Cognitive linguistics is in the stage of development and improvement of its methodology, the main task remains the search for those tools, that objectively will provide the connections analysis of man cognitive processes (intelligence and intellect) with their linguistic objectification, in particular, will facilitate the disclosure of the mechanisms of these links with the structures of representing human knowledge as a result of the process of cognition. Used in most works “conceptual analysis” restricts the understanding of such a complex knowledge structure, as concept, and even a set of different methods, involved in its analysis, did not contribute to the disclosure of the ontology of specific concepts. We agree that such a methodological path is scientifically expedient, but insufficient, since it does not answer the key question, what role in the value worldview of the ethnos in general and his individual representative performs the linguistic and cultural concept as a mental cognitive structure, preserved in the minds of the native speaker of a particular language. We are convinced that for the interpretation of ontology of linguistic and cultural concepts the cognitive and onomasiological reconstruction is effective. And its results will contribute to the ordering of this mental entities in the national conceptosphere, according to S.A. Jabotinska, not as isolated, atomic entities, but in the context of background knowledge structures (Jabotinskaya 2009: 255). The most common term for designating such structures is the domain (Clausner 1999:2), which P. Langacker defines as a cognitive entity, mental experience, representational space or conceptual complex and in general as a context for the description of the semantics of the linguistic unit (Langacker 1987:147). In his later writings, the scientist interprets the domain as a sphere of experience (Langacker 2008:44), that M. Boldyrev called as a cognitive context (M. Boldyrev 2001). P. Langacker, giving definitions for base and non-base domains, develops the idea of conceptual organization levels, according to that a concept provides the potential for existence of more specific concepts, which create domains where new concepts are formed and so on. This creates a huge amount of hierarchies (Langacker 2008:45). Multi-level domains organize each national conceptosphere, where “domain” is an information node in this hierarchical motivational continuum, “parcel” – node within the domain, and the "concept" – is a constituent of the parcel. Each level has its own conceptual structure, which can be represented as a matrix (Jabotinskaya 2009: 256). A method, which ultimately will provide identification of different levels of conceptosphere, is a cognitive and onomasiological reconstruction. Since the domain is an information node, then we interpret it as a sign of complex nature, that is, a macro sign with several interpreters of diverse domain information. So, for example, considering the value domain INTEREST, we will use the results of S.O. Shishkina, who in the conceptual hierarchy the notion of "interest" distinguishes those ontological parameters which, in our opinion, are systemic cognitive and semiotic characteristics, among which are: 1) intentionality, 2) emotionality, 3) assessment (Shishkina 2007:11), each of them has its own information. Given this information diversified nature of the domain INTEREST, we consider it as a macro sign, which is formed by the signs of three spheres, which establish connections between language forms and cognitive structures of each sphere and are their parcels and concepts.