1991; p. 5-6; 11-13].

According to the linguistic principle (i.e. depending upon the aspect of language this or that language interference may take place in) all the language interferences may be subdivided into the following groups:

1. Graphic interferences influence the development of writing systems as well as the spelling principles of the national orthography in general and separate lexical elements in particular.
2. Lexical interferences influence the development of vocabulary as well as lexical modernization.
3. Phonetic interferences may influence the phonetic structure of a language.
4. Grammar interferences may influence the grammar structure of a language.

Reserved language systems, such as phonetics or grammar, may experience the influence of subconscious language interferences rather than conscious ones.

Corpus planning may touch upon, for instance, the standardization and codification of grammar forms (e.g. plural forms). Some conscious language interferences may take place in phonetics or grammar when there is an attempt to preserve the genuine pronunciation or grammar paradigm.

On the subconscious level language interferences of this group may take place by borrowing new lexical elements. If there is an intention to preserve the original pronunciation (completely or partially), native speakers of this or that language may adopt new phonemes [Dešeriev 1977, p. 244-245], which may be borrowed through both oral and written communication.

Through bookish words the phoneme [f] was adopted by Ukrainian and other Slavonic languages. This phoneme was formerly absolutely strange for Slavonic languages and could be met in Greek or Latin words only. However this phoneme is nowadays fully assimilated and no longer perceived by native speakers as strange. Thus it became an integral part of phonological systems of the Slavonic languages.

Lithuanians adopted through the bookish words not only the phoneme [f], but also [x] and [h] that can be met in loan words only [Karaliūnaitė 1990, p. 10].

For instance, the plosive Ukrainian [g] has been adopted through the oral communication with German- or Polish-speakers. Czechs have borrowed this phoneme too, but through the bookish loan words.

Terminological units that are consciously borrowed, may also contain sounds strange for the recipient language. Sometimes those sounds are used by native-speakers of a recipient language, however they do not become phonemes (they do not enter the phonological system of a recipient language) and are used in recent borrowings and barbarisms (i.e. in non-assimilated lexical elements) only. Such are, for example, nasal vowels in French borrowings adopted by English, German and some other languages. Although those sounds can be used by English- or German-speakers in some loan words (dénouement, détente etc.), they are not perceived as phonemes assimilated by the English or German phonological systems. Such interferences are called acceptive.

The phonetic interferences opposite to the acceptive ones (so called non- acceptive interferences) is an assimilation of loan words, i.e. adaptation of foreign elements to the phonological peculiarities of a recipient language. It is actually an interference of a recipient language upon loan words.

Sometimes loan words may be greatly distorted after such an assimilation. Thus loan words in Japanese may be demonstrated as a typical example of called non- acceptive interferences. The matter is that it is four types of a syllable only (V, CV, V+n, CV+n) that are possible in modern Japanese. Sometimes loan words in Japanese may be changed out of all recognition: renzu (lens), kôhî (coffee), garasu (glass), ripôto (report), erebêta (elevator) [Saito 1988, p. 16—17].

Borrowing a foreign word together with its plural form (or some other forms) is a typical acceptive grammar interference.

There are also some cases when one language may borrow derivative suffixes and prefixes from another [Dešeriev 1977, p. 244-245].

The Russian morphology has adopted the German suffix –ier, which began to be used in many words with Russian roots.

Many formerly Soviet languages were thrusted to use Russian suffixes ­ sk(ij), ­ n(yj) and some others.

Syntax may also be an object of extralinguistic interferences. For instance the "framing" word order in German subordinate clauses was formed under the Latin influence [Behaghel 1911, p. 27-31, 169-170].

The interferences opposite to the ones mentioned below are non-acceptive. They are the cases when a loan word is subordinated to the grammar structure of the recipient language (i.e. becomes fully assimilated).

The influence upon non-reserved (non-closed) language systems

Non-reserved language systems (vocabulary, writing) may experience the influence of both conscious and subconscious interferences.

On the subconscious level it concerns, first of all, the use of the writing system of the corresponding sacred language under the religious influence, as well as the formation of a common word stock within a particular cultural-historic area.

Writing system is more mobile and therefore more capable to be changed [Fierman 1991; p. 261].

Graphic interferences include graphization (creation of a writing system), elaboration of spelling rules, graphic influence upon a language etc.

Graphization has no specific peculiarities depending of its purpose (unlike the lexical modernization) when this purpose is a simple fixation of oral speech only. Quite a different situation is the elaboration of spelling rules concerning terminological units (it especially concerns loan words).

