Of the republic of uzbekistan tashkent state pedagogical university namedafter nizami

Conclusion for chapter I
Words in homonymous pairs can be compared both by similarity: their: graphic/phonetic expression and by their difference1; lexical and/or grammatical meanings, as well as completeness or partial coincidence of their forms. Linguistic sense of distinction; degrees; The completeness of homonymy is seen in the fact that it allows one to judge the strength of interaction between members of a homonymous pair. The more fully the paradigms of the words-, in omoparas, coincide, the higher the strength of the interaction between the two homonyms.
There are definitions in the linguistic literature; according to which "full" homonyms are words that sound the same in all their grammatical forms, and "partial" - words that sound the same only in part of the forms . However, in the theoretical literature there are disagreements about what is meant by “completeness” and “partiality” of homonymy and what terms these concepts should be used for.
Obviously, one of the first who pointed out that homonyms can differ from each other in terms of the degree of coverage of forms by homonymous relations was L.A. Bulakhovsky . Later, B. Trnka proposed dividing homonyms into "full" - words that are homonymous in all forms, and "incomplete" - words that are not homonymous in all forms. At the same time, he pointed out that full homonyms belong to the same grammatical category of words, i.e. belong to the same part of speech, and incomplete ones can refer to different ones. We find a similar definition of full and incomplete homonyms in N.M. Shansky [Shansky, 2009: 43]. However, due to the fact that N.M. Shansky recognized as homonyms only words of one grammatical class, he considered the completeness and partial coincidence of grammatical forms precisely among homonymous words,
The tendency to associate the assessment of the degree of completeness of homonymy with the grammatical characteristics of homonyms was developed in the works of A.I. Smirnitsky, according to whom, for full homonyms, “whole systems of their forms coincide, and homonymy is observed precisely between their grammatically identical forms”, while for partial homonyms, homonymous forms are not grammatically identical, and grammatically identical forms are not homonymous. 
Classification of homonyms A.I. Smirnitsky is limited by the level of lexemes. It clearly distinguishes between two aspects - the completeness / partiality of homonymy and the belonging of homonyms to one or different parts of speech. In addition, the issue of the correlation of grammatical features in full and partial homonyms is analyzed in detail. A.I. Smirnitsky rightly points out the existence of a connection between the completeness / partiality of homonymy and the identity / difference of their general lexical grammatical features, however, he understands this connection as a rigid dependence that does not allow any exceptions.