English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The article deals with some problems that may arise while modeling sublanguages of areas of scientific knowledge, and specifically politological terminology, and touches upon issues of correlation between notions and the nature of such relationship. The article continues the earlier works of the author which have revealed that there are more than 40 types of frequent universal systemic relations between adjacent notions which are represented both in the definitions of the terms and in the texts of scientific publications via a certain set of verbalizers represented in most cases by common vocabulary units and their combinations. The author investigates the dependence of co-occurrence of terms and verbalizers of systemic relations on the productivity of the latter for different categories of notions. For example, the categories of “Natural object” and “Mechanism” are characterized by high productivity of the systemic relations AKO and ISA, the category “Characteristic” – the systemic relations At, InstObj and ISA. At the same time, for such categories as “Natural object”, “Instrument (Artificial object)”, “Material”, “Characteristic”, “Locus” and others the systemic relation Sub is not typical, because the referents of these categories are not in hierarchical subordination to each other. The frequency of the terms of certain categories and the corresponding verbalizers also depends on a concrete scientific sphere (for natural sciences, more frequent are the terms of the categories “Natural object”, “Locus”, “Substance”, for technical sciences – “Mechanism”, Лату М. Н. Политическая лингвистика. 2019. No 5 (77). С. 153—158. 158 “Instrument (Artificial object)”, “Construction”, for the humanities, and specifically politology – “Process”, “Actor”, “Ideal phenomenon”, “Characteristic”). The article analyzes the question of coincidence of elements within verbalizers of different relations, as well as issues of extralinguistic character and typical errors in text information procession and terminology co-occurrence detection.

М.Н. Токарев Некоторые проблемные вопросы участия специалиста на этапе проверки сообщения о преступлении