1. Different classification of functional styles Comparative Study of Functional Styles

Object of the work: is the process of The comparison of functional styles in Uzbek and English language.
Subject of the research: integrating The comparison of functional styles in Uzbek and English language.
Aim of the research is to prove that teaching and learning both in practice
phase in the classroom and in real communication entail unique features that result
in real contribution to overall language learning.
Theoretical value of this work is in its results, having received from the
research scientists
Practical value of the work is in given methodical recommendations and great number of methods and techniques which can be applied by teachers of ESP.
The structure of this work consists of two parts: theoretical and practical, conclusion and references.


1. Different classification of functional styles
It’s now time to outline the general principles on which functional styles rest. A Functional Style of Language is a System of Interrelated language Means Which Serves A Definite Aim in Communication. A functional style is thus to be regarded as the product of a certain concrete task set by the sender of the message. Functional styles appear mainly in the literary standard of a language.¹ The literary standard of the English language, like that of any other developed language, is not homogeneous as it may seem. In fact the standard English literary language in the course of its development has fallen into several subsystems each other of which has acquired its own peculiarities which are typical of the given functional style .The members of the language community, especially those who are sufficiently trained and responsive to language variations, recognize these styles as independent wholes .The peculiar choice of language means is primarily predetermined by the aim of the communication with the result that a more or less closed system is built up. One set of language media stands in opposition to other sets of language media with other aims, and these other sets have other choices and arrangements of language means.
What we here call functional styles are also called registers or discourses.
In the English literary standard we distinguish the following major functional styles:
1) The language of belles-lettres.
2) The language of publicistic literature.
3) The language of newspapers.
4) The language of scientific prose.
5) The language of official documents.
As has already been mentioned, functional styles are the product of the development of the written variety of language.*Each FS may be characterized by a number of distinctive feature, leading or subordinate, constant or changing, obligatory or optional. Most of the FSs, however, are perceived as independent wholes due to a peculiar combination and interrelation of features common to all with the leading ones of each FS. ch FS in subdivided into a number of substyles. These represent varieties of the abstract invariant. Each variety has basic features common to all the varieties of the given FS and peculiar. Features typical of this variety alone. Still a substyle can, in some cases, deviate so far from the invariant that in its extreme it may even break away.
We clearly perceive the following substyles of the five FSs given above.
The belles– lettres FS has the following substyles:
a) The language style of poetry;
b) The language style of emotive prose;
c) The language style of drama
The publicist Ic-FS comprise the following substyles:
a) The language style of oratory;
b) The language style of essays;
c) The language style of feature articles in newspaper and journals.
The newspaper FS falls into:
a) The language style of brief news items and communiques;
b) The language style of newspaper headings and
c) The language style of notices and advertisement.
The scientific prose FS also has three divisions:
a) The language style of humanitarian sciences;
b) The language style of ‘’exact’’ sciences;
c) The language style of popular scientific prose.
The official document FS can be divided into four varieties:
a) The language style of diplomatic documents;
b) The language style of business documents;
c) The language style of legal documents;
d) The language style of military documents
The classification presented here is by no means arbitrary. It is the result of long and minute observations of factual material in which not only peculiarities of language usage were taken into account but also extralinguistic data, in particular the purport of the communication. However, we admit that, this classification is not proof against criticism. Other schemes may possibly be elaborated and highlighted by different approaches to the problem of functional styles. The classification of FSs is not bound to reflect more than one angle of vision. Thus, for example, some stylistic consider that newspaper articles should be classed under the functional style of newspaper language, notunder the language of publicistic literature. Others insist on including the language of everyday- life discourse into the system of functional styles. There are only two main functional styles: the language of science and that of emotive literature
It is inevitable, of course,that any classification should lead to some kind of simplification of the facts classified, because items are considered in isolation. Moreover, substyles assume, as it were, the aspect of closed systems. But no classification, useful though if may be from the theoretical point of view, should be allowed to blind us as to the conventionality of classification in general.When analyzing
concrete texts, we discover that boundaries between them sometimes become less and less discernible. Thus, for instance, the signs of difference are sometimes almost imperceptible between poetry and emotive prose; between newspaper FS and publicistic FS; between a popular scientific article and a scientific treatise; between essay and a scientific article. But extremes are apparent from the ways language units are used both structurally and semantically. Language serves a variety of needs and these needs have given birth to the principles on which our classification is based and which in their turn presuppose the choice and combination of language means. We presume that the reader has noticed the insistent use of the expression ‘’language style’’ or ‘style of language’ in the above classification. This is done in order to emphasizes the idea that in this work the word ‘style’ is applied purely to linguistic data. The classification given above to our mind adequately represents the facts of the standard English language. For detailed analyses of FSs where in addition to arguments for placing this or that FS in a given group, illustrations with commentary will be found.
Speech styles are made up of interconnected language means. They are closely related to the function of language. The function of language is linked to society development and comes from its social significance. The expressions, which make up the styles may be limited in use as some terminology are used only in scientific style, whereas others in publicistic one. Galperin defines functional style as a set of coordinated, interconnected, and interconditioned language means designed to perform a certain communicative function for a definite effect.² The first scholar was Vinogradov to describe different speech styles in terms of their aim for communication and enlisted three types of them: 1) colloquial, 2) official and scientific, 3) publicistic and belle-letters styles. Later I.V.Arnold stated 4 of them: 1) poetic, 2) scientific, 3) newspaper, 4) colloquial. But Galperin mentions 5 speech styles in English: 1) the belles-letters style, 2) the style of publictistic literature, 3) the style of newspapers, 4) scientific style and 5) the style of official documents. In Uzbek research works, 5 functional styles are mentioned but they are different from the ones in English scientific works regarding their communicative aim: colloquial, official, scientific, publicistic and artistic. It is evident that speech styles in English differ from Uzbek ones. Colloquial style does not exist in English according Galperin's list, while the style of publicistic literature and the style of newspapers are considered as one, publicistic style in the Uzbek stylistics.
