Impact Factor: ISRA (India) = 4.971 ISI (Dubai, UAE) = 0.829 GIF (Australia) = 0.564 JIF = 1.500 SIS (USA) = 0.912 РИНЦ (Russia) = 0.126 ESJI (KZ) = 8.716 SJIF (Morocco) = 5.667 ICV (Poland) = 6.630 PIF (India) = 1.940 IBI (India) = 4.260 OAJI (USA) = 0.350 Philadelphia, USA 401 QR – Issue QR – Article SOI: 1.1/TAS DOI: 10.15863/TAS International Scientific Journal Theoretical & Applied Science p-ISSN: 2308-4944 (print) e-ISSN: 2409-0085 (online) Year: 2020 Issue: 03 Volume: 83 Published: 30.03.2020 http://T-Science.org Madina Mamedova Bukhara Engineering and Technological Institute A teacher of Foreign Languages Department COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOMONYMS OF ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES FOR METHODOLOGICAL PURPOSES Abstract: to answer the question in which of the two unrelated languages, homonyms have greater or lesser semantic productivity, we conducted an appropriate analysis and divided the studied homonyms into three groups - with a high, medium, and low degree of semantic productivity. Genetically unrelated homonyms were selected for analysis. Key words: homonyms, analysis, dictionaries, terminological, idiomatic meanings, semantic, pragmatic features of homonyms, artistic language, dialects, professional vocabulary, jargon, argo, barbarism, vulgarism. Language: English Citation: Mamedova, M. (2020). Comparative analysis of homonyms of English and Uzbek languages for methodological purposes. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 03 (83), 401-404. Soi: http://s-o-i.org/1.1/TAS-03-83-74 Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2020.03.83.74 Scopus ASCC: 1203. Introduction A continuous sample of all dictionaries showed that in English, genetically unrelated homonyms- nouns constitute a larger number in relation to the Uzbek language. This indicates the high semantic productivity of genetically unrelated homonyms in the English language. For comparison: in the Uzbek language there are 32 homonyms, while in English there are 72. There are a number of English homonyms-nouns with 24 meanings. This is a unique homonymous series of pitch. This row consists of two chains. It should be noted that the chain of the first meaning includes archaisms, American slangisms, terminological, idiomatic meanings, marked in dictionaries. This fact reveals a rather active ability of English words in the formation of homonyms. II.Literature reivew The material for analysis was genetically unrelated homonyms - nouns registered in the Oxford English Dictionary by A. S. Hornby in 13 volumes, as well as in A.Webster's dictionaries, H. S. Wilford, H. S. Barrett, The World Book Dictionary: volume 2, in the dictionary “O’zbek tili omonimlar lug’ati” (“Dictionary of homonyms of the Uzbek language”) S. Rakhmatullaev and in the manual “O’zbek tili izohli lugati” (“Explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language”). It should be noted that the above- mentioned dictionaries of the English language are the most comprehensive and authoritative sources, unlike the Uzbek dictionaries, which at the moment do not cover all the rich vocabulary of the Uzbek language. III.Analysis Among the meanings of pitch homonyms, there is a semantic disconnection between the chains, for example, pitch in the third meaning has branches - points “a” and “b”: a - to throw (the ball) to the batter in a game of baseball: to pitch curves and fast balls; b - to loft (a golf ball) so that it alights with little roll. The reason for dividing into two points is intrinsic motivation, belonging to one archaism. In addition, observations showed that the word in question has high productivity in both synchronous and diachronic aspects. The analyzed genetically unrelated homonyms have different semantic productivity. In the group of a high degree of semantic productivity, we included homonyms-nouns with 30 to 20 semantic meanings; in the group with average semantic productivity,