Of the republic of uzbekistan tashkent state pedagogical university namedafter nizami

CHAPTER II. STRUCTURAL AND QUANTITATIVE FEATURES OF HOMONYMOUS UNITS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
2.1. Elements of the structure of a homonymous group and the nature of the relationship between them
In this section, we will consider the features of homonymous and partially homonymous grammatical structures in the context of grammatical categories of text coherence in order to teach philology students grammar in the process of reading a foreign language.
One of the significant gaps in teaching a foreign language is the grammatical difficulties experienced by students in the process of reading a foreign language text.
Galperin I. R. and Moskalskaya O. I., who study the structure of the text, indicate that the text is a complex formation that includes both logical, speech and language elements, as well as three parameters: verbal, syntactic and semantic [ Galperin, 1981; Moskalskaya, 1981].
Before proceeding directly to the grammatical categories of text coherence, it seems to us that it is necessary to try to analyze textual relations in general terms as a means of semantic perception when reading. In the process of analysis, we turned to the works of O. I. Moskalskaya and E. S. Orlova.
Orlova E. S. believes that the text as a linguistic entity and unit of communication characterizes its general basic concept: the concept of relationship. “It is this that creates the text as a quality education, combining elements of its subject-denotative plan and at the same time forming the basis of understanding as a process of revealing its relations and connections” [Orlova, 1999, p. 84]. The reader must be able to manipulate the signs of the text and establish their combinations that carry new information, “he needs to act in the entire text array, fixing the area covered by this or that relation. This may be the local semantic structure of a phrase or sentence, a more extended structure of a separate subtopic of the text, and, finally, the general macrostructure of the entire text” [ibid.].
Data from the field of psychology and psycholinguistics give an idea of ​​the course of perception of the text: words are first organized into surface components, which are the nominative units of the text. Given the data on the process of text processing when reading, it seems possible to describe the relational system (system of relations) of the text, a complex formation consisting of relational units, or elements. Orlova E.S. established three groups of text relations in the analysis of scientific texts of the sublanguage of applied mathematics and cybernetics, depicted and measured using relational elements:
- relations operating within the local structures of phrases and sentences;
- relations operating within a certain subtopic of the text;
- relations inherent in the macrostructure of the text - a holistic formation, the formation of which occurs on the basis of establishing a semantic connection between the thematic components of the text ¹⁰.
Thus, the author considers the semantic relations of the text, characteristic of different volumes of the text, to be an important component of the concept of text.
The dialectical unity of content and form, which determines the close dependence of the semantic and linguistic structure of the text, on the one hand, and the characterization of speech perception as one of the aspects of human mental activity, on the other hand, proves the need for an integrated approach to the analysis of a speech message (written text) and the recipient's his perception.
Moskalskaya OI investigated the structure of a small text (microtext). The lower boundary of the microtext structure is formed by a sentence acting as a microtext. The author highlights the substantive, communicative and structural unity of the microtext.
Content unity is the general correlation of the elements involved in creating a text with a single global theme. “Der Ausdruck der inhaltlichen Ganzheit des Mikrotextes ist der gemeinsame Themabezug seiner Komponente” . All sentences of the microtext are involved in the same topic or part of the topic of the microtext.
The communicative unity of the microtext is closely interconnected with the content unity. Here is the development of the theme of microtext. In meaningful unity, the theme develops on the basis of the repetition of denotations introduced into the text. Moreover, each of the repetitions introduces some specific details into the general meaning of denotations. In communicative unity, the theme develops on the basis of the theme-rhematic movement, that is, from the given, known to the new, unknown. In this regard, the author distinguishes three types of theme-rhematic chains in the text: a simple linear thematic progression (the term Danesh F.), a theme-rhematic chain with a global theme, and a theme-rhematic chain with derivative themes that have their own rhemes.
The structural unity of the text is closely interconnected with the content and communicative unity of the text. The main thing here is not the meaning of a word or phrase, but purely formal features. Although this type of unity has its own specific concepts, phenomena that are not relevant for the first two types of unity. Moskalskaya OI notes the lexical and grammatical signs of the structural unity of the text. The most important lexical feature, which is closely related to thematic unity, is the lexical isotopy of the text (“lexikalische Isotopie”), that is, the repetition of the same words, the use of synonyms, as well as words that belong to the same sphere of meaning, have a common seme.