The classification of speech styles in this way is caused by different approaches of scholars.
For example, Vinogradov classifies styles according to communicativeness, informativeness and effectiveness, but later researchers used different approaches for classification depending on extra linguistic and linguistic factors. Since linguists obtain different views, several classifications are offered as mentioned above.
Differences between Uzbek and English functional styles.
This part gives detailed analysis of speech styles in both languages comparing them to each other. At every given point in the development of the literary language, each style is a generally stable system. As a result, language style is a historical category. The evolution of each style is predetermined by changes in standard English conventions. According to Galperin (as cited in Sahkova, 2012), the belles-letters style includes poetry, prose, drama writing styles. Xalilova (2009) mentions its special characteristics as expressiveness, emotiveness, broad coverage of using language items.
All the lexical elements that exist in the language can be used in this style and serve to accomplish aesthetic function. Even the elements of other styles and dialects, jargons, which are beyond literary language are used skillfully and appropriately. Colloquial style, which was not observed in Galperin's classification has thoroughly been researched in the Uzbek language. This style is a dialogic speech form that exists orally and may be found in written form of belles-letters style sometimes. It has two different forms such as literary colloquial style, which is used by mainly teachers, journalists, writers, academics and leaders; ordinary colloquial style, which includes our everyday conversation with family, friends and others. What distinguishes ordinary colloquial style from literary one lies on the attitude of people, whom they are talking to. Although both of them are colloquial, first one is preferred when you speak to unfamiliar people or people with higher status, or respected person, while the latter one is used when you speak to people with equal or lower social status.³
In the Uzbek language, Publicistic style comprises the language style of articles in the newspapers, magazines, the language of advertisements, TV, radio and the language style of oratory. But in the English language, publicistic style is the language of oratory, essays and newspaper, magazine articles. There is one more style in English; the newspaper style which includes the language of news in media, newspaper headings, notices and advertisements adds oratory style to the list of functional styles and describes it as the language of impressive and expressive speech which is intended to be given to the public.⁴
The scientific style is considered the language of science with features of accuracy impersonality and it aims to explain certain rules, prove hypothesis and others. Halilova presents two types of scientific style: scientific and scientific-publicistic styles, which are different in delivering the message, first is for the people of science, the next for others who do not work in this field. In English it is called scientific prose style that is devoid of individuality.
Summarizing various viewpoints, it can be concluded that there are 5 functional styles, only it differs by their aim in the Uzbek and English languages. There are still some points to research more in terms of functional styles. In conclusion, the functional limitations of language tools make it necessary to differentiate them in the speech process as well. This means that writing and speaking in speech should be approached from the point of view of the subject and nature of the speech, taking into account the laws and requirements of the methods of speech.
2. Comparative Study of Functional Styles
Functional-stylistic aspect of comparative stylistics has not been well investigated. A great number of issues concerning the comparative study of the stylistic properties of the texts belonging to different functional styles in two and more languages still remain unresolved. Generally, comparative study of functional styles focuses on the description of common and distinctive features of the different languages in terms of their stylistic differentiation, textual representation, regularities of functioning of stylistically relevant language means, as well as extralinguistic style forming factors. Functional style is a very complicated linguistic phenomenon. Primarily it is characterized by the variety of interpretations.
According to J. Swift, proper word in proper places make a true definition of style.
According to M. Riffaterre, style is an emphasis (expressive, effective or aesthetic) added to the information conveyed by the linguistic structure.
According to R. Jackobson, style in language is choice and the result of choice.
V.V. Vinogradov defined style as a coordinated, interrelated and interconditioned language means intended to fulfill a specific function of communication.
V.V. Vinogradov's understanding of the concept of style was reflected in I.R. Galperin's definition: "A functional style of language is a system of language means which serves a definite aim in communication".⁵
Scientific Texts (Scientific/Academic Style). The main function is to prove a hypothesis, to create new concepts, to disclose the internal laws of development, existence, relations between different phenomena, etc.
The language means used, therefore, tend to be objective, precise, unemotional, devoid of any individuality, the form of expression is the most generalized one. The most typical features are as following: 1. logical sequence of utterances with clear indication of their interrelations and interdependence, with a developed system of connectives 2. The use of terms specific to each branch of science. 3. Vocabulary is direct, used in primary logical meaning. 4. Sentence- patterns may be of three types: postulatory (self-evident and needing no proof), argumentative and formulative. 5. The use of quotations and references. 6. Foot-notes are digressive in character.7. Impersonality of writing, revealed in a frequent use of passive constructions.
English,and Uzbek differ greatly in grammatical structure. Moreover, in English there if a stable word order and grammatical correspondence of words is quite different from Russian.
Compared to Russian and Uzbek, in English the use of nouns derived from verbs is rarely met. Due to that fact the word for word translation from Russian or Uzbek into English appears to be very complicated and unreadable.⁶
Compared to the scientific texts in Russian and Uzbek, English ones are more compact, simple, active, emotional, and conversational, distance between the author and the reader is minimal and reduced by a direct access to it and the lower level of modality.In order to avoid mistakes in writing scientific articles, we should follow a number of guidelines:

