Of the republic of uzbekistan tashkent state pedagogical university namedafter nizami

1.3. Grammatical and lexical-grammatical homonymy: to the definition of concepts
As is known, a consistent analysis of a language is impossible without relying on the primary division of the content sphere into vocabulary and grammar. The ratio of lexical and grammatical, characteristic of each given language, forms a typological determinant of the language , which, in turn, contributes to the determination of the leading grammatical tendencies of the degree of synthetism and analyticism, fusion and agglutination⁶.
To identify the degree of lexicality / grammaticality of a language, the degree of functional-semantic dismemberment of meaningful and functional words and the prevalence of homonymy in words that differ in the presence / absence of inflection and its type are of no small importance. By the prevalence of homonymy, one can judge the position of the language on the typological scale of lexicon / grammaticality and, obviously, about current grammatical trends.
Homonymy universal is absolute and is recognized as a natural phenomenon in the language. The presence of word variants, both in terms of expression and in terms of content, refers to the manifestations of the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign, formulated by S.O. Kartsevsky: “The signifier tends to have other functions than its own <…>; the signified tends to express itself by means other than its own sign. <…> It is thanks to this asymmetric dualism of the structure of signs that a linguistic system can evolve” .
Homonymy of parts of speech consists in the fact that words that sound the same belong to different classes of words and, accordingly, have different grammatical meanings, different syntagmatic compatibility and participate in different paradigmatic relationships.
The study, carried out on the material of scientific and fairy tale texts in English, Buryat and Chinese, similar in content and volume, was aimed at establishing the relationship of potentially possible grammatical homonymy.
In English, the expression of meanings related to different parts of speech, materially by the same word, is very common. The theory of conversion considers these cases as a phenomenon of word formation, in which "only the paradigm of the word serves as a word-formation tool" [5, p. 24]. Paradigmatic differences, differences in inflectional paradigms make it possible to distinguish between different parts of speech that act as grammatical homonyms.
In the Buryat language, there are also cases that can be attributed to the phenomena of grammatical homonymy. As noted by S.L. Charekov, “in the Mongolian languages, as in all Altaic languages, word forms are distinguished, which, remaining unchanged in form, can perform the functions of nouns, adjectives and adverbs”.
The possibility of combining the functions of several parts of speech by a Chinese word is recognized by many Chinese and domestic linguists. However, the question of the essence of this phenomenon remains open (see the works of Gao-Ming-kai, Lu Shu-hsiang, HH Korotkov and others). The concept put forward by V.M. Solntsev, who applied the conversion theory to the Chinese language [6, p. 96 114] suggests that all parts of speech can have grammatical homonyms.
Of the three languages, grammatical homonymy is most characteristic of the English language (27.5% of the words in the article and 30.6% in the fairy tale are involved in homonymic relations). It is the least characteristic for the Buryat language due to the dominant synthetic tendencies in it (5.5% of the words in the article and 8.1% of the words in the fairy tale can potentially have homonyms). The Chinese language occupies an intermediate position between the English and Buryat languages ​​(homonyms are possible for 16.8% of the words in the Chinese fairy tale).
In all three languages, the relations of grammatical homonymy have their own specifics. In particular, the dependence on the degree of lexicality / grammaticality of word classes is revealed. So, the action of the following trend in all three languages ​​was recorded: the more lexical words are, that is, they belong to the class of proper - significant words, the more often they enter into homonymous relations with each other and have homonyms, although to a much lesser extent, among words of other classes pronouns and function words, as in English. Or, in addition to homonyms within their class, they are characterized by the presence of homonyms among function words, but not pronouns, as in the Buryat and Chinese languages.
Within the more grammatical classes, the trends in the development of homonymous relations are somewhat different. So, in English and Chinese, pronouns, having no homonyms within their class, enter into homonymy relations either with proper significant words, as in English, or with functional words, as in Chinese. Grammatical homonymy among pronouns in the Buryat language is not recorded at all⁷.
Among the official wordsin English and Chinese, functional words enter into homonymous relations with proper-significant and functional words and do not have homonyms among pronouns at all. At the same time, in English, potentially possible homonyms for functional words are found much more often within their own class of words than among proper significant words. A completely opposite trend is noted in Chinese: among the homonyms of functional words, there are more often proper-significant words. Obviously, the Chinese official words still "remember" the genetic connection with the significant ones. In the process of the origin of grammatical elements from significant ones in Chinese, “the plan of content changes, and the plan of expression remains most often the same”. In the Buryat language, function words in very rare cases have homonyms,
Basic self-significant words, nouns and verbs, enter into homonymous relations only with each other, but not with other self-significant words, for example, as in English (100% both in the article and in the fairy tale), or to a greater extent with each other. other than with non-basic parts of speech, as in Chinese (89.2%). Obviously, this is due to the developed analytic forms in both languages ​​and the limited inflectional inflection in English.
In the Buryat language, the homonymy of the basic parts of speech with each other often turns out to be more difficult, and, compared with the other two languages, the frequency of homonymic connections between nouns and verbs is reduced (up to 75.0% in an article and 6.7% in a fairy tale), and in In this case, the functional and stylistic differences of the texts were clearly manifested.
Functional and stylistic differences between texts in English and Buryat languages ​​are more consistently traced when analyzing the homonymy of proper-significant words, and in Buryat this can be traced in the homonymy of the basic parts of speech, in the English language in the homonymy of non-basic parts of speech.
So, the analyticity of English and Chinese is associated with a fairly high frequency of grammatical homonymy in these languages. In the Buryat language, the spread of homonymy is limited by its greater synthetic character. Thus, the potential polyfunctionality of the word is correlated with the opposition of analyticism-synthetism.
As can be seen, taking into account the functional and semantic affiliation of words and genre differences of texts is of particular importance for the typological characteristics of the language, since in the same language in different semiological classes of words there are opposite tendencies, which, together with the stylistic differences of texts, confirm the well-known thesis of I.A. . Baudouin de Courtenay on the simultaneous application of two or three morphological principles in a language