Development of world modern linguistics and discourse interpretation in it

. In world linguistics, a number of directions are being formed that research the practical aspect of language. Language owners differ in terms of their past and present, outlook, level, cultural and moral level, ethnic and religious values, lifestyle, development and decline, traditions and spiritual attitudes. At the same time, in linguistics, there is a need for research based on the commonality of language and culture, language and communication, language and psyche, in particular, research that provides a linguistic, cultural, cognitive and lexicographical description of the language. The present paper discusses about the development of world modern linguistics and discourse interpretation in it.


Introduction
Stages of development of world modern linguistics. World modern linguistics has developed for almost three centuries, and each era has set appropriate tasks for its science based on social necessity: 1) origin and differences of language systems (comparativehistorical linguistics) (XIX century); 2) structure and possibilities of language systems (formal-structural linguistics) (XX century); 3) problems of practical use of language systems (anthropocentric linguistics) (XXI century). Uzbek linguistics joined it in the second stage of the development of world linguistics, and in its place, it passed through two stages with its own goals and tasks in the last century: 1) the stage of the formal approach fulfilled the social task based on the need to develop the standards of the literary language and inculcate them in the public consciousness, and in 1981, in general, it ended its activity with the creation of the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language"; 2) the stage of the structural approach was formed in the 90s of the last century and fulfilled the social order of opening the immanent possibilities of the Uzbek language under the name of independence linguistics. The problems of the internal system of the language have been thoroughly studied until the present period of the development of the science of linguistics. Such huge achievements can be easily observed both within the framework of general linguistics and in specific linguistics. During this period, significant scientific results were achieved in the formal-structural, semantic and functional analysis of language units. First, it is necessary to dwell a little on structural linguistics and its essence.
Discursive analysis is a field that focuses on the study of the relationship between language and text. It emerged as a result of research in the fields of linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology in the 60s and 70s of the last century. Discourse explores the actual state of linguistic possibilities -from a variety of textual and spoken discourses, from dialogue to highly institutionalized conversations. At the time when linguists were analyzing the disconnected state of sentences, Zellig Harris's article entitled "Discursive analysis" was published. Although the article is far from today's principles of discursive analysis, Harris examines the linguistic elements present in the text, the relationship of the text to the speech situation. The introduction of semioticians and French structuralists to the study of speech was also a great impetus to the development of this field. In the 60s of the last century, Dell Hymes started to analyze the situation of language in society [1]. Linguistic philosophers such as J. Austin [2], J. Searle [3], and H. Grice [4] also began to study language as a social reality, study the formation of communication and the theory of speech chose a pragmatic direction and began to analyze the meaning understood from the text.
British discursive analysis greatly influenced M. Holliday's functional approaches to language. M.Holliday's scientific works include the social functions of language, content, analysis of formal written and oral speech [5]. In addition, linguists Sinclair and Koulzart have developed an analysis of teacher-student communication based on discursive units; in their work they have given a discursive analysis of doctor-patient, service, interview, debate, business communication, and even monologues. In the British tradition, mainly fiction has been analyzed discursively. British scientific theories were built on the principles of structural linguistics, that is, the separation of units, a set of rules that describe perfectly formed units of discourse.
American discursive analysis is based on ethno-methodological traditions, scientific research in the process of observing people's natural communication. Communication types such as storytelling, greetings, and gestures in different cultures are studied. In the American tradition, the field often called communication analysis can be called one of the main branches of discursive analysis. In the analysis of communication, attention is not paid to the linguistic structure, but the main emphasis is placed on factors such as the character and mood of the participants in natural communication.
The Prague School of Linguistics also made a significant contribution to the development of discursive analysis, and in particular, this school deserves special recognition for showing the interrelationship between grammar and discourse.
Discourse is a speech device that is structured in terms of its communicative function and adapted to the communication situation. Coordination in terms of form and function makes it possible to distinguish discourse from other units [6]. However, the theory of discourse is just being formed, so there is a need to search for the possibilities of using general linguistic methods in this direction of analysis. Indeed, these comments of the linguist are appropriate.
