SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE LANGUAGE LEVEL AND ITS DESCRIPTION

Аннотация

The work presents a kind of views on the definition of today about linguistic and speech units, therefore, it became necessary to determine the linguistic and speech levels. In the language, phoneme, morpheme and word are marked as the main linguistic units, and sentences, complex syntactic constructions and paragraphs are marked in speech. Based on this, phonemic, morphemic and vocabulary levels are put forward as a language level, and in speech - sentences, complex syntacticstructures and definition of paragraph levels. Key words: linguistic level, language, speech, linguistic and speech units, language and speech levels, phoneme, morpheme and word, phonemic level, morphemic level, speech level, sentence level, level ofcomplex syntacticstructures, paragraph level. Although the language levels are interconnected, each of them requires relatively autonomous mechanisms that combine a macroparadigm of similar units. However, in real practice, these autonomous mechanism units must be included in the structure of larger autonomous mechanisms. In this process, they serve as building materials for the second level and its integrants. In other words, each autonomous mechanism unit forms the integration of language units at the level of a larger unit. For example, phonetic level units - phonemes - when included in the structure of a morphematic level unit - morpheme, form the integration of smaller units [4, P.146-147]. Weobserve such a relationship of language units not only within the framework of thephonemic, morphematic levels, but also in the interconnection of the morphematic and word levels, word and speech levels. This, in turn, indicates that the acquisition of functional value of language units is closely related to their mutual relationship. Language units are in three types of relationships: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, and hierarchical. However, each of these relationships has its own characteristics. If the paradigmatic relationship implies the relationship of language units within the level to which they belong, then the syntagmatic relationship reflects the connection of units of a certain level with each other within the second level. It is characteristic that only units belonging to a certain level can enter into a relationship. For example, a phoneme can be syntagmatically connected with a phoneme, a morpheme with a morpheme, or a word with a word. However, it should also be noted that the syntagmatic relationship leads to the formation of a hierarchical relationship. The point is that a phoneme cannot enter into a relationship with a phoneme or a morpheme with a morpheme within its own levels. For this, they need an object of application that constitutes a higher level than themselves. This also leads to the formation of an inter-level relationship, that is, a hierarchical relationship. Thus, syntagmatic and hierarchical relationships are inextricably linked. Language units can form a hierarchical relationship with a larger unitonly ifthey are interconnected along a horizontal line. It should be emphasized that each level of language requires its own separate system. Their inclusion in the framework of hierarchical relations and their connection with other level units https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi volume 4,issue6,2025 233 expands the concept of the system and creates an idea of ​ ​ a holistic language system. This situation is observed not only in the relationship between units of language levels, but also in the connection ofunits ofspeech levels. When considering the levels of speech, it should also be noted that this issue is only now being put on the research agenda in linguistic literature. Therefore, the issue of what to study as units of speech and what to recognize as levels that can meet this requirement has not yet been fully resolved. Of course, in this regard, the fact that until almost the present period of the development oflinguistics, language and speech were not distinguished, and as aresult, language problems were not studied in detail and special attention was not paid to issues related to speech, played a negativerole. We also observe this situation in Uzbek linguistics. H. Nematov and O. Bozorov quite rightly state the following: “Despite the fact that some ideas are being expressed in current Uzbek linguistics about the difference between dialectically related phenomena of language and speech, this issue has not been given sufficient attention so far. The fact that the approach of distinguishing between language and speech has not been taken as the basis for the study of the Uzbek language hinders a comprehensive and in-depth study of such issues as speech sounds and phonemes, phonetic and phonemic changes, lexemes, lexical and situational nominations, structures (models) and their emergence, the characteristics of lexical units in macro- and microtexts, and the essence and phenomenon at the syntactic level of the Uzbek language” [13, pp.7-8]. At the same time, it should be