Abstract: The object of the study is the syntactic features of modern Russian and Arabic business correspondence; the subject is the specific features of the syntax of modern Russian business documents, which become more obvious in comparison with Arabic business writing. The scientific novelty of the study lies in identifying the features characteristic of Russian business writing at the present stage of its development, and comparing these features with the features of Arabic business letters. Also a certain novelty is the connection made by the author between the history and culture of Russian and Arab official business correspondance styles and the transformations that they are actively occurring. One of the author’s tasks was to find out why new features of business correspondence, spreading under the influence of globalization, manifest themselves differently in different languages.
The study was carried out on the basis of structural-semantic, comparative and functional approaches using methods of component analysis of the text of letters, interpretation of their structure and content, observation, description, comparison.
Syntactic structure of modern Russian business writing is currently actively developing. The personal nature of a business letter increases, the ways of expressing imperativeness change, the level of emotionality increases, and all of the above is reflected in the types of syntactic structures used. In Arabic business writing, transformations are less pronounced, which is due to the history of its development and the characteristics of Arab culture. In electronic business correspondence, the syntax of Russian and Arabic business letters has similar changes. It is concluded that Russian and Arabic business writing are influenced not only by globalization processes, but also by their original ancient history, as well as Russian and Arabic culture, which determines the differences in the syntactic structure.

Keywords: email, imperativeness, personal character, Arabic language, Russian language, business correspondence, business letter, official business style, syntax, syntactic constructions

References:
Maidurova, Yu. V. (2009). National features of speech etiquette in business writing (based on the material of Russian and English languages). Bulletin of the Altai State Pedagogical Academy, 1, 85–90.
Karaban, N. A. (2006). Communicative and pragmatic aspects of the implementation of the category of politeness in the official business style of the Russian language: abstract dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Volgograd.
Fedyurko, S. Yu., & Androsova, O. A. (2007). Main characteristics of a business letter. Bulletin of the Voronezh Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2, 105–106.
Kuzmina, E. Yu. (2009). Principles of organizing a common sentence-statement in official business style: abstract dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Vladivostok.
Mikhailova, A. V. (2003). Innovations in the official business style of the Russian language of the newest period (based on the genres of contract and proposal letter): abstract. dis. ...cand. Phi

Abstract: The relevance of the study lies in clarifying the terminological status of newly formed units and describing the variety of ways to replenish terminological systems. The subject of the study is the models of terminological units of hydraulic engineering and procurement for state and municipal needs. The aim of the work is to represent the methods of derivation in the language of hydraulic engineering, as well as to identify and classify specific terminological combinations of these industries.
The conducted research also made it possible to clarify the criteria for assigning terminological names to the following classes of words: term, quasi-term, pre-term.
Practical significance implies the application of the results in the compilation of databases and materials for teaching professional communication in foreign languages.
The perspective of the study is a contrastive analysis of these terminological systems in two or more languages in order to clarify the translation of terminological units.  The structural features of the terminological units are determined using contrastive analysis. The selection and comparison of terminological units were carried out on the basis of a solid sample of normative documents from the studied industries. The statistical analysis data demonstrated the frequency of formation of two-, three-, four-, etc. terminological names in hydraulic engineering and in the field of procurement. Practical significance implies the application of the results in the compilation of databases and materials for teaching professional communication in foreign languages.
The conducted research allowed us to conclude that the accuracy of expressing the concepts of the new sphere of procurement for state and municipal needs is achieved through verbose models, the components of which are combined by an obligatory valence. The peculiarities of the hydraulic terminological system are the absence of five-, six- and seven-component models, which is largely compensated by the wealth of derivational means and is due to the "age" of this industry.
The novelty of the work is determined by several factors: firstly, the terminological status of the quasi-term and pre-term is clarified, and secondly, the criterion of mandatory valence is justified to determine a verbose combination of words as a stable terminological name.

Keywords: models of terminological units, terminological phrases, semantics, terminology system, valency, quasi-term, preterm, term, procurement sphere, hydraulic engineering field

References:
Akhmanova, O. S. (2021). Glossary of linguistic terms. Ster. ed. Moscow: URSS.
Vinokur, G. O. (1939). On some phenomena of word formation in Russian technical terminology. Proc. Moscow institute of history, philosophy and literature, 5, 3-54.
Grinev-Grinieiwicz, S. V., Sorokina, E. A., & Molchanova, M. M. (2022). Reconsidering the Definition of the Term. RUDN Journal of Language studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 13(3), 710-729 https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2022-13-3-710-729
Danilenko, V. P. (1977). Russian terminology. Experience linguistic description. Moscow.
Leichik, V. M. (2009). Terminology: Subject, Methods and Structure. 4th rev. and exp. ed. Moscow: Librokom.
Lotte, D.S. The Fundamentals of Forming Scientific and Technical Terminology. (1961). Questions of theory and methodology. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The Committee of Technical Terminology. Moscow.
Superanskaya, A. V., Podolskaya N. V., & Vasi