Ministry of higher and secondary specialized education of the republic of uzbekistan kokand state of pedagogical institute named after mukumi faculty of foreign

CONCLUSION.

The investigation of language materials should based on modern linguistic methods which are one of the present day demands. It is known since the present day syntactic semantic problems are decided on the base of word form and lexic meanings that’s why the considerations of linguists don’t correspond to each other. As we mentioned above that the analyses of the materials of the minor syntax should be investigated on the base of modern linguistic methods such as the method of distribution, the method of the immediate constituents, transformational method, the method of substitution, componential and syntaxeme analyses. During the linguistic analysis of the chosen theme demands scientific skill from the investigator. It is important effective usage of linguistic methods in the process of investigation in order to differentiative language levels from each other and their relations to each other.

For example, while utilizing the method of distribution you must differentiate three points: a) additional distribution; b) contrast distribution; (Bushuy T.A, Safarov Sh, Til qurilmasi tahlil metodlari va metologiyai, T, 2007); c) free variation (J.Buronov, 1973,35). The method o distributive analysis may be widely used in the morphological level of the language.

In the syntactic level the investigator defines syntactical position of chosen syntactic units in the structure of the sentence. The method immediate constituents is based on dividing structure of the sentence into two big constituents and then into little constituents by means of morphological modeling. In this case we must mark that analysis of the sentence begins on the syntactic level but return to the lower level, i.e. to the morphological level. This method does not present effective results while defining semantics of syntactic units realized in the structure of the sentence.

The transformational method helps to define the meaning form of the structure of the sentence and relations between the meaning and form. On the results of this we are able to find surface structure and deep structure of the sentence,i.e. “…the meaning of a sentence is conveyed by its deep structure, the form a sentence is given by its surface structure” (Roderick a.Jacobs, Peter S. Rosenbaum, Paul M.Postel. English Transformational Grammar. London, 1968).

On the scale of description linguistics on the results of analyses of surface and deep structures of the sentences professor A.M.Mukhin carried out new linguistic methods of analyses of the sentence as componential and sytaxeme analysis.

As it is known syntactic analysis of the structure of the sentence in traditional grammars means to determine the primary and the secondary parts of the sentence such kind of syntactic analysis of the sentence played the leading role until in the middle of XX century. In spite of this time has come to workout new approaches to analyse the structure of the sentence, its deep structure and syntaxeme analyses on the syntactic level. (B.C.Xrakovskiy. Концепция членов предложения в русском языкознании XX веке).

About this point A.Nurmanov considered that structure elements of the sentence or syntactic position, propositive structural elements to the attitude to objective real structure isomorphism communicative (actual) structure theme known and time modal structure are studied from the point view of objective and subjective relations (A.Nurmanov Tilshunoslik o`rganish va sintaksisning ayrim munozarali masalalari , o`zbek tili va adabiyoti 1988, 1b)

Really every structure has its possible elements. They are between themselves related on the base of associative and sintagmatic connection only in the given structure. If we take in the consideration the analysis of the sentence in this way some disputable questions in traditional linguistics may be sounded their decisions. In general syntactic analysis of the structure of the sentence traditional is limited by designing primary and secondary parts of the sentence. Such type of analysis is based on formal side of sentence. Logical linguistics are also limited defining logical subject instead of the structural subject and logical “predicate” instead of structural predicate. But in the case the differentative features and likeness between logical subject and subject, logical predicate and structural predicate are remained without defining. For example Russian logic linguist F.I.Buslayv considered that the subject corresponds with the noun in common case… sometimes the subject and predicate can be expressed by other parts of speech but expressing unit of subject expressing unit of subject expresses the meaning of the noun, expressing predicate expresses the meaning of the verb (Istoricheskaya grammatika russkogo yazika M 1968)

So if the subject of the sentence in common case expresses only subject and the verb expresses the predicate then they are alike the each other then why do linguistics call the primary parts of sentence with different terms? Besides those the term “predicate” is explained in different ways linguistics.