American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences ISSN (E): 2832-8019 Volume 11, | April, 2023 P a g e | 76 www.americanjournal.org PRAGMATİC STUDY OF THE SYNONYMİC PARADİGM U. E.Rahimov Candidate of Philological Sciences Associate Professor, Proceedings in the State Language Training and Qualification of the Basics Upgrade Center Andijan. usmon-rahim@mail.ru No'monova Zebuniso Doctoral Student of Andijan State University A B S T R A C T K E Y W O R D S The article analyzes lexico-semantic, morphological- syntactic, pragmatic features of synonymous paradigms. paradigm, synonymy, synonymous paradigm, pragmatic synonymy, semasiolgia, onomosiology, pragmatics. Introduction In science, the concept of” Paradigm " was first coined by G.It is retained by Bergman in relation to the normativity of methodology. But the widespread use of the term paradigm is attributed to the American scientist T.Bogliq by the name of the day. The scientist first coined this term in 1977 in his work "the structure of Scientific Revolutions": "revolutions often occur in society. The revolution in science is associated with a change in the approach to the object. Theory, rules, system of methods, approach and scientific views, adopted from tomni of the scientific community at the stage of development of a particular Science, served as a model for the admiration and resolution of the problem, are called paradigms” [1, 7]. In the history of philosophy of science, there are several terms that correspond to the concept of “paradigm”, but none of them have become as popular as this concept. Specifically, "epistema" (M. Fuko), "style of contemplation" (M.Born),” scientific research program " (I.Lakatos) come close to the essence of the “paradigm”, but they were not widely recognized by the scientific community. Yu.V.By paradigm, Yakovets meant a system of prioritized views and theories describing the scientific landscape of the universe. V.S.Stepin believes that the paradigm is a vision of rationality, a scientific strategy that includes ideals, norms, the landscape of the universe, philosophical interpretations [2, 3]. T.Kisel believes that the scientific paradigm can be understood in a broad and narrow sense [3, 82]: - paradigms in a broad sense-a set of views, criteria and norms that are used in research techniques; - paradigms in the narrow sense are the lessons of solving a specific problem, which are later research lessons that are also used in the interpretation of other problems. American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 11, April, 2023 P a g e | 77 www.americanjournal.org Based on the above, the linguistic paradigm can be defined as such: “the linguistic paradigm is the naamuna of rules, views recognized by everyone in the practice of linguistic science, and it is the model on which scientists rely in the process of conducting research.” V. von Gumbol'dt's "antinomies" or F.de Saussure's views on” language and speech“,” Synchrony and diachrony " take an example of a linguistic paradigm as a child. In linguistic istoriography, the application of the concept of “Paradigm” varies. While some linguists believe that the views in linguistics, from the earliest times to the present, can be attributed to the concept of a “paradigm” in relation to all of the GoI, some scholars oppose it. According to the second group of scientists, it is advisable to use the term “paradigm” in relation to approaches that arose from the time when linguistics broke away as an independent science, that is, from the XIX century. With an in-depth look at the history of linguistics, 3 main scientific paradigms can be distinguished: 1. The first paradigm in the history of Linguistic Science in the literal sense is the comparativistic paradigm that defines analogy and historicism as principles of research, formed in the XIX century. In this case, the first method of language research is recommended, which is guided by the determination of the kinship and genetic affinity of languages. The entire 19th-century linguistic scientists conducted research, relying on this paradigm. This paradigm includes 2 sub-paradigms: (a) A.Biological small- paradigm (naturalism)associated with the name Schleicher; B) G.Psychological small-paradigm (psychologism), associated with the name steyntal. 2. A system-structural paradigm that defines integrity and systematicity as important principles of research, in which language is studied on the basis of Systematics – linguistic levels and language- speech units. Founder of this paradigm F.de Sossyur believes that in this, language is studied “within and for the sake of Oz”, that is, the structure of the language and the language system are studied isolated from other systems. 3.An anthropocentric paradigm (communicative or nominative-pragmatic paradigm) is a set of views, ideas and teachings that organize language not as a dry structure, but as an open system based on live communication and communication, analyzing in continuous communication with other systems – Society, Man, culture, the human psyche, directing a person to analyze within a language or language within a person. This paradigm is divided into various sub-paradigms within oz: (a) cognitive paradigm; (b) ethnolinguistic paradigm; (v) sociolinguistic paradigm; g) psycholinguistic paradigm; d) neurolinguistic paradigm; e) linguocultural paradigm, k) pragmalinguistic paradigm. From the above, the conclusion is that the paradigm is a macrosystem and unites different Microsystems in itself. The paradigm that we are going to analyze falls within the nominative-pragmatic paradigm and