The author refers to the grammatical features of the structural unity of the microtext:
1) a single temporal organization of the text, in which both lexical and grammatical means are involved ("die einheitliche temporale Gestaltung des Mikrotextes");
2) the use of the definite article as part of the anaphora, that is, it participates in the creation of left-hand connections in the text, naming what is already known;
3) the anaphoric use of pronouns, that is, the correlation of the pronoun with the denotation of the pretext, while the pronoun contains the least number of signs of the denotation introduced into the text;
4) cataphoric use of two or more conjunctions;
5) circumstances of time, place, meaning, reasons, etc.;
6) ellipses in a dialogic text;
7) syntactic parallelism.
So, Moskalskaya OI considers text unity in content, communicative and structural aspects. Among the signs of the structural unity of the text described by Moskalskaya, we are especially interested in the latter.
The essence of syntactic parallelism (according to Moskalskaya) is to build a chain of sentences that repeat the same syntactic model and have a symmetrical arrangement of the main members of the sentence. At the same time, this structural connection is carried out without lexical repetitions and grammatical means of anaphora. Der kleine, flache, weiße Alsterdampfer biegt bei. Der Schiffstelegraph schrillt, und die Schraube wirbelt schaumiges Wasser auf. Die Passagiere drängen nach den Ausgängen. Der Kontrolleur springt ans Land, wirft das Schiffstau um den eisernen Poller am Kai und ruft „Jungfernstieg! Endstation!“
Thus, the repetition of the same syntactic structure of a sentence within the framework of one superphrasal unity, paragraph or microtext is syntactic parallelism . We believe that the last feature, syntactic parallelism, can be considered in the grammatical aspect as a repetition in the text of grammatical structures that have the same or partially the same set of formal grammatical features (components). In the context of this definition, we highlight the concept of "truncated syntactic parallelism". Truncated syntactic parallelism is the repetition in the text of grammatical structures that have a partially identical set of formal grammatical features (components). We give the following examples: Das Buch ist gelesen . — Eristgekommen (complete coincidence of the grammatical forms of the passive voice of the state (Zustandspassiv) and the complex form of the past tense (Perfekt)). As we can see, the grammatical components of both structures coincide, in other words, we are talking about complete homonymy of these structures.
The following example demonstrates the homonymy of two grammatical components: Das Haus ist gebaut . - Das Haus ist gebaut worden (partial coincidence of the grammatical components of sein as an auxiliary verb and the second past participle (Partizip II) of the passive voice).
These structures were analyzed from the point of view of a systematic approach, which implies not only the presence of elements in the system, but also the nature of the interaction between them:
haben + Partizip II des Grundverbs,
haben + zu + Infinitiv des Grundverbs,
sein + Partizip II des Grundverbs,
sein + zu + Infinitiv des Grundverbs,
sein + Partizip II des Grundverbs (Stativ),
sein + Partizip II des Grundverbs + worden (Perfekt Passiv),
werden + Infinitiv des Grundverbs (Futurum),
werden + Partizip II des Grundverbs (Passiv),
werden + Partizip II des Grundverbs + Infinitiv des Verbs "werden".
The components of the grammatical structures of the active and passive voices that appear simultaneously in the text represent a variant of full and partial homonymy.
This complex of grammatical structures is considered by us from the standpoint of a systematic approach. According to Zagvyazinsky V.I., “the system approach is based on the position that the specificity of a complex object (system) is not limited to the features of its constituent elements, but is primarily related to the nature of the interaction between the elements” [Zagvyazinsky, 2005, p. 44]. The author named provisions that help to establish the properties of system objects and improve them:
1. The integrity of the system in relation to the external environment, its study in unity with the environment.
2. The division of the whole into synthetic and analytical forms, leading to the selection of elements. The properties of elements depend on their belonging to a certain system, and the properties of a system are not reduced to the properties of its elements or their sum.
3. All elements of the system are in complex connections and interactions, among which it is necessary to single out the most significant, defining for this system, as they say, backbone connection.
4. The set of elements gives an idea of ​​the structure and organization of system objects. These concepts express a certain orderliness of the system, interdependence and mutual subordination of its elements.
In other words, in a system study, the analyzed object is considered as a certain set of elements, the interconnection of which determines the integral properties of this set.
The phenomenon of homonymy is directly related to such an object in a systematic study¹¹.
Homonymy is a concept that plays an important role in logic, logical semantics, and semiotics. Homonyms (Greek "homonyma" from "homos" - the same and "onyma" - name) are words belonging to the same part of speech and sounding the same, but different in meaning [Azimov, Shchukin, 1999, p. 197].