It is a practical graphization (i.e. creation of a writing system and elaboration of spelling rules) only, which is a real graphic interference. In this case writing would be an integral component of a language.

An unwritten language is not a gibberish; it also has its own language systems on all the levels, its own phonetics, grammar and vocabulary.

However writing system is not only a simple fixation of oral speech; it becomes a language system too and sometimes it becomes to affect all the other systems.

The spelling reform may both simplify and complicate the process of teaching writing [Fierman 1991; p. 17]. The complication of spelling rules may take place in the cases when there is an attempt to restore the technically less perfect old writing system (e.g. in Mongolia) or to introduce the etymological principle of spelling.

The othographic transplantation [Superanskaâ 1978, p. 25], which takes place in the majority of the European languages with Latin-based alphabets, is also a graphic interference. It is an attempt to preserve the original spelling of foreign proper names as well as some exoticisms and barbarisms. To tell more exactly, it is an orthographic interlanguage interference.

From the positions of the interaction between a language and its writing system it is possible to define the two stages of such an interaction. At the first stage a writing system is adapted to the phonetic, grammar and some other peculiarities of this or that language. At the second stage a writing system itself begins to influence the other language structures. The language begins actually to be subdued to the peculiarities of the writing system adopted.

The graphic adaptation takes place when this or that writing system is not specially created exactly for this language, but is borrowed from another language. Moreover there are no languages with an absolutely alike set of phonemes and with an absolutely alike articulation basis. Phonetic discrepancies obligatorily cause the adaptation of the foreign writing system to the peculiarities of the phonetic system of a recipient language.

It is clearly visible on the example of the adaptation of the Latin alphabet to the peculiarities of numerous European and non-European languages with a number of sounds strange for Latin [Uspenskij 1979; p.59].

The adaptation took place in different ways.

The Latin and Arabic alphabets were usually adapted to other languages without radical changes, only with the addition of a number of new letters and/or diacritical marks. In any case the writing system itself continued to remain Latin or Arabic.

In other cases the original writing system was radically remade. As a result, an entirely new writing system appeared. Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius, for instance, made a new writing system on the basis of the Greek alphabet. Thus the new Cyrillic alphabet created by them for the Slavonic languages, was actually no longer the Greek alphabet but a new writing system. It was no longer subordinated to all the principles and peculiarities of the alphabet it originated from [Istrin 1988]. The Coptic alphabet is another alphabet created on the Greek basis, which has been also derived into an entirely new writing system. The similar processes may be observed in India and some other South-Asian countries, where each language has its own writing system that originates from Brahmi [Dymšic 1986].

Each writing system was created for a particular language (Greek, Latin, Arabic etc.) and is the most perfect system for this particular language. Other languages, especially when they belong to different languages groups and families, have to adapt this or that writing system to the peculiarities of their phonological systems. Because a foreign alphabet has an accidental set of letters: it may contain letters unnecessary for a recipient language and, to the contrary, there may be a lack of some letters necessary for an unambiguous denotation of all the phonemes [Zinder 1987, p. 59].

Moreover there is no such ideal systems that could possess the symbols for all the sounds possible in a human language. Different phonemes in one language may be allophones in another one.

So the sounds [v] and [w] are allophones in Ukrainian, whereas in English they are two different phonemes because in English there is an opposition between [v] and [w]. In Ukrainian, to the contrary, the sound [w] is a variety of the phoneme [v] before consonants and in the final position. The combination [w] + a vowel is possible in English and impossible in Ukrainian.

The sounds [k] and [k°] are just in the same way separate phonemes in Latin, Gothic, Abkhaz and some other languages. In the Slavonic and many other languages the sound [k°] is only a variety of the sound [k] before labialized vowels [o] and [u]; before non-labialized vowels this sound is quite impossible.

Sometimes the new letters are merely invented (in Abkhaz, for instance).

However even an adapted writing system remains approximate and conditional in many cases: in Modern English 41 phonemes are indicated with the help of only 26 letters. Moreover the graphic adaptation gives no guarantee against future discrepancies between the spelling and the pronunciation. An ideal phonographic alphabet can be created for an unwritten language only [Superanskaâ 1978, p. 8].

In the subsequent development of a language such discrepancies will become more and more noticeable. It urges speakers either to reconcile with those discrepancies or to reform their orthography every 50 or 60 years.