is also called the causal synonymous paradigm. The synonymic paradigm is one of the issues comprehensively studied in linguistics[4,3-6,151- 154,222-242]. But the current progress of our linguistics assumes the study of the phenomenon of synonymy not only at the lexical, grammatical level, but also pragmatically. In particular, the study of this phenomenon in interpersonal communication at the stage of language and speech reveals new- new features inherent in it. Because system lexicology and current semasiology and onomosiology in linguistics, the problem of researching the issue of lugavium synonymy, which is described in detail, from a new point of view, is in the middle [5]. Therefore, the need arises to analyze this phenomenon in the language and speech stage in intersectional communication and in opposition (opposition) [6, 17]. In the language stage, the phenomenon of synonymy exists as a certain form, forming a American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 11, April, 2023 P a g e | 78 www.americanjournal.org commonality with the meaning of the call and expression. For example: synonyms such as Aft, bashara, doxt, shixt, face, oraz, chehra, jamol form a synonymic series with the meaning of calling. If we represent each word with certain symbols, then the case arises as follows: A-aft. B-bashara, D-doxt, SH—shixt. Y-yuz, O-oraz, CH-chehra, J-jamol: their meaning of calling -N. A+B+D+SH+Y+O+CH+J =N or Right Left A A B B D D N SH SH Y O O CH CH J J Going from the right side to the call is semasiologically approached if going from the left side to the call is onomosiologically approached [7, 79]. If the words in the synonymic row are denoted by S, Their number by N, then SNqN. Because the condition of synonymy is that the meaning of calling is the same. Regardless of how many words are divided, all generalize with the meaning of calling. This model-mold reflects lexical synonymy in the language stage. If the grammatical level reflects the synonymy, then if we define the grammatical form as GrSHN in place of the word-S, then the synonymic condition of the grammatical form or word form is in the same way as the meaning of the expression –grammatical meaning. Such a grammatical synonym is GrSHNqIgr at the language stage.m. can represent by mold-model. Even if the phenomenon of synonymy is within the framework of syntactic integers-vocabulary and sentence, the above situation is repeated. Only the element of the synonymic series remains a combination of words or a sentence. If we define the soz compound as SBN, then in the language stage of such synonymy, the mold is expressed in the manner of SBNqNsb. If the element of the synonymic series is a sentence, we define the sentence as G -, then the language- stage model of such a synonym can be expressed in the GNqN manner. If a synonymic series element is a tekst, it can be represented by a TNqN-style model. Summarizing the above cases, one has the following way: 1.SNqN-lexical synonymy 2.GrSHNqI-morphological synonym 3.GNqN-syntactic synonymy 4.SBNqN-syntactic synonymy 5.TNqN-text synonymy We have looked at the language-stage molds of the above Soz, grammatical form, soz conjugation, sentence, text noun and expression meanings of the synonymy phenomenon based on the condition that ozaro remains equal. American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 11, April, 2023 P a g e | 79 www.americanjournal.org In the speech-stage monefestations of corded molds, a complexity inherent in it occurs. Such complexity can reach hattoki Infinity. The phenomenon of synonymy forms a synonymic series with the equivalence of the mahnos or pragmatic meaning of expression and attribution at the speech stage. synonyms that form a synonymic series with a pragmatic meaning are called pragmatic synonyms [8, 8-10]. Their naming meanings are related to the speech process of the unequal occurrence of ozaro. For example: the suffix” - aft “ lexical represents the meaning of” face". But the colloquial situation, without relating to the objective state, sometimes expresses the meaning of the head-to-head. Because in a speech situation, a child-the listener-gets their heads dirty, and the speaker says to him, " look at your fate!"is used. From the objective case, the meaning that means” aft " is understood by the owner of any language in the style of a ust-head-dress. That is, in speech, “aft” expresses the meaning inherent in word, merging with “cloth-head” word in the same hive to form a synonym. Sometimes, on the basis of a speech situation and context, the “aft” sound also represents a worldview, tuned speech, knowledge, level. When the speaker makes remarks, words that are not acceptable to the audience, the listener responds to him by saying “Look After!"using the sentence. From the speech situation and the objective state, we understand the general worldview of a person, and not the face, through the “aft” dose. The occurrence of such a condition can be cited in many ways because it is associated with a speech situation. The meaning of the” Aft " word, expressed in connection with a particular oratory situation, is a pragmatic meaning [9, 64]. Therefore, the fact that, as seen above, the meaning of the word “aft”, which is equivalent to the meanings expressed by the words “head-to- head”, “worldview”, is pragmatically generated, requires an analysis of the peculiarities of this phenomenon at the stage of speech. It has become a tradition to analyze the phenomenon of synonymy on the basis of four different approaches to its properties at the lexical level. Lexical synonymy is researched through