Such scientific researches and different views expressed in relation to the problem indicate that there are aspects of dialogical discourse that need to be solved in linguistics and need to be researched. Dialogic discourse is usually defined as "a conversation between two or more persons". This is a true but biased opinion. The fact is that dialogic discourse is considered one of the most difficult parts of creative technique for an artist, while its syntactic features, pragmatic and discursive content and structure are of great importance for a linguist. In some sources, the dialogues and their features are studied in the text of prose and dramas of fiction. In such works, it is recognized that the writing of dialogues is a living form of spoken speech [7].

Results and discussions
The two aspects of language -oral and written -are always in relation to each other. Spoken language is the source of written literary language. Colloquial language is manifested in the form of dialogic discourse, and this discourse is structured on the basis of present response. But it should not be forgotten that spoken language does not mean only dialogue. Of course, they are interrelated phenomena, therefore, written and spoken literary language contain both forms of speech. According to L.V. Shcherba [19], spoken speech occurs in the form of dialogic discourse. This ensures the naturalness of the dialogue. Language reveals its true existence only in dialogue. If we compare its oral and written forms, we can see that the literary language is based on monologic discourse. L.V. Shcherba, considering the signs of literary language, divides them into two groups in the form of different forms of literary language and different forms of business language, and says that "each form and each method is related to its syntactic feature to fulfill a certain task required by vital necessity" counts. One of the characteristic features of dialogic discourse is the division of dialogic units into replicas, each of which has a separate syntactic structure [20]. A dialogic reply differs from a monologic discourse by its volume, addressee orientation, and the existence of a topic boundary. Intonation has its place along with the means of forming dialogic discourse units and showing it as a communication unit: expressiveness, expressiveness, and elliptical forms. Syntactic construction of dialogical discourse can be divided into simple and polypredicative units based on the nature of replicas. When we observe the polypredicative units found in dialogues, we see that it is complex in nature as a linguistic unit, its place at the linguistic level in this complexity, the grammatical form and connecting means of simple sentences, and the diversity of its meaningful relations. In the current research, the features of colloquial speech, the role of colloquial speech in the formation of simple and compound sentences are considered. For example, in these sources, the composition of colloquial speech is relatively simple compared to compound sentences: monosyllabic sentences, one-word sentences, and incomplete sentences [23].
Therefore, in linguistics, the question of the position of polypredicative unit in dialogic discourse, its distinguishing features from other linguistic units and structures, as well as the specific factors in the occurrence of dialogic discourse as polypredicative unit, was put on the agenda in the research of linguist L. Raupova [9]. The linguist scientist says that the role of dialogic discourse is extremely large in fiction, when the story is narrated by the writer in the work, such a situation arises that it is impossible for the author to express the next stage of the development of the story with his own words, and at such a time, the writer turns to dialogic discourse based on the available scientific sources.
The object of dialogic speech analysis is not the analysis of individual sentences, but the analysis of the text and its internal and external factors. "A dialogic text is a speech unit consisting of a set of statements of two persons that form a thematic and logical unity, one of which complements, defines and explains the other" [25,71]. In the form of dialogic speech, it is aimed to convey information to the addressee quickly, accurately, simply and effectively. That is why ellipsis and various gestures are widely used in conversation. According to experts, "in communication, a word, a phrase, a sentence, and in some cases even texts can be ellipsised or replaced by non-verbal means. The analysis of dialogic texts shows that communicator's use non-verbal means in the process of communicationintervention for the purpose of explaining, completing, highlighting, clarifying, compensating (using instead of a linguistic unit) the linguistic means" [25]. Monologue speech is the speech of the characters of a work of art addressed to themselves or to others. It is used in both poetic and prose works. Letters in works of art are mainly in the form of monologic written speech, for example (Kumush's letter to Otabek or Otabek's letter to Kumush in the novel "Days Gone By").
