1. linguistic typology

ONE LEVEL APPROACH TO COMPARISON

One level approach to comparison or level isolation. It is effective when comparing closely related languages which have similar level means to express the same categorial notion. E.g. Morpheme of plurality: Uzb - lar; refer to the same morphological level.

3. 
   CROSS-LEVEL APPROACH TO COMPARISON
   

Cross-level approach is opposed to level isolation and used to identifycross-level correspondences. For example, how can we compare the category of reflexivity of English and Russian when English does not have a grammatical category of reflexivity.
In such cases other level units are used to find correspondences (e.g.
self pronouns, etc.).

3. 
   CONTENT APPROACH
   

Content approach to comparison is used in case of notional, typological cateegories, lexical-grammatical fields, etc. when common categorical meaning serves as a base of identification and comparison.

3. 
   FORMAL APPROACH
   

Formal approach to comparison is related to comparison of language units of the formal level: graphics, transcription, formal structure of syllabus and sentence, punctuation, alphabet, etc.

3. 
   LIMITATION OF ETALON LANGUAGE
   

Limitation of etalon language. Etalon language is the object of study for of typological theory. It represents all languages of the world in one language for example, dealing with purposes, scholars distinguish two types of etalon language maximum and minimum(1) is used to identify linguistic universals: grammatical or lexical category, a phenomenon of certain features of a language might serve etalon or instrument for comparison of compiling languages, therefore it appears the term meta-Ianguage.
XII. COMPLETION OF TYPOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
Completion of typological operations. Any typological operation undergoes two steps: a) synthesis b) correspondence of typological operation may be complete or limited/unlimited. Limitation is possibly to be applied in different languages considering the levels of hierarchy,etc. It mainly depends on the purposes of comparison and research.
In both languages there is a possibility to express age on the morphological level, but in English morpheme - ies cannot be used with any other morpheme while in Uzbek other morphemes can be added to -lar, thus showing that English refers to fiexional languages according to its structure and Uzbek is an agglutinating language. The above example illustrates structural non-identity of compared languages.
In genetically closely related languages etic and emic identity is observed as is seen in the above table, while etic non-identity is observed in genetically non-related languages.
In Turkic languages there is both etic and emic identity (-lar -ler) are used as morphemes of plurality.
If compare the Turkic and English languages, there is no identity on the etic level (the level of material units of the language), but there is an identity on the emic level as in both languages plurality is expressed by the inflexional morphemes.
Examples of One level and Cross-level approach to comparison of categorial notion of gender in Russian/Uzbek and English languages.
When comparing the Russian and English, or Russian and Uzbek languages using one level approach, in particular, isolate the morphological level, it will be impos­sible as there is no grammatical category of gender both in English and in Uzbek. But it becomes possible to compare Russian/Uzbek and English if we apply the cross-level approach to comparison and go up to the lexical, lexical-grammatical and or syntactic levels of linguistic hierarchy.
Examples of Content and Formal approach to comparison of English and
Uz­bek/Russian languages 1) the system of alphabets 2) the notion of color in
compared languages.
When comparing the system of alphabets, formal approach is utilized as the alphabets refer to the units of expression plan of the languages.
There are 26 letters in English ABC inclusive of 6 vowels and 20 consonants.
There are 33 letters in Russian ABC inclusive of 11 vowels and 22 consonants.
When comparing such notions as colour it is feasible to base on the content plan and compare such languages as English and Russian/Uzbek going from mean­ing (color in this case) to the forms of its expression in the compared languages, thus using content approach.
In all ihe three compared languages color can be expressed on lexical and syntac­tic levels. For example.
Only in Uzbek the morphological way of formation of color is used, in particular, repetition: qip-qizil, yam-yashil, etc.
Examples on the complete typological operation where the meta/etalon lan­guage of comparison is the category of number in Turkic languages (Uzbek, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, etc.).