Much depends upon the peculiarities of the development of this or that language too. Thus English, French or Irish demonstrate great discrepancies between the spelling and the pronunciation, whereas Italian preserves a nearly phonetic principle of spelling for many centuries.

The adaptation of the Latin alphabet to the modern languages of the world is an object of special attention. This alphabet became a really international system of writing during the last decades. It is also one of the devices for the international communication [Friedrich 1966, p. 147]. If this or that people does not use the Latin alphabet as a basic writing system, it usually uses it as an auxiliary parallel alphabet (transliteration) [Paclt 1946], which actually becomes an integral part of spelling rules.

However transliteration does not bear any signs of language interference because it is merely a mirror reflection of one writing system by means of another one. It is also hardly possible to consider the practical transcription as a graphic interference: it only indicates to the speakers of other languages, how this or that word is approximately pronounced.

The inner structure of a language are therefore influenced by neither transliteration nor the practical transcription. It is rather an influence upon separate lexemes when they are borrowed by other languages [Superanskaâ 1978].

It is a real transition from one writing system into another one only, which can be considered a graphic interference, because it may cause corresponding structural changes in the language itself.

Graphic interferences begin to be clearly indicated when the writing system itself begins to influence upon the language inner structure and leave deep traces in various aspects of an language.

That means that literary languages not only use this or that writing system; they are subordinated to this writing system [Columas 1989², p. 184-185]. First of all it concerns vocabulary and phonetics.

The influence depends upon the peculiarities of a particular writing system [Dešeriev 1977, p. 180]. That means that the hieroglyphic, syllabic and alphabetical writing systems influence the language in a different way.

The Chinese vocabulary is a clear example, how the language is subordinated to the peculiarities of a hieroglyphic writing. At first sight one may suppose that in the Chinese vocabulary there are no international elements at all. Actually it is not exactly so. It is rather an urged distortion of loan words caused by the hieroglyphic writing system. Moreover, the matter is complicated by the fact that there are a lot of Chinese dialects; and in each dialect one and the same hieroglyph is pronounced in a different way. There is also a requirement that all the terminological elements in Chinese LSP (especially it concerns Chemistry) must be monosyllabic. The Chinese-speakers also try to reduce the number of syllables in all the loan words to the minimum, so that a lesser number of hieroglyphs were used for their spelling. In Japanese, to the contrary, besides Kanji (the Chinese hieroglyphs used in the Japanese script) there are also two syllabic writing systems. Besides the dialect diversity in Japanese is not so great as in Chinese. All that allows Japanese to preserve the original form of a loan word better [Serdûčenko 1959].

The languages of India have used different varieties of the Brahmi syllabic script for already many centuries. Therefore they have been also subordinated to the peculiarities of these writing systems. The European missionaries even failed to adapt the Latin alphabet to the Indian languages and, to the contrary, had to master the local syllabic scripts, because the introduction of the Latin alphabet would inevitably break the local language traditions [Superanskaâ 1978, p. 6].

At any rate it is much simpler to introduce a new writing system for an unwritten language rather than for a language with long written traditions [Fierman 1991, p. 14].

Sometimes even phonetics may be subdued to the writing system. It is especially possible when the alphabet adopted for this or that language, contains some sounds strange for the recipient language. That may cause the borrowing of some of these new sounds (especially under the influence of a sacred language).

For instance the common Slavonic [g] corresponds to the voiced pharyngeal [h] in Czech and in Ukrainian. However the Czechs, when adopting the Latin alphabet, have mastered the plosive sound [g], because they made an attempt to preserve the spelling of the Latin and Greek borrowings, as well as the international words in general.

The difference between the situations with the Ukrainian and with the Czech plosive [g] consists in the fact that Ukrainians have adopted this sound through the oral communication with Poles and Germans, whereas in Czech this sound has been adopted through bookish words. Moreover the sound [g] was primary in Latin and secondary in the Byzantine Greek. That is the reason, why the letter G in Czech is regularly used in all the loan words, but as for Ukrainian, this question has been remaining under discussion for long time.

The influence of graphic interferences upon the terminological units consists in the external graphic appearance of this or that term, i.e. its spelling depending upon spelling traditions of this or that language. First of all it depends upon the writing system this or that language uses, first of all, upon its peculiarities. It concerns, for instance, the spelling principles of a particular language. However some extralinguistic factors observed below, may also play an important part in the appearance of an outer form of this or that terminological unit.