Attention to the problems of homonymy was attracted back in the 1920s by the well-known works of L.A. Bulakhovsky, L.V. Shcherby, V.V. Vinogradova, O.S. Akhmanova on the material of the Russian language. The phenomenon of homonymy is considered in the works of many scientists; in the field of the Russian language: S.V. Voronicheva, O.M. Kim, N.P. Kolesnikova, L.A. Novikova, A.I. Smirnitsky, A.Ya. Shaikevich and others; in the languages ​​of the Romano-Germanic group: J. Orr, S. Ulman, Abramov B. A., J. Grzega, U. Fischer, I. Bartz, and others. Various aspects of the problem were studied: the essence and scope of the concept of "homonymy", ways and means of its formation, taxonomic representation of homonyms, differentiation of homonymy and polysemy, questions of lexicographic description (in explanatory and special dictionaries), etc. However, along with certain achievements, there are still many controversial, unresolved issues in this scientific area. The boundaries of homonymy and polysemy, the criteria for their differentiation, the syntactic (grammatical) type of homonymy - on all these issues in the literature there are the most conflicting opinions, up to the refusal to attempt to distinguish anything in this area.
For example, the phenomenon of homonymy in Russian is described in various dictionaries
Akhmanova's dictionary provides a fairly large collection of lexical homonyms with an almost complete absence of grammatical ones (some are given in the appendix). As noted by O.S. Akhmanov, homonymy is determined by the presence of a certain relationship. “You can define homonyms as 2 or more words consisting of identical phonemic sequences and differing only semantically or semantically and grammatically at the same time” [Akhmanova, 1986, p. 4]. Akhmanova distinguishes in the word its linguistic shell, which turns out to be extensible, easily allowing correlation with more and more new varieties or shades of linguistic content or meaning. 
Thus, for a long time, research in the field of homonymy focused mainly on lexical homonymy, which, because of this, received the most complete semasiological and lexicographic interpretation. With regard to lexical homonymy, there are 3 points of view. According to the first, the earliest, only etymological, heterogeneous homonyms that arose as a result of a random coincidence of sound complexes are recognized. According to another, lexical homonymy has two initial sources: phonetic convergent evolution of different words or forms (including borrowings); semantic divergent evolution of one word (Bulakhovskiy L.A., Budagov R.A.,). And according to the third, the formation of homonyms is possible as a result of word-formation processes (Vinogradov V.V., Smirnitsky A.I., Stepanov Yu.S., Bally Sh.). In foreign studies, there is also no single point of view on the classification of types of homonymy. Grzega I. believes that homonyms arose from originally different morphemes, which in the course of time began to sound the same.
If polysemantic words have the same etymological forms, respectively, the same morphemes, we are no longer talking about homonymy, but about polysemy (Homonyme sind aus ursprünglich differenten Morphemen entstanden, die im Lauf der Zeit gleichlautend wurden. den Kiefer "kiver" und das alth. Wort für den heute als Kiefer bezeichneten Baum "kienforha", die heute beide mit Kiefer bezeichnet werden.
Wenn die mehrdeutigen Wörter auf eine gemeinsame etymologische Wurzel bzw. dasselbe Morphem zurückgeführt werden, handelt es um sich Homonyme sondern umPolyseme): "Über Homonymenkonflikt als Auslöser von Wortuntergang". At the same time, such a concept as equivocation (Äquivokation) combines both phenomena (homonymy and polysemy).