In poetic texts, monologic speech is used to fully describe the experiences of the lyrical hero. Internal monologic speech is an internal expression of the communicator's internal speech, thinking, thoughts and feelings. In internal monologic discourse, the communicator tells his secret, hidden thoughts, therefore, through internal monologic discourse, the communicator "opens" himself to the reader. That is why nothing remains mysterious or incomprehensible in his personality. Internal monologic discourse differs from colloquial speech by its openness and transparency.
Both dialogic speech and monologic speech can take three forms: internal speech, external speech, and parallel speech. In Cholpon's novel "Night and Day", Miryakub's conversation with "I" is in the character of dialogic speech, but the expression is given in the form of internal speech. "Parallel speech is simultaneous manifestation of internal and external speech of the communicant. This form of speech is often a dialogue process between communicants. Scientists such as N.Yu. Shvedova, M. L. Mikhlina, T. G. Vinokur have studied dialogic discourse in Russian and its syntactic features, and it is noted that inner speech expresses the attitude of the addressee" [27].
Taking the opportunity: -What does empire mean? -I asked.
-Why are you asking? -He said.
-An official acquaintance of yours once said, "The Empire will sink," and he spoke very He keeps talking and I wonder. Does he know these names correctly? How does he remember everything? Has he seen it all with his own eyes? Or will he knock me out and tell me? (Cholpon).
During the conversation between Sharofuddin Khodjaev and Miryokub, Miryokub's internal speech and external speech were given in parallel. The communicator widely uses this method to reflect the changes occurring in his inner world.
Dialogic discourse is one of the most widely used forms in social-speech communication. Monological discourse is a complex form of speech, not a form of expression used by the whole community, but a form of speech composed by an individual.
Forms of expressiveness, expressiveness, and ellipticity are visible in dialogical discourse. They are socio-speech characteristics in revealing the world and character of the communicant, in creating an individual image, and in determining their social behavior. Intonation often changes in dialogic discourse. In this case, the syncretic nature of speech arises as a result of functional communication, such as social context and context. In addition, the hearing ability of the addressee plays an important role in the dialogical discourse. It is known that the communicator expresses different meanings in his speech, including emotionality. These shades are fully determined only by means of verbal, intonation and other non-verbal means. Any opinion of a subjective nature reflects emotionality. The emotional side of the thought has great meaning.
Strong emotionality of dialogical discourse, existence of special forms, unique intonation, and impossibility of speaking with preconceived forms are its main features. Different aspects of real life are reflected in the dialogic discourse. Therefore, it is subjective and objective in nature. Its objectivity is that different meanings are expressed in it using different means of expression. Dialogic discourse is distinguished by its syntactic construction. It also differs from monologic discourse by its syntactic features.
There are structural, formal, discursive differences between monologic discourse and dialogue. Monological discourse is a methodologically formed socio-speech form. In this, social, cultural, speech communication is manifested in a complex form. Monologic discourse is characterized by the fact that it covers the internal experiences, psychological state and characteristics of the author or the speaker together with speech communication, and represents a comprehensive integrated form of speech. As monologic discourse, in turn, represents the type of communication spoken by a single person, it is appropriate to define a monologue as a form of speech focused on the speaker himself, without taking into account the listening and response of another person [30; 31]. At the same time, in some dramatic works, the monologue of the character is directed to the audience. Monological speech can be found in poetry as well as prose works. A monologue is one of the main forms of speech in poetry. Sometimes the culminating point of the work is stated in a monologue speech. A monologic speech is usually characterized by a certain piece of text that is interconnected in terms of structure and content, has a unique compositional construction and logical completeness. According to the form of the monologue, it can be expressed as oral (giving a speech) or written (journalism, memoirs, diaries). In the oral form of monologic speech, the tone (intonation) plays an important role, and in the written monologic speech, the tone depends on the syntactic structure of the text, the place of logically stressed words. Monologue speech is one of the main speech forms of the speaker; is a linguo-stylistic method, there are several types (Fig.: 1).