Writing system cannot be free from the social conditions under which it has been developed. The writing areas were mostly formed under the religious, political and cultural influence [Superanskaâ 1978, p. 5].

Romanians changed their Cyrillic script for a Latin-based alphabet in the 19^th century because they wanted to be closer to the kindred Romance peoples (French, Italian etc.). Turks and Malays gave up their Arabic-based scripts maybe because the Arabic alphabet lost the competition with the Latin alphabet, which is technically more perfect [Diringer 1963, p. 629].

Writing is often a political and ideological symbol too. A typical example is the Somali language, which used the Latin script in Somalia and the Ethiopian script in Ethiopia (maybe so that the Ethiopian Somalians were not able to read documents printed in Somalia) [Fierman 1991; p. 20].

The romanization and the subsequent cyrillization of the former Soviet languages were also based upon the particular ideological basis.

Vocabulary, as no other system, reacts upon all the social shifts in the language development. It is the main aspect of a language that experiences all the language changes caused by the language modernization. New lexical units may appear every day, whereas phonetics or morphology cannot be changed so fast [Dešeriev 1966, p. 130].

The transition of formerly active lexical units into historicisms and, to the contrary, the adoption of neologisms by the everyday language — all these processes influence the development of the vocabulary of any language.

Vocabulary reflects various changes in the social life. The development of a society increases the vocabulary of the corresponding language with the help of both the inner language resources and borrowings from other languages [Kolca, Tukan 1973, p. 318].

Vocabulary is a system that depends upon the status planning much more than the other language systems, because the langage status planning requires the corresponding changes mostly in vocabulary. New functions of a language require the corresponding lexical modernization, the formation of new layers of the vocabulary, new branch terms.

When vocabulary is artificially regulated — it is certainly a conscious interference. Just the same concerns gap-filling in a target language by the translation. On the other hand, the majority of the speakers of this or that language including branch specialists, who are consumers of the terminological work, adopt the new terms on the subconscious level.

The selection of terminological variants by branch specialists, when they choose the variant they like mostly, is also subconscious: they select the best synonym because they prefer it subconsciously. This variant is gradually consolidated as a terminological norm, as a codified terminological unit.

A special place among all the lexical interferences is taken by the artificial tabooization and euphemization of lexical units, as well as the formation of lexical ideologemes [Kiâk 1988, p. 91].

It was mostly succeeded by various totalitarian regimes (Nazi, Communist etc.), which did their best to mask their real purpose, to pretend as if they were humanist societies and finally, to make their ideologies more attractive.

Thus in the Third Reich the use of this or that political term was regulated by special governmental and party decisions and circulars [Klemperer 1975].

For instance the term Selektion was actively used as an euphemism of the Holocaust. The prefix Volks- (Volksfest, Volksgenosse) was used to enhance populism. Undesirable terms were taken into inverted commas with the purpose to add an ironic connotation [Kiâk 1988, p. 92].

In the GDR German there were a lot of specific neologisms not used in the Federative Republic: Aktivist der ersten Stunde, landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft (LPG), Nationale Volksarmee (NVA), Volkseigentum, Volkspolizei etc. The word Jugendfreund acquired a new meaning: a FDJ member. The words Berufsbeamter, Schulgeld, Volksschule were proclaimed archaisms or historicisms. Some West German neologisms were not recognized in the GDR: Bundesbahn, Hauptschule, Gesamtschule, Rechtsstaat etc. One and the same denotate had different lexical equivalents in the GDR and FRG: Erster Sekretär (GDR) — Parteichef (FRG), FNL (Nationale Befreiungsfront Südvietnams) (GDR) — Vietcong (FRG), RGW (GDR) — Comecon (FRG). The German vocabulary in the FRG was mostly oriented to English (Babysitter, Boom, Cast, Teenager), whereas in the GDR — to Russian Aktiv (Russian aktiv), Brigade (Russian brigada), Pionier (Russian pioner), Haus der Offiziere, Maschinen-Traktoren-Station, Wanderfahne (Russian perehodâŝee Krasnoe znamâ) [Bok, Garniš, Langner, Štarke 1979; p. 269-278].

Just the similar examples could be given concerning the Russian socio-political terms, where one of the two different synonyms was used depending upon the political connotation (if it concerned either the socialist or the capitalist formation).

Thus, for instance, the internationally recognized term ‘language planning’ (âzykovoe planirovanie) had its Soviet synonym ‘language construction’ (âzykovoe stroitel´stvo)