1. 
   replace the nouns derived from verbs with the verbal forms (constructions). E.g. launching international projects, describing and explaining experimental data;
   
2. 
   to partition the long sentences;
   
3. 
   to try to avoid using the word such as which, that in compound sentences and connect the clauses with words like when, where, then, but, and.
   

One of the most frequent stylistic mistakes in translating from Russian into English is an excessive use of the pronoun “of”. To avoid using this pronoun we may follow the several rules:

1. 
   to use attributive groups i.e. the nouns as attributes. E.g. a group of trans-formations vs. a transformation group; results of research vs. research results.
   
2. 
   To use the gerunds or infinitives instead of nouns derived from verbs. E.g. Воспользуемся комплексным методом для построения группы трансформаций чего-либо-Let us use the complex method for constructing/to construct the transformation group of something.
   

to replace the “of”, if it is possible, for the other one close in meaning. E.g. equations of shallow waves / equations for shallow waves

3. 
   to use possessive construction E.g. roots of equation/equations’ roots.
   

One more principal feature of stylistic character in English in comparison with Russian is the specific use of negative constructions: E.g. не позволять сделать вывод – to be inconclusive; не придавать значения – to overlook; не требовать объяснения – self-explanatory; не выходить за пределы – to stay within.⁷
Generally, the style of news media is characterized by the following key aspects: 1) an appeal to (orientation towards) the “average” mass reader or receptor; 2) lack of direct feedback; 3) the high speed of text production; 4) the limited size of a text; 5) the need to fill it with the maximum amount of information.
News media style has two main functions: informative and persuasive. Informative function is associated with such style features of new media as novelty (topicality), brevity (density of information, text compression), specialization and despecialization.⁸
Persuasive function (persuading the reader, influencing his attitude, urging him to act). Persuasive function is connected with such style features as imagery, emotiveness, tenor and directivity. The means to express these features: connotation, lexical and grammatical modality, metaphor, metonymy, stylistic contrast, archaisms, slang, puns, paronymy, euphemisms, repetition, antithesis, inversion, etc.
Compression of the text. The key type of stylistic difference the language of Russian/Uzbek and Anglo-American media is the wider use by the latter of compressed structures. Compression is realized through such forms, specific to English, as NN-type noun phrases, compounding, conversion, - er nouns, phrase attributes as well as through more compact and laconic forms (a word instead of a phrase, a verb alone instead of a verb plus a verbal noun, an infinitive instead of a subordinate clause of purpose, an elliptical form instead of a full one).
Tenor. The tenor of Russian and Uzbek newspaper texts is considerably higher, their more eleveated register is based on the use of stylistically marked vocabulary and a bookish connotation as well as bokish syntax. The Anglo-American press is more low-keyed and tends to use more slang and colloquialisms.⁹
Higher elevated register of this text is based on the use of the word – нива, земледелец, зеленый ковер всходов, щедрость нивы. If we keep this very register in translation, it will lead to the violation of stylistic norms of the English newspaper text. That’s why the translator should use several stylistic modifications (simplification of the text, adaptation of the text to the stylistic norm of the language, the use of the lower register instead of the higher one: щедрость нивы – yield, земледелец – farmer, зеленым ковром покрываются поля – fields are turning green). E.g. Fields are turning green. What harvest will this year bring? Farmers know that the yield will depend on their concerted and efficient work right now.
English media texts include a considerable use in the English texts of metaphoric verbs (e.g. to soar) whose equivalents in Russian texts are usually non-metaphoric phrases of the Vadj type (e.g. to rise rapidly).