Of the republic of uzbekistan tashkent state pedagogical university namedafter nizami

MINISTRY OF PRE-SCHOOL AND SCHOOL EDUCATION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
TASHKENT STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY
NAMEDAFTER NIZAMI
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

“Permitted fordefense”

Dean of the faculty
____________ M.A.Mamadaliyev
"____" _________________ 2023

Zokirova Umida Faxriddin qizi
LEXICAL HOMONYMY IN MODERN ENGLISH AND NATIVE LANGUAGES
Qualification paper

for academic BA degree

on specialty: 5111400-Foreign languages
(English language and literature)

Recommended to defense Head of the Department “Theory and Methodology of Teaching English” ________________Z.R.Abdujabbarova “_______”____________2022

Scientific supervisor: _____________M.B.Mirkasimova

Tashkent – 2023

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….7
CHAPTER I. LINGUISTIC STATUS OF HOMONYMY AS A LINGUISTIC UNIVERSAL…………………………………………………………………..…32
1.1. The main approaches to the study of homonymy as a linguistic phenomenon………………………………………………...…………………….10
1.2. Lexical homonymy: to the definition of the concept ………………………...18
1.3. Grammatical and lexical-grammatical homonymy: to the definition of concepts...…………………………………………………………………………32
Conclusion for chapter I………………………………………………………….33
CHAPTER II. STRUCTURAL AND QUANTITATIVE FEATURES OF HOMONYMOUS UNITS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE…………………...61
2.1. Elements of the structure of a homonymous group and the nature of the relationship between them………………………………………………………..45
2.2. Characteristics of homonymy on the basis of completeness / partial coincidence of word forms in a pair……………………………………………...51
2.3. Quantitative characteristics of homonymous classes in English…………….61
Chapter III. Processes used in work and their results…………………………….66
3.1. Common review of the essence of the work…………………………………70
3.2.Perspectives of the qualification works……………………………………….72

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………..74

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………...75
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of homonymy has long attracted the attention of domestic and foreign linguists. According to S. Ulman, homonymy, like no other area of ​​linguistics, is characterized by rapid development in the 20th century. The literature devoted to this issue is so extensive, the results obtained are so unexpected, and the methods used are so specific that a special subsection of linguistics arose to solve these problems, which can be called homonymy. These words of S. Ullmann testify to the increased interest shown by many researchers in this issue. 
The process of developing the theory of homonymy has a long tradition and is associated with the names of such linguists as O. Jespersen , L.A. Bulakhovsky , S. Ulmann , A.I. Smirnitsky, Sh.Bally , O.S. Akhmanova, A.Ya. Shaikevich and many others¹.
The unrelenting interest in the phenomenon of homonymy is evidenced by recent works devoted to the study of homonymy in fundamental and applied aspects , the study of the structural and semantic characteristics of homonymous units , the study of homonymy at the morphemic level , the consideration of homonymy in the translation aspect, the phonetic-lexicographic study of homonymy . 
However, it should be noted that not all issues related to the phenomenon of homonymy seem to be fully investigated. According to L.V. Malakhovskii, to date, homonymy has been studied much less in comparison with such related phenomena as polysemy, synonymy or antonymy. He points out, in particular, to the fact that “until now there is no clear definition of the basic concepts of homonymy, a satisfactory classification of homonyms, the structural and quantitative characteristics of homonymous groups remain unexplored” .
Researchers have long been interested in the question of the quantitative characteristics of the phenomenon of homonymy. Determining the number of homonyms in a language, the proportion of homonyms in relation to the general vocabulary, their part-of-speech affiliation, establishing the relationship between homonymy and the physical length of a word is only some of the problems considered by researchers on the material of English, Russian and other languages.
These discrepancies are explained by differences in the criteria for identifying homonyms, the lack of a clear understanding of the structure of the homonymous group and the types of homonymous units, and the inconsistency in the units of account used. In some cases, graphic homonyms are counted , in others - phonetic , etc. Often, units of different levels are mixed in the same work , meaningful conclusions are made on the basis of a comparison of different, fundamentally incomparable data. In some cases, homonyms resulting from semantic changes are not taken into account².
Consequently, a quantitative description of homonymy can be correct only if it is based on a clear understanding of the structure of the homonymic group and when distinguishing between units of different levels.
According to Y.N. Marchuk, “any quantitative characteristic of linguistic phenomena presupposes their qualitative characteristic. At the same time, the qualitative characteristics of a linguistic object essentially depend on the number of elements that form it, on the frequency of their use, or on the strength of the interaction (correlation) of these elements” . Thus, we can state the existence of a close relationship between the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the language: their joint consideration opens up wide linguistic possibilities for the study of linguistic processes and phenomena.
The relevance of this study is determined by the fact that, despite the variety of studies devoted to the study of homonymy, issues related to the definition of the linguistic status of homonymy as a linguistic phenomenon, the classification of homonymous units of the modern English language, and a comprehensive study of their structural and quantitative characteristics remain insufficiently developed.