foundations such as homogeneity on the part of meaning, free exchange in a reciprocal paradigm, stylistic coherence, and contextual-textual connectedness [10, 222-223]. Synonyms, separated on the basis of logical dependence, are defined in the speech process through the similarity of meanings associated with the speech situation. Therefore, they can be called synonyms, and they are also called denotative synonyms in some works, and the fact that they are limited to some time by linguistic synonymy is justified [10, 224]. When the phenomenon of synonymy is approached as a category, it becomes clear that it is a linguistic, substantive, paragmatic category. Synonymy as a linguistic category does not have an equal relationship with paragmatic synonymy. The basics of forming them a nest also differ. Lexical synonymy is defined as a linguistic category, forming a hive with the meaning of a common noun. pragmatic synonymy, on the other hand, is a substantive category, forming a hive through the fact that the meanings of words in a speech situation are equal among themselves. The meanings of words that they mean in connection with the speech process are an occocial meaning and do not participate with this meaning in another speech situation. Khattoki may also have a meaning that is not similar to the sense of atatement. The occurrence of such a state is influenced by the speech process, the speech situation, the tone beyond speech, the sign, the contractual relationship between the adjuster and the listener. For example: equilibrium sōzi-lexically a calm, turgun state of objects under the influence of oppositely directed equal forces; the equalization of opposing forces represents the relative stagnation, tranquility[11, 475]caused by domestication. This sound can form a synonymic hive with the “attitude” American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 11, April, 2023 P a g e | 80 www.americanjournal.org sound in a particular speech situation: the relationship between natural phenomena is the balance between natural phenomena. It sometimes forms a synonym based on interdependence. Therefore, summarizing them all by one common name-pragmatic synonymy, revealing the specific aspects or distinguishing features of the Microsystems that stand within it, is now gaining relevance. Contextual, denotative, occocial, presuppositional synonyms underlined in the literature differ from lexical synonyms. They form a hive with colloquial-pragmatic meanings, and not with the meanings of the noun. LS KS OS ‘S Basis of differentiation + - - - 1. meaning of calling - + + + 2. The meaning of connection with the speech situation - - + - 3. The meaning associated with the speech situation is equivalent to some scheme of the word + - - - 4. Equivalence of the denotative sense - - - + 5. Equal occurrence of presuppositional meaning - + - - 6. Equal occurrence of meaning in context - + - - 7. Equal occurrence of methodological meaning Pragmatic synonymy is a macrosystem, standing in an intersectional opposition with lexical synonymy and determined on the basis of this contradiction. Microsystems that form synonyms defined on the basis of lexicological categories will be an element of the lexical synonymy macrosystem. Synonyms defined through pragmatic categories are: occocial, contextual, presuppositional forming a synonym microsystem, which becomes an element of the pragmatic synonymy macrosystem. Synonymy system Lexical synonymy macrosystem Grammatical synonym macrosystem Pragmatic synonymy Morphemic Phraseological synonymy Morphological synonym OS Word-making tools Synonymy of historism Sintactic synonym DS Form making Neologism synonyms PS Categorial p.m KS Nocategorial p.m Synonym of archaisms Dialectological synonymy Т American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 11, April, 2023 P a g e | 81 www.americanjournal.org The relationships between the elements that make up the synonymy macrosystem are diverse, and they have a separate scope of research. Therefore, we did not talk about them. Onomosiological analysis of the phenomenon of cross-synonymy reveals its new facets inherent in it. This occupies a unique place in the study of other linguistic units associated with the phenomenon of synonymy. In particular, hermeneutics in literary studies is of particular importance as one of the limbs that reveals the essence of scientific research in pragmatic bias in linguistics. Used Literatures 1.Kuhn T.S. The structure of scientific revolutions. - Chicago, 1962. – 213 p. 2.Yakovés Yu.V. Formirovanie postindustrialnoy paradigm: istoki I perspective // Voprosi filosofii. 1997. - № 1. - S. 3. 3.Kisiel T. Paradigms / / Contemporary philosophy: a new survey: Vol.2. Philosophy of science / Ed. by Floistad G. – The Hague etc., 1982. – P. 87–110. 4. See; Hajev A. An explanation of the synonyms of the Uzbek language is lugati. T., 1974, pp. 3-6; Weshl L. M.Sovremennaya linguisticheskaya semantics. M., 1990 G., 151-154 STR. Novikov L.A. Semantics of russian language .M., 1982 G., STR-222-242. 5. Toirova G. Problems in the organization of lexical synonyms. Uzbek language and literature. 6. See: Rahimov U. Bowl, bowl bottom nim Bowl.Andijan.1995, p. 17. 7. See Novikov L. A. Semantics of russian language. M., 1982, STR-79. 8.See: A.Nurmonov et al. Theoretical grammar of the Uzbek language (morphology) T., 2001. Pp. 8- 10. 9. Rahimov U. Presupposition of loadings in Uzbek. ND. Samarkand, 1994. P. 64. 10. Novikov L.A. Semantics of russian language m., 1982g., STR-222-223. 11. Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek language. 1 vol. M., 1981, p.475.