Kilicheva Mehriniso Rajabovna Ataboyev Nozimjon Bobojon o’g’li

The linguistic lexicon item.
In an English linguistic lexicon, for 
example, we would expect the verbs 
earn, elect, frighten, announce, 
read, eat 
to be labeled as permitting OBJECT-DELETION as in: 
He 
likes to read,
and 
When do we eat?
We would expect the verbs 

---

20 
think, say, suppose, declare
to be labeled as permitting a that-clause 
complement as in: 
I think that he knows. He declares that it’s true. 
We would expect the nouns 
chair, insult, parade, jest, job, scheme
to be labeled as count nouns and the nouns 
patience, courage, 
hunger, advice,
furniture, peace, suger
to be labeled as mass nouns. 
The nouns 
superstition, injustice, cheese, hair, paper,
which exhibit 
class cleavage in this respect, would be expected to be so lebelled. 
Such subcategorization of the parts of speech is not to be found in 
even the most prestigious commercial dictionaries. Dwight Bolinger 
says, “… suppose a person who does not already know English wants 
to compase a sentence using the word 
whim. 
He looks it up in 
Webster’s Third,
where he finds it marked as a noun and grouped 
with the synonyms 
caprice 
and 
fancy,
and 
also 
under
folly, 
gruped 
with
 indulgence, vanity, 
and 
foolery; 
but there is nothing to tell him 
that a 
little whim 
refers to something small, while a 
little indulgence
or 
vanity
or 
foolery 
probably refers to an amount. In short, the 
dictionary fails to label the subcategories of mass noun and cound 
noun. “(1) Perhaps the key to reconciling Bolinger’s criticism 
dictionaries lies in the phrase a person who does not alredy know 
English”. Bolinger is obviously assuming that an English monolingual 
dictionary should be addressed to any user, native speaker of English 
or not. Such a dictionary might be highly desirable, but, although they 
probably would not want to admit it, the editors of English 
monolingual dictionaries do not presume to address themselves to any 
other users than native speakers of English. Monolingual dictionaries 
in other languages are similarly designed primarily, if not exclusively, 
for the needs of the native speaker. 
Dictionary editors are very sensitive to the requirements of the 
users of their dictioneries. Clarence L.Barnhart, an experienced editor 
of highly successful English dictionaries, says, “ It is the function of a 
popular dictionary to answer the questions that the user of the 
dictionary asks, and dictionaries on the commercial market will be 
successful in proportion to the extent to which they answer these 
questions of the buyer. This is the basis on which the editor must 
determine the tupe of information to include. ” (2) Some years ago, 
Barnhart circulated 108 questionnares in 99 colleges in the United 
States reporting on the use of the dictionary by some 56,000 students. 
The teachers were asked to rate six types of information commonly 
given in collegen freshman. The six types of information in the 

---

21 
questionnaire were: meaning, spelling, pronunciation, synonym 
studies, usage notes and etymologies, and they were rated in precisely 
that order of importance to the college freshman. What is noteworthy 
here is that grammatical information was not considered sufficiently 
important to be included among the types of information to be 
surveyed. An open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire 
asked in what respects college dictionaries are most deficient. Any 
concern about the inclusion of grammatical information in college 
dictionaries might have been elicited by this question. Apparently it 
was not. Thus, an experienced dictionary editor and 108 teachers of 
freshman composition all seem to agree that grammatical information 
is of little or no importance in a monolingual dictionary, and they are 
probably right if the monolingual dictionary is assumed to be 
addressed exclusively to the native speaker
1
.