Other scientists consider homonymy in grammatical and phonetic aspects: I. Barz, H. Poete, A. Seiffert, K. Hammer (Irmhild Barz, Hannelore Poethe, Anja Seiffert, Karin Hammer) understand homonymy as a kind of ambiguity in which different lexemes can be assumed (differently than in polysemy), characterized mainly by grammatical differences, for example: homonymy of parts of speech that differ in the presence / form of the article: ( der / das Tor, die Bänke / die Banken, wissen / das Wissen ) ; partial homonymy, which refers to the shift of stress in the same words (partielle Homonymie): homography ( Homographie) ( Tenor - Tenor ); homophony ( Homophonie ), characterized by the coincidence of the sound of words and their different spelling (lehren - leeren). The authors also separate the concepts of homonymy and polysemy, adhering to the point of view of Joachim Grzega. When considering the lists of homonyms in the English language, one can see that Bridges R. considers only those homonyms that were formed as a result of the coincidence in sound of previously different-sounding words that are not genetically related to each other. Another list of homonyms, also compiled on the basis of genetically unrelated homophones, and limited to one part of speech - nouns, was published by Branis E. The dictionary of English homonyms compiled by Fisher W. is based on the phonetic principle. The Webster Dictionary of Synonyms, Antonyms and Homonyms contains a list of homonyms, which includes 2,000 of the most common words, and the author reveals their meaning without classifying these homonyms. It can be argued,
A comparison of the quantitative characteristics of the homonyms of five modern Germanic languages ​​and lists of ten thousand homonyms (approximately 4,700 homonymous series) are given in the dissertation of Shaikevich A.Ya. The first dictionary of modern English homonyms published in our country is a dictionary compiled by Tyshler I.S. based on the Oxford English Dictionary, which contains 798 homonym nests, including 2522 homonyms of modern English. This dictionary is limited by lexical homonymy. A lot of work has been done on the inventory of lexical homonyms by English scientists. In our opinion, syntactic (grammatical) homonymy is the least studied. Syntactic homonymy is not just a narrow problem of text ambiguity, but an important general language problem. The systemic nature of homonymy should be represented not only by lexico-semantic, but also by grammatical relations. At the level of phrases and sentences, the concepts of ambiguity, polysemy (polysemy) and homonymy have the same meaning. The term syntactic homonymy is commonly used. The phenomenon of syntactic homonymy attracts the attention of many scientists. Interest in it has especially increased since the 1960s in connection with research on automatic text processing. It turned out that there are much more homonymous sentences in the texts than it might seem at first glance. 
The fact is that in many cases we choose one of the syntactically homonymous options, guided by the context or extralinguistic situation. Therefore, most native speakers simply do not notice other possible meanings. Not always, faced with an ambiguous sentence, we are dealing with syntactic homonymy. Thus, if we turn to proposalsDoes she have a good scythe or did he take a bow, then we note their ambiguity. However, it arises only due to lexical homonyms that are part of sentences. Syntactically, the sentences are exactly the same. Thus, lexical and not syntactic homonymy is presented here. In the case of syntactic homonymy, the difference in the meanings of phrases or sentences is not related to the lexical homonymy of the words included in them. A sentence or phrase is syntactically homonymous if it can be assigned at least two syntactic structures. The concept of syntactic structure includes the allocation of minimal syntactic units (members of a sentence) and the establishment of syntactic links between them. Thus, we encounter syntactic homonymy then, when in one phrase or sentence we can single out or grammatically interpret the members of a sentence in different ways - or establish (interpret) syntactic links between them in different ways. There are also such types of ambiguous constructions in the language, which, in contrast to the cases of syntactic homonymy considered above, are assigned the same syntactic structure (those. both the forms of words and the connections between them coincide ). Different meanings of such constructions can be demonstrated using deep structures, so the ambiguity presented in them can be called deep-syntactic homonymy. Abramov B. A., considering the grammatical meaning of lexical units in the German language, introduces the concept of a formative to identify the grammatical meaning and its carrier. In case of formative homonymy, additional identifying factors are needed: Im Falle der Homonymie der Formative bedarf es zusätzlicher identifizierender Faktoren: (des) Studenten (Genitiv Singular) - (der) Studenten (Genitiv Plural), (ein) klein-er Junge (maskuline Nominativflexion des Adjektivs) — (er ist) klein-er (als jmd.) (das Suffix des Komparativs)”.
The author gives examples of homonymy of the noun "student" and the adjective "small". In German, a noun cannot be correctly identified without an additional factor, in this case, the singular and plural articles in the German genitive. The adjective "small" also cannot be identified without the indefinite article and the noun immediately after the adjective in the nominative case. The following example is given with the same adjective, only in a comparative degree, that is, with a different grammatical meaning. “Ein Formans kann im Prinzip zugleich Träger von mehreren grammatischen Bedeutungen sein, zB: ES — drückt die Bedeutungen des Genitivs und des Singulars aus; — ST trägt am Verb die Bedeutungen der 2. Person und des Singulars. “ We are talking about a formal identifier, a formant (according to the definition of Abramov B.A.), which carries homonymous, coinciding features: for example, the meaning of the genitive case and the singular. The synthetic formative is a single image ("einheitliches Gebilde"), for example, "Buches, gehst". The analytical form is a dissected, inconsistent, unrelated image, when another linguistic unity may appear between the components: “Eine analytische Form ist ein gegliedertes, diskontinuierliches Gebilde, zwischen dessen Konstituenten eine andere sprachliche Form treten kann: (Ich) HABE lange GEARBEITET” . There are quite a few definitions of syntactic homonymy, a wide range of which is determined by the difference in approaches in definitions.