Fig. 1. Monologic speech as a linguistic-stylistic method and its types
In monologic speech, the monologue is expressed in the form of the inner speech and thoughts of the character or the characters of the work.
It is known that dialogic discourse can also be part of monologic speech. There are several types of it. Monological discourse is methodologically neutral and is directed from the third person to the second person. Sometimes in monologic discourse, the third person refers to himself and the second person. In addition, dialogic discourse is also found in monologic discourse. In this case, monologic discourse and dialogic discourse are given in relation to each other. In a conversational monologue, the speech is directed from the first person to the second person, drawing the addressee's attention to the speech process.
In general, monologic discourse is a complex process. The speech of any character participating in it displays a pragmatic program that is varied according to its situation. According to Brooke, monologues are mainly manifested as a product of tragic twists in the human psyche [28]. Brooke, continuing his thoughts, distinguishes three types of monologues according to the style of expression: • Lyrical (possessing lyricism. Expressing emotions. Mainly expressed in the process of mental states such as excitement, fear, hatred, joy); • Epic (narrative. It has the character of examining oneself, one's life and someone's behavior); • Dramatic (related to dramatism. More likely to occur accidentally as a result of exposure to a particular situation.
Of course, Brook divides monologues into groups based on the characteristics of literary genres. In our opinion, the expression style of monologic discourse should be classified separately in connection with the content. Monologues are usually divided into internal and external monologues. We found it permissible to classify its essence in a broader sense as follows (Fig.: 2 External monologues are in the form of a direct appeal to a specific person. In the form of indirect expression, it is unknown to whom the address is addressed. Internal monologues are self-examination in the open state, but in the hidden state, they are often in the form of a prayer to the creation. Of course, pragmatic, psycholinguistic, linguopragmatic features of monologic discourse are manifested in this process.
Monological discourse is considered one of the important elements that take place in the composition of the artistic work and express the mental and psychological states of the heroes of the work. Special attention is paid to the use of monologic discourse in poetics. There are many cases of confusing the monologic discourse with the communicative form of speech. A number of researches have been created in world linguistics on monologic discourse. Uzbek linguistics has specially studied this phenomenon in the research of linguist Sh. Gulyamova [16].
Dramatic monologic discourse is similar to dialogic discourse with reduced lines. Linguist N.Khursanov notes that the pragmatic and sociopragmatic features of the characters' monologue speech in Uzbek-language dramas are manifested through the following means (Fig.: 3 Monological discourse has a compositional complexity, there is no participation of communicators, the speech is often directed not to the addressee, but to the addressee himself. Monological discourse is broader and richer in terms of topics than dialogic discourse. In monologic discourse in conversational speech, the speech is directed directly to the addressee. With this feature, on the one hand, it is close to dialogic discourse, but differs in terms of structure. Dialogic discourse is a simple speech act, while monologic discourse is a complex speech act. The specified features of dialogic discourse and monologic discourse play an important role in determining their communicative characteristics.

Conclusion
1. The issue of discourse and its occurrence in the text, disclosing the differences in discourse types and their common aspects is one of the urgent issues of linguistics. 2. Dialogic and monologic discourse is the most commonly used form of communication, in which the material conditions of a person's life, lifestyle, worldview, faith, mentality, customs and moral values, national and social manners and behavior are manifested as a social mental sign through the speech of communicants. 3. According to the social specialization of the polypredicative units that occur in the discourse, the speech communication of Uzbek men and women serves to express their character in a unique way. The addressee's level, age, social origin, etc. are realized as an asymmetric pragmatic factor of the speech situation. 4. Discourse units take different forms depending on the relationship between content and form (semantic and structural), the use of connectives in their components, linguistic syntactic pattern, social mental and pragmatic factors. system and acts as a means of creating communication. Intentional analysis shows that the intention of